Taxes Should Favor Work Over Wealth:Echoes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong

No where. I'm not beholden to one ideology like you. You have to get your "facts" and ideas from very "specific" web sites, columnists, economists.... lol. And as I said, whether it's 50% or 38% as your liberal spouting source says, it's still quite high. Still a lot of people getting money taken away from them that they could probably use.

---

Sorry, but you have proven over and over again you ARE beholden to an ideology.
You get your facts quite often from Republlcan (Fox, Wall street news, Weekly standard etc) and Conservative websites and think tanks. You think favorably about a Republican candidate Ron Paul (we dont know if you like any of the Republican candidates because you refuse to answer the question) and you believe in and follow the economic theories of mr. Peter Schiff who is CLEARLY an ideologue.

I use the words "talking point" because Republicans, like yourself, quote the 50% figure over and over again without explaining that many of those people couldnt possibly be able to pay income tax. How would a family of 4 making $30,000 or $20,000 possibly afford it.

I want to respond to that tax proposal (was it an origiinal one or one read somewhere else?) I have said I will NOT answer ntil my MANY qestions posed REPEATEDLY FOR MONTHS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. Are yo a chicken? lol
And by the way whatever happened to an answer to that gentlemens bet i proposed on Mr.
Schiffs 2011 predictions? Loser. )


"As background, it helps to know what has been happening to incomes over the past three decades. Detailed estimates from the Congressional Budget Office — which only go up to 2005, but the basic picture surely hasn’t changed — show that between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted income of families in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. That’s growth, but it’s slow, especially compared with the 100 percent rise in median income over a generation after World War II.

Meanwhile, over the same period, the income of the very rich, the top 100th of 1 percent of the income distribution, rose by 480 percent. No, that isn’t a misprint. In 2005 dollars, the average annual income of that group rose from $4.2 million to $24.3 million."

I think things have tilted to far in the direction of the wealthy. and I think its quite reasonable that people at the top income brackets go back to paying the rate they paid under President Clinton.
Even Dave Stockman, the former budget director under Ronald Reagan agrees about this. You should read some of the things he says about the Bush tax cuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Sorry, but you have proven over and over again you ARE beholden to an ideology.
You get your facts quite often from Republlcan (Fox, Wall street news, Weekly standard etc) and Conservative websites and think tanks. You think favorably about a Republican candidate Ron Paul (we dont know if you like any of the Republican candidates because you refuse to answer the question) and you believe in and follow the economic theories of mr. Peter Schiff who is CLEARLY an ideologue.

I use the words "talking point" because Republicans, like yourself, quote the 50% figure over and over again without explaining that many of those people couldnt possibly be able to pay income tax. How would a family of 4 making $30,000 or $20,000 possibly afford it.

I want to respond to that tax proposal (was it an origiinal one or one read somewhere else?) I have said I will NOT answer ntil my MANY qestions posed REPEATEDLY FOR MONTHS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. Are yo a chicken? lol
And by the way whatever happened to an answer to that gentlemens bet i proposed on Mr.
Schiffs 2011 predictions? Loser. )


"As background, it helps to know what has been happening to incomes over the past three decades. Detailed estimates from the Congressional Budget Office — which only go up to 2005, but the basic picture surely hasn’t changed — show that between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted income of families in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. That’s growth, but it’s slow, especially compared with the 100 percent rise in median income over a generation after World War II.

Meanwhile, over the same period, the income of the very rich, the top 100th of 1 percent of the income distribution, rose by 480 percent. No, that isn’t a misprint. In 2005 dollars, the average annual income of that group rose from $4.2 million to $24.3 million."

I think things have tilted to far in the direction of the wealthy. and I think its quite reasonable that people at the top income brackets go back to paying the rate they paid under President Clinton.
Even Dave Stockman, the former budget director under Ronald Reagan agrees about this. You should read some of the things he says about the Bush tax cuts.

---

Still waiting for you to conclude your "research" on MY proposal. You know, the one from the "republican" ideologue?? You know, I can't vote in the republican primary election??

So for the record, I have endorsed conditional stimulus, tax reform for higher earners to support this stimulus and tax reform for lower wage earners, and Hava-gafa-kasha still wants to brand me an ideologue. It's really laughable. Your credibilty is out the window.

It's time for a new tactic Lloyd.

And tell me how I "follow the theories" of Von Mises economics? How exactly does one "follow them"?

If Schiff is an ideologue, then so is Krugman. Would you agree to that? Or is Krugman NOT an ideologue because you believe him??

I look forward to this answer.

Yes Krugman has a strong political point of view like Schiff. The HUGE difference is that Schiff
Invests peoples money (wants a debt default to help see his predcitions come true), ran for political office (is a politician), has a doomsday newsletter, and has been wrong so many times in his economic predictions that i dont know where to begin. I have posted those wrong predictions and am still waiting for you to acknowledge them.


Sorry, but you have proven over and over again you ARE beholden to an ideology.
You get your facts quite often from Republlcan (Fox, Wall street news, Weekly standard etc) and Conservative websites and think tanks. You think favorably about a Republican candidate Ron Paul (we dont know if you like any of the Republican candidates because you refuse to answer the question) and you believe in and follow the economic theories of mr. Peter Schiff who is CLEARLY an ideologue.

I use the words "talking point" because Republicans, like yourself, quote the 50% figure over and over again without explaining that many of those people couldnt possibly be able to pay income tax. How would a family of 4 making $30,000 or $20,000 possibly afford it.

I want to respond to that tax proposal (was it an origiinal one or one read somewhere else?) I have said I will NOT answer until my MANY qestions posed REPEATEDLY FOR MONTHS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. Are yo a chicken? lol And by the way whatever happened to an answer to that gentlemens bet i proposed on Mr.Schiffs 2011 predictions? Loser. )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Yes Krugman has a strong political point of view like Schiff. The HUGE difference is that Schiff
Invests peoples money (wants a debt default to help see his predcitions come true) and has been wrong so many times in his economic predictions that i dont know where to begin. I have posted those wrong predictions and am still waiting for you to acknowledge them.

Sorry, but you have proven over and over again you ARE beholden to an ideology.
You get your facts quite often from Republlcan (Fox, Wall street news, Weekly standard etc) and Conservative websites and think tanks. You think favorably about a Republican candidate Ron Paul (we dont know if you like any of the Republican candidates because you refuse to answer the question) and you believe in and follow the economic theories of mr. Peter Schiff who is CLEARLY an ideologue.

I use the words "talking point" because Republicans, like yourself, quote the 50% figure over and over again without explaining that many of those people couldnt possibly be able to pay income tax. How would a family of 4 making $30,000 or $20,000 possibly afford it.

I want to respond to that tax proposal (was it an origiinal one or one read somewhere else?) I have said I will NOT answer ntil my MANY qestions posed REPEATEDLY FOR MONTHS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. Are yo a chicken? lol
And by the way whatever happened to an answer to that gentlemens bet i proposed on Mr.
Schiffs 2011 predictions? Loser. )

---

Yes S&L, Krugman is an ideologue as well, but he is a good ideologue.

Schiff's investment advice is nothing special Lloyd - diversify in gold, gold mining companies, foreign stocks, American stocks that provide dividends and have good multinational sales (e.g. Yum Yum Brands, Catapillar, McDonald's....). That's really rigidly idealistic LMFAO. There, you've read one of his books.

Still waiting for you to show some integrity. Not going to happen obviously. Chicken. lol

Schiff is an EXTREME ideologue. Anyone that supported the U.S. defaulting on its debt is nuts.

Schiff is a hack who has gotten so much of what he has predicted wrong. Krugman is a nobel prize winner. Just one simple difference. You follow Schiff. Good try at a simplistic, and benign interpretation of what Schiff believes.

Schiffs 2011 predictions. Interests rates at 6% on 2011. Lol
Schiffs 2011 prediction. Catastrophic stock market collapse in jan. 2011. lol
Schiffs 2011 prediction. HYPERINFLATION. lmfao

For the next 2-3 years Schiff has predicted that the Dow will fall to 1,400 (he calls for the U.S. to default
on its debt to help that prediction come true) or gold will go to $14,000.
I believe you called that a BRAVE prediction. i call it something else.

If that investment advice "is nothing special" then you are dumber than i ever thought. wow.

P.S. Have you been an investor in his funds for the past 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Still waiting for you to show some integrity. Not going to happen obviously. Chicken. lol

Schiff is an EXTREME ideologue. Anyone that supported the U.S. defaulting on its debt is nuts.

Schiff is a hack who has gotten so much of what he has predicted wrong. Krugman is a nobel prize winner. Just one simple difference. You follow Schiff. Good try at a simplistic, and benign interpretation of what Schiff believes.

Schiffs 2011 predictions. Interests rates at 6% on 2011. Lol
Schiffs 2011 prediction. Catastrophic stock market collapse in jan. 2011. lol
Schiffs 2011 prediction. HYPERINFLATION. lmfao

For the next 2-3 years Schiff has predicted that the Dow will fall to 1,400 (he calls for the U.S. to default
on its debt to help that prediction come true) or gold will go to $14,000.
I believe you called that a BRAVE prediction. i call it something else.

If that investment advice "is nothing special" then you are dumber than i ever thought. wow.

P.S. Have you been an investor in his funds for the past 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?

---

Black and white.....

Check this out: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Is it going backward or forward?

Yes, Schiff's predictions are wild. I hope none of that happens. I prefer to take them as warnings. You prefer to take them "fact" and use them to belittle the man because he believes differently than you do. That's effective LMFAO. And you've even seen when Laffer belittled him. Who ended up right?

Did you know Schiff is not only on You Tube, but he wrote a book predicting the housing bubble. A whole book. Here's a review.

Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse by Peter Schiff explores the causes of today’s economic depression and how it affects the world. Crash Proof professes that people can survive and even profit from an economic meltdown. Schiff wrote Crash Proof over two years before the current economic downturn, and it was published at the beginning of 2008. Today, Crash Proof still holds value. It depicts many of the events that are happening and have happened, and, if we are to believe Schiff, events that will be happening in the near future.

Although many have predicted the current economic crisis, none have detailed it quite as well as Schiff. He explains how interest-only mortgages and the enormous U.S. trade deficit have contributed to the economic downturn. Crash Proof also explains how the U.S. economy has changed in the past 60 years, why it is destined to fail as an economy as it currently stands, and how people can protect themselves.

Schiff’s credibility as a financial writer is impressive. Schiff graduated from the University of California at Berkley in 1987 with a degree in finance and accounting. He is also a licensed stock broker and has been president of Euro-Pacific Capital since 2000. He is a frequent commentator on CNN, CNBC, Fox News, and Bloomberg TV, where he provides counterpoints to “bullish commentators” (Euro Pacific Capital). Crash Proof has proven to be Schiff’s most successful and most widely read book to date, and it is not surprising, given the smart, cutting-edge content of the book.

http://www.technologyprofessional.or...s-crash-proof/

My apologies. Hava-gafa-kasha took the attention away from taxes where I've shown tremendous flexiblity versus his rigidity.

Once again you try to come to Schiff's rescue. Pathetic.
I was for the debt compromise that Boehner and the Republicans walked away from
That is hardly a demonstration of my rigidity.

ah FINALLY after MONTHS of getting on your ass about Schiff and asking you to acknowledge how wrong he has been, you say his predicitions are "WILD." Actually they are ****in crazy and MOSTLY just plain wrong. Anyone can warn all the time about the economy for years and get it right ocassionally. The important point is what is his diagnosis of those problems and his prescriptions.
He wanted the U.S. to default on the debt just like Ron Paul. Do you agree with that?

Lord knows many progressives like Krugman have been warning about the economy for years. But of course you belittle him.

The fact is that you have been an apologist for Schiff for a long time now because you like and believe in the same Austrian school of economic theories that he does. You have demonstrated a
COMPLETE lack ofintegrity for refusing to admit all the incorrect predictions he has made over the years.


P.S. "tremendous flexibiltiy" So are for bringing back the tax rates for the wealthiest bracket
to the % under Clinton. Every article you have posted has belittled Liberals for wanting to do this.