Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A real 10 point plan for economic growth

Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 4:56:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1) Reform/model the health care industry after the VA program and make it universal; studies show that the VA provides and has 40% better health outcomes and quality despite costing 40% less then private healthcare(saving600billion yearly). Some of these reforms are computerizing health records (which reduces errors by 50%) negotiating with pharmaceutical companies, using comparative effectiveness research, and switching to a more bundled pnt system that pays based on outcomes instead of services used.
http://thinkprogress.org...
http://thinkprogress.org...
Also universal health care results in20% more new businesses and 25% more job mobility due to people not having their health care tied to their job.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com...
http://www.rand.org...
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu...

2) Make all insurance (home, car life, comp, disaster, etc etc) all Single-payer, and eliminate administration overhead profits, and marketing. This would result in savings over 200billion yearly.
http://www.genevaassociation.org...
http://www.bls.gov...
http://www.bikesatwork.com...

3) Expand Social Security by 300billion yearly (for future beneficiary). The 300number comes from the amount that people currently put into other retirement accounts. This will result in more demand related growth instead of speculative bubble growth; this would also result in around 20% more retirement funds for people.
http://www.epi.org...
http://tcf.org...

4) Mandate that all new energy production most be from clean sources (IE solar, wind, coal with emission capture) and also mandate that all old power plants must implement emission capture. This would result in lower health care and environmental costs to the tune of several hundred billion dollars a year.
http://thinkprogress.org...
http://thinkprogress.org...
http://thinkprogress.org...
http://www.reuters.com...
Since power plants that are currently built would need to be modified and modernized it would result in the creation of millions of jobs. For example two ew EPA regulations that do that for some pollution (such as mercury) will create 1.5million jobs over 5 years
http://thinkprogress.org...

5) Mandate that all new buildings and appliances be energy/water efficient.
Regulations in NC if expanded nation wide would save homeowners 20billion a year
http://www.environmentnorthcarolina.org...
Several water efficiency standards such as on toilets, facets and showers would save the nation near 10billlion yearly
Other Appliance efficiency standards would save billions more yearly
http://www1.eere.energy.gov...

6) Increasing taxes on behavior/goods that negatively impact the economy and society and using the savings to cut tax (making it revenue neutral). Things that would be taxed would be soda, fast food, unused land/capital, stock transactions, tobacco products/parapheniala, plastic bags, tanning beds, gas, pollution, and unsold food for corporations.

7) A national ban on trans fat, foods with high salt and fat content. A national on just trans fat would save tens of thousands of lives yearly and near100billion dollars due to reduce health costs and increase productivity due to people being heather
http://www.nyc.gov...
http://www.baltimorehealth.org...
http://www.americanheart.org...
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com...

8) Simplify and reform the tax code. By removing all deduction, and loop holes. Some analysis show that this would save hundreds of billions of dollars.
http://www.freedomworks.org...-
Also some people claim that small business are disadvantaged compared to large business which lowers competition. Some of this comes with the fact complying with regulations costs more for small business. In order to fix this we could change business taxes to a progressive structure (For example revenue under 250,000 could be taxed at 1% and revenue above 1million at 5%) W could do this for property taxes as well.

9) Expand Pre-school and nutritional funding for all poor families. This would increase economic mobility and help make it so that everyone has the same opportunities to succeed. Head star which is a pre-school program results in $9 in economic benefits for every 1 spent due to increase incomes, education, and reduced crime.
http://news.prnewswire.com...=
Also nutritional aid for children which results in better academic performance and intelligence, as well as healthier futures creates around $2 in economic benefits for every dollar spent
http://thinkprogress.org...

10) Never vote Republican.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 8:45:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
10) Never vote Republican.

Ha ha. Here was my plan

http://www.debate.org...

(near the bottom)
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 9:26:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 9:10:53 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I know I said I wouldn't respond to you. But, I will say that this is a great plan to stop economic growth.

Well technically you didn't respond to me you just posted some rhetorical bull$hit.
Only a dumbass like yourself thinks wasting money is good for economic growth
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 9:47:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:07:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 9:47:09 PM, Lordknukle wrote:


Hm isn't a troll someone who posts nothing relevant to the subject, and pure garbage.......
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:19:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:07:12 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 9:47:09 PM, Lordknukle wrote:


Hm isn't a troll someone who posts nothing relevant to the subject, and pure garbage.......

That's what I've heard.
http://goo.gl...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:29:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Unfortunately I can't look at what I'm responding to on this device, so I can't address too much at once.

Social Security - You want to force all retirement investments to go into Social Security? First, the government has shown that it isn't responsible with money. Secondly, every dollar you take out of the markets is a dollar less that companies are using for growth. You can't stimulate the economy just by taking money from one sector and putting it in another. I seem to recall debating you under a different name about moving money from miscellaneous sectors into the gas service industry, but you couldn't acknowledge that taking money out of your tire replacement fund to give to an attendant means the tire shop won't have as much business, and will lose exactly as much business as the gas service industry gets.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:30:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Energy prices are already high, demand is difficult to meet, and customers are having a harder time paying their bills. You want to FORCE all electric providers to use more expensive, less-producing forms of energy generation?

Do you have any idea how much it would take to replace one new nuclear plant with windmills?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:33:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have these new 'energy efficient' washer and dryer... and a dishwasher too. Funny thing, I have to put the clothes through 3 cycles in the dryer to get dry, and if I forget, the clothes get musty in the dryer and I have to wash again.

Yeah, I save a tiny bit per load, but I do more loads, and it takes 300% more of my time to do a load.

At best, manufacturers should just label efficiency like car makers label mpg. If I'm concerned about saving myself energy costs, I'll pay more for something more efficient(if I can stand waiting all day for a load of laundry).
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Tax unused money... and stock transactions, because both are negative for the economy?

Do you have any idea where our business world would be without stocks? Do you have any idea how many businesses get the capital they need through stocks?

Yeah, let's just tax people for investing in companies, more than we do already.

We'll also tax anybody who SAVES their money? HOW DARE YOU BE RESPONSIBLE! YOU CAN'T SAVE YOUR MONEY!!!! WE'LL TAKE IT ALL UNLESS YOU SPEND IT ALL!!!!

Good plan.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:47:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:29:16 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Unfortunately I can't look at what I'm responding to on this device, so I can't address too much at once.

Social Security - You want to force all retirement investments to go into Social Security? First, the government has shown that it isn't responsible with money.
Considering Social security returns 25% more then its counterparts I'd say getting 25% more benefits is more responsible then getting 25% les.
At 3/3/2012 10:29:16 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Secondly, every dollar you take out of the markets is a dollar less that companies are using for growth. You can't stimulate the economy just by taking money from one sector and putting it in another.
So according to you if we take money from a sector were $1 in spending creates $2 in economic benefits and move it to sector that creates $2.5 in economic benefits its not helping the economy. I'm sorry but what you are saying is fu.cking retarded
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:48:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:30:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Energy prices are already high, demand is difficult to meet, and customers are having a harder time paying their bills. You want to FORCE all electric providers to use more expensive, less-producing forms of energy generation?
When you include health and environmental costs the energy I'm advocating costs less. Meaning when you include ALL the data instead of cherry picking clean energy is less expensive.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:53:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:47:04 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:29:16 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Unfortunately I can't look at what I'm responding to on this device, so I can't address too much at once.

Social Security - You want to force all retirement investments to go into Social Security? First, the government has shown that it isn't responsible with money.
Considering Social security returns 25% more then its counterparts I'd say getting 25% more benefits is more responsible then getting 25% les.

1 - SS can't pay it's obligations, even though rates have gone up.
2 - Personal investments can easily outpace SS. Do you have the data on SS return year by year?

At 3/3/2012 10:29:16 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Secondly, every dollar you take out of the markets is a dollar less that companies are using for growth. You can't stimulate the economy just by taking money from one sector and putting it in another.
So according to you if we take money from a sector were $1 in spending creates $2 in economic benefits and move it to sector that creates $2.5 in economic benefits its not helping the economy. I'm sorry but what you are saying is fu.cking retarded

You are saying we should take money out of the markets, and give it to THE US GOVERNMENT to spend how it sees fit. The US government is NOT more efficient than the markets. Nowhere close.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:56:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:48:12 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:30:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Energy prices are already high, demand is difficult to meet, and customers are having a harder time paying their bills. You want to FORCE all electric providers to use more expensive, less-producing forms of energy generation?
When you include health and environmental costs the energy I'm advocating costs less. Meaning when you include ALL the data instead of cherry picking clean energy is less expensive.

Prove it. I'm sure you have a study, right?

If you are correct, it should be viable to run our nation off of wind and solar, right?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:57:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Tax unused money... and stock transactions, because both are negative for the economy?
Money that is invested roes more for a economy then money that do nothing.
Second high changes in stock transaction is done by traders that are speculating, they aren't investing they are causing panics in order to make themselves rich at the expense of the economy . They help create bubbles, increase costs of goods, reduce production and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.
http://www.portfolio.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.heatingoil.com...
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Do you have any idea where our business world would be without stocks? Do you have any idea how many businesses get the capital they need through stocks?
Taxing stock transactions doesn't eliminate stocks, it reduces incentives to speculate, gamble and manipulate stocks.
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Yeah, let's just tax people for investing in companies, more than we do already.
People who actually use stocks to invest in companions don't participate in many stock transaction the tax falls primarily on speculators who get rich at the expense of the overall economy.
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
We'll also tax anybody who SAVES their money? HOW DARE YOU BE RESPONSIBLE! YOU CAN'T SAVE YOUR MONEY!!!! WE'LL TAKE IT ALL UNLESS YOU SPEND IT ALL!!!!

Good plan.
learn to read dumbass
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 10:59:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:56:58 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:48:12 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:30:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Energy prices are already high, demand is difficult to meet, and customers are having a harder time paying their bills. You want to FORCE all electric providers to use more expensive, less-producing forms of energy generation?
When you include health and environmental costs the energy I'm advocating costs less. Meaning when you include ALL the data instead of cherry picking clean energy is less expensive.

Prove it. I'm sure you have a study, right?
I already did in my first post you retard
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:01:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:57:49 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Tax unused money... and stock transactions, because both are negative for the economy?
Money that is invested roes more for a economy then money that do nothing.
Second high changes in stock transaction is done by traders that are speculating, they aren't investing they are causing panics in order to make themselves rich at the expense of the economy . They help create bubbles, increase costs of goods, reduce production and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.
http://www.portfolio.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.heatingoil.com...
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Do you have any idea where our business world would be without stocks? Do you have any idea how many businesses get the capital they need through stocks?
Taxing stock transactions doesn't eliminate stocks, it reduces incentives to speculate, gamble and manipulate stocks.
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Yeah, let's just tax people for investing in companies, more than we do already.
People who actually use stocks to invest in companions don't participate in many stock transaction the tax falls primarily on speculators who get rich at the expense of the overall economy.
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
We'll also tax anybody who SAVES their money? HOW DARE YOU BE RESPONSIBLE! YOU CAN'T SAVE YOUR MONEY!!!! WE'LL TAKE IT ALL UNLESS YOU SPEND IT ALL!!!!

Good plan.
learn to read dumbass

'Traders' don't do anyting about the price of anything. They balance out between shorts and longs, the actual speculation is done by large electronic funds with hard stops they are protecting. You're not going to hurt them with a tax like that, but you are going to hurt traders, who are regular people.

2 - You really want to penalize people for saving their money? Think of where we would be if people hadn't been living so far out of their means... it's ridiculously stupid to tax people for saving money.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:01:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 10:53:17 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:47:04 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:29:16 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Unfortunately I can't look at what I'm responding to on this device, so I can't address too much at once.

Social Security - You want to force all retirement investments to go into Social Security? First, the government has shown that it isn't responsible with money.
Considering Social security returns 25% more then its counterparts I'd say getting 25% more benefits is more responsible then getting 25% les.

1 - SS can't pay it's obligations, even though rates have gone up.
2 - Personal investments can easily outpace SS. Do you have the data on SS return year by year?
1) And if we had private accounts instead of SS we'd be unable to pay obligations by 25% more
2) I already posted the data on how SS is 25% more efficient then privateaccounts. Perhaps if you were not a dipshit who couldn't read you would of saw it in the first post

At 3/3/2012 10:29:16 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Secondly, every dollar you take out of the markets is a dollar less that companies are using for growth. You can't stimulate the economy just by taking money from one sector and putting it in another.
So according to you if we take money from a sector were $1 in spending creates $2 in economic benefits and move it to sector that creates $2.5 in economic benefits its not helping the economy. I'm sorry but what you are saying is fu.cking retarded

You are saying we should take money out of the markets, and give it to THE US GOVERNMENT to spend how it sees fit. The US government is NOT more efficient than the markets. Nowhere close.
Reality disagrees with you, but since you are a republican you don't give a $hit about reality
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:03:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For every study, there is another study. Studies aren't factual based on the fact that they exist. I can't look at your studies righ tnow, but I've seen them before, and they are moronic.

Everything you say is moronic.

STARCRAFTZZZ 2012: Tax Savings to Save the Economy!

At 3/3/2012 11:01:37 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:53:17 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:47:04 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:29:16 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Unfortunately I can't look at what I'm responding to on this device, so I can't address too much at once.

Social Security - You want to force all retirement investments to go into Social Security? First, the government has shown that it isn't responsible with money.
Considering Social security returns 25% more then its counterparts I'd say getting 25% more benefits is more responsible then getting 25% les.

1 - SS can't pay it's obligations, even though rates have gone up.
2 - Personal investments can easily outpace SS. Do you have the data on SS return year by year?
1) And if we had private accounts instead of SS we'd be unable to pay obligations by 25% more
2) I already posted the data on how SS is 25% more efficient then privateaccounts. Perhaps if you were not a dipshit who couldn't read you would of saw it in the first post

At 3/3/2012 10:29:16 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Secondly, every dollar you take out of the markets is a dollar less that companies are using for growth. You can't stimulate the economy just by taking money from one sector and putting it in another.
So according to you if we take money from a sector were $1 in spending creates $2 in economic benefits and move it to sector that creates $2.5 in economic benefits its not helping the economy. I'm sorry but what you are saying is fu.cking retarded

You are saying we should take money out of the markets, and give it to THE US GOVERNMENT to spend how it sees fit. The US government is NOT more efficient than the markets. Nowhere close.
Reality disagrees with you, but since you are a republican you don't give a $hit about reality
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:10:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 11:03:37 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
For every study, there is another study. Studies aren't factual based on the fact that they exist. I can't look at your studies righ tnow, but I've seen them before, and they are moronic.
Yes to all republicans reality is moronic
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:12:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 11:01:34 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:57:49 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Tax unused money... and stock transactions, because both are negative for the economy?
Money that is invested roes more for a economy then money that do nothing.
Second high changes in stock transaction is done by traders that are speculating, they aren't investing they are causing panics in order to make themselves rich at the expense of the economy . They help create bubbles, increase costs of goods, reduce production and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.
http://www.portfolio.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.heatingoil.com...
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Do you have any idea where our business world would be without stocks? Do you have any idea how many businesses get the capital they need through stocks?
Taxing stock transactions doesn't eliminate stocks, it reduces incentives to speculate, gamble and manipulate stocks.
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Yeah, let's just tax people for investing in companies, more than we do already.
People who actually use stocks to invest in companions don't participate in many stock transaction the tax falls primarily on speculators who get rich at the expense of the overall economy.
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
We'll also tax anybody who SAVES their money? HOW DARE YOU BE RESPONSIBLE! YOU CAN'T SAVE YOUR MONEY!!!! WE'LL TAKE IT ALL UNLESS YOU SPEND IT ALL!!!!

Good plan.
learn to read dumbass

'Traders' don't do anyting about the price of anything. They balance out between shorts and longs, the actual speculation is done by large electronic funds with hard stops they are protecting. You're not going to hurt them with a tax like that, but you are going to hurt traders, who are regular people.
Are you stupid? How is a tax that largely falls on speculators not hurting t but actually hurts people that aren't taxes by it? Dumbass

At 3/3/2012 11:01:34 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
2 - You really want to penalize people for saving their money? Think of where we would be if people hadn't been living so far out of their means... it's ridiculously stupid to tax people for saving money.
People who save their money don't do massive stock trading, and changes. Meaning its not a tax on saving money dipshit, its a tax on speculating and other activities that destroy jobs and GDP.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:21:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 11:12:33 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:01:34 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:57:49 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Tax unused money... and stock transactions, because both are negative for the economy?
Money that is invested roes more for a economy then money that do nothing.
Second high changes in stock transaction is done by traders that are speculating, they aren't investing they are causing panics in order to make themselves rich at the expense of the economy . They help create bubbles, increase costs of goods, reduce production and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.
http://www.portfolio.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.heatingoil.com...
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Do you have any idea where our business world would be without stocks? Do you have any idea how many businesses get the capital they need through stocks?
Taxing stock transactions doesn't eliminate stocks, it reduces incentives to speculate, gamble and manipulate stocks.
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Yeah, let's just tax people for investing in companies, more than we do already.
People who actually use stocks to invest in companions don't participate in many stock transaction the tax falls primarily on speculators who get rich at the expense of the overall economy.
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
We'll also tax anybody who SAVES their money? HOW DARE YOU BE RESPONSIBLE! YOU CAN'T SAVE YOUR MONEY!!!! WE'LL TAKE IT ALL UNLESS YOU SPEND IT ALL!!!!

Good plan.
learn to read dumbass

'Traders' don't do anyting about the price of anything. They balance out between shorts and longs, the actual speculation is done by large electronic funds with hard stops they are protecting. You're not going to hurt them with a tax like that, but you are going to hurt traders, who are regular people.
Are you stupid? How is a tax that largely falls on speculators not hurting t but actually hurts people that aren't taxes by it? Dumbass

I'm telling you, speculating isn't a game done by the traders. They ABSOLUTELY do not define the market. They follow the trends set by the big boys. They could all drop out and nothing would change.

At 3/3/2012 11:01:34 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
2 - You really want to penalize people for saving their money? Think of where we would be if people hadn't been living so far out of their means... it's ridiculously stupid to tax people for saving money.
People who save their money don't do massive stock trading, and changes. Meaning its not a tax on saving money dipshit, its a tax on speculating and other activities that destroy jobs and GDP.

You said tax on unused capital. If you have money that you aren't using, you would be taxed on it.

Hmmm, where do I have money that I'm not using? MY SAVINGS ACCOUNT.

You can't even remember your own plan.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:34:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 11:21:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:12:33 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:01:34 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:57:49 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Tax unused money... and stock transactions, because both are negative for the economy?
Money that is invested roes more for a economy then money that do nothing.
Second high changes in stock transaction is done by traders that are speculating, they aren't investing they are causing panics in order to make themselves rich at the expense of the economy . They help create bubbles, increase costs of goods, reduce production and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.
http://www.portfolio.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.heatingoil.com...
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Do you have any idea where our business world would be without stocks? Do you have any idea how many businesses get the capital they need through stocks?
Taxing stock transactions doesn't eliminate stocks, it reduces incentives to speculate, gamble and manipulate stocks.
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Yeah, let's just tax people for investing in companies, more than we do already.
People who actually use stocks to invest in companions don't participate in many stock transaction the tax falls primarily on speculators who get rich at the expense of the overall economy.
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
We'll also tax anybody who SAVES their money? HOW DARE YOU BE RESPONSIBLE! YOU CAN'T SAVE YOUR MONEY!!!! WE'LL TAKE IT ALL UNLESS YOU SPEND IT ALL!!!!

Good plan.
learn to read dumbass

'Traders' don't do anyting about the price of anything. They balance out between shorts and longs, the actual speculation is done by large electronic funds with hard stops they are protecting. You're not going to hurt them with a tax like that, but you are going to hurt traders, who are regular people.
Are you stupid? How is a tax that largely falls on speculators not hurting t but actually hurts people that aren't taxes by it? Dumbass

I'm telling you, speculating isn't a game done by the traders. They ABSOLUTELY do not define the market. They follow the trends set by the big boys. They could all drop out and nothing would change.

At 3/3/2012 11:01:34 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
2 - You really want to penalize people for saving their money? Think of where we would be if people hadn't been living so far out of their means... it's ridiculously stupid to tax people for saving money.
People who save their money don't do massive stock trading, and changes. Meaning its not a tax on saving money dipshit, its a tax on speculating and other activities that destroy jobs and GDP.

You said tax on unused capital. If you have money that you aren't using, you would be taxed on it.
Capital is not the same as money, only retarded right winger would not know that

At 3/3/2012 11:21:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Hmmm, where do I have money that I'm not using? MY SAVINGS ACCOUNT.
No if your money is in a savings account t is being invested in other activates, that is unless your bank decdes that it wont use the money but will just sit on it
At 3/3/2012 11:21:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
You can't even remember your own plan.
You being stupid does not = me not know sometihng
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:36:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 11:10:08 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:03:37 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
For every study, there is another study. Studies aren't factual based on the fact that they exist. I can't look at your studies righ tnow, but I've seen them before, and they are moronic.
Yes to all republicans reality is moronic

^ that makes you seem smart..... .__.

Anyway, studies are sometimes correct, others not. Need studies from both sides, comparison, then get an answer.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:37:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 11:34:05 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:21:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:12:33 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:01:34 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:57:49 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Tax unused money... and stock transactions, because both are negative for the economy?
Money that is invested roes more for a economy then money that do nothing.
Second high changes in stock transaction is done by traders that are speculating, they aren't investing they are causing panics in order to make themselves rich at the expense of the economy . They help create bubbles, increase costs of goods, reduce production and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.
http://www.portfolio.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.heatingoil.com...
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Do you have any idea where our business world would be without stocks? Do you have any idea how many businesses get the capital they need through stocks?
Taxing stock transactions doesn't eliminate stocks, it reduces incentives to speculate, gamble and manipulate stocks.
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Yeah, let's just tax people for investing in companies, more than we do already.
People who actually use stocks to invest in companions don't participate in many stock transaction the tax falls primarily on speculators who get rich at the expense of the overall economy.
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
We'll also tax anybody who SAVES their money? HOW DARE YOU BE RESPONSIBLE! YOU CAN'T SAVE YOUR MONEY!!!! WE'LL TAKE IT ALL UNLESS YOU SPEND IT ALL!!!!

Good plan.
learn to read dumbass

'Traders' don't do anyting about the price of anything. They balance out between shorts and longs, the actual speculation is done by large electronic funds with hard stops they are protecting. You're not going to hurt them with a tax like that, but you are going to hurt traders, who are regular people.
Are you stupid? How is a tax that largely falls on speculators not hurting t but actually hurts people that aren't taxes by it? Dumbass

I'm telling you, speculating isn't a game done by the traders. They ABSOLUTELY do not define the market. They follow the trends set by the big boys. They could all drop out and nothing would change.

At 3/3/2012 11:01:34 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
2 - You really want to penalize people for saving their money? Think of where we would be if people hadn't been living so far out of their means... it's ridiculously stupid to tax people for saving money.
People who save their money don't do massive stock trading, and changes. Meaning its not a tax on saving money dipshit, its a tax on speculating and other activities that destroy jobs and GDP.

You said tax on unused capital. If you have money that you aren't using, you would be taxed on it.
Capital is not the same as money, only retarded right winger would not know that

At 3/3/2012 11:21:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Hmmm, where do I have money that I'm not using? MY SAVINGS ACCOUNT.
No if your money is in a savings account t is being invested in other activates, that is unless your bank decdes that it wont use the money but will just sit on it
At 3/3/2012 11:21:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
You can't even remember your own plan.
You being stupid does not = me not know sometihng

So, what unused capital are you going to tax? Not money in savings accounts, not money in checking accounts, not money in stocks, not money in assets...

Where do you think people and corporations keep their money? In huge piles of cash under their beds?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:49:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 11:37:33 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:34:05 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:21:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:12:33 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:01:34 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:57:49 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Tax unused money... and stock transactions, because both are negative for the economy?
Money that is invested roes more for a economy then money that do nothing.
Second high changes in stock transaction is done by traders that are speculating, they aren't investing they are causing panics in order to make themselves rich at the expense of the economy . They help create bubbles, increase costs of goods, reduce production and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.
http://www.portfolio.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.heatingoil.com...
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Do you have any idea where our business world would be without stocks? Do you have any idea how many businesses get the capital they need through stocks?
Taxing stock transactions doesn't eliminate stocks, it reduces incentives to speculate, gamble and manipulate stocks.
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Yeah, let's just tax people for investing in companies, more than we do already.
People who actually use stocks to invest in companions don't participate in many stock transaction the tax falls primarily on speculators who get rich at the expense of the overall economy.
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
We'll also tax anybody who SAVES their money? HOW DARE YOU BE RESPONSIBLE! YOU CAN'T SAVE YOUR MONEY!!!! WE'LL TAKE IT ALL UNLESS YOU SPEND IT ALL!!!!

Good plan.
learn to read dumbass

'Traders' don't do anyting about the price of anything. They balance out between shorts and longs, the actual speculation is done by large electronic funds with hard stops they are protecting. You're not going to hurt them with a tax like that, but you are going to hurt traders, who are regular people.
Are you stupid? How is a tax that largely falls on speculators not hurting t but actually hurts people that aren't taxes by it? Dumbass

I'm telling you, speculating isn't a game done by the traders. They ABSOLUTELY do not define the market. They follow the trends set by the big boys. They could all drop out and nothing would change.

At 3/3/2012 11:01:34 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
2 - You really want to penalize people for saving their money? Think of where we would be if people hadn't been living so far out of their means... it's ridiculously stupid to tax people for saving money.
People who save their money don't do massive stock trading, and changes. Meaning its not a tax on saving money dipshit, its a tax on speculating and other activities that destroy jobs and GDP.

You said tax on unused capital. If you have money that you aren't using, you would be taxed on it.
Capital is not the same as money, only retarded right winger would not know that

At 3/3/2012 11:21:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Hmmm, where do I have money that I'm not using? MY SAVINGS ACCOUNT.
No if your money is in a savings account t is being invested in other activates, that is unless your bank decdes that it wont use the money but will just sit on it
At 3/3/2012 11:21:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
You can't even remember your own plan.
You being stupid does not = me not know sometihng

So, what unused capital are you going to tax? Not money in savings accounts, not money in checking accounts, not money in stocks, not money in assets...

Where do you think people and corporations keep their money? In huge piles of cash under their beds?
Capital is defined as things that produce goods meaning the tax would fall on things that are not producing goods
Perhaps if you used the smal brain you had you would understand
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:53:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 11:49:12 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:37:33 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:34:05 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:21:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:12:33 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:01:34 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:57:49 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Tax unused money... and stock transactions, because both are negative for the economy?
Money that is invested roes more for a economy then money that do nothing.
Second high changes in stock transaction is done by traders that are speculating, they aren't investing they are causing panics in order to make themselves rich at the expense of the economy . They help create bubbles, increase costs of goods, reduce production and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.
http://www.portfolio.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.heatingoil.com...
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Do you have any idea where our business world would be without stocks? Do you have any idea how many businesses get the capital they need through stocks?
Taxing stock transactions doesn't eliminate stocks, it reduces incentives to speculate, gamble and manipulate stocks.
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Yeah, let's just tax people for investing in companies, more than we do already.
People who actually use stocks to invest in companions don't participate in many stock transaction the tax falls primarily on speculators who get rich at the expense of the overall economy.
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
We'll also tax anybody who SAVES their money? HOW DARE YOU BE RESPONSIBLE! YOU CAN'T SAVE YOUR MONEY!!!! WE'LL TAKE IT ALL UNLESS YOU SPEND IT ALL!!!!

Good plan.
learn to read dumbass

'Traders' don't do anyting about the price of anything. They balance out between shorts and longs, the actual speculation is done by large electronic funds with hard stops they are protecting. You're not going to hurt them with a tax like that, but you are going to hurt traders, who are regular people.
Are you stupid? How is a tax that largely falls on speculators not hurting t but actually hurts people that aren't taxes by it? Dumbass

I'm telling you, speculating isn't a game done by the traders. They ABSOLUTELY do not define the market. They follow the trends set by the big boys. They could all drop out and nothing would change.

At 3/3/2012 11:01:34 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
2 - You really want to penalize people for saving their money? Think of where we would be if people hadn't been living so far out of their means... it's ridiculously stupid to tax people for saving money.
People who save their money don't do massive stock trading, and changes. Meaning its not a tax on saving money dipshit, its a tax on speculating and other activities that destroy jobs and GDP.

You said tax on unused capital. If you have money that you aren't using, you would be taxed on it.
Capital is not the same as money, only retarded right winger would not know that

At 3/3/2012 11:21:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Hmmm, where do I have money that I'm not using? MY SAVINGS ACCOUNT.
No if your money is in a savings account t is being invested in other activates, that is unless your bank decdes that it wont use the money but will just sit on it
At 3/3/2012 11:21:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
You can't even remember your own plan.
You being stupid does not = me not know sometihng

So, what unused capital are you going to tax? Not money in savings accounts, not money in checking accounts, not money in stocks, not money in assets...

Where do you think people and corporations keep their money? In huge piles of cash under their beds?
Capital is defined as things that produce goods meaning the tax would fall on things that are not producing goods
Perhaps if you used the smal brain you had you would understand

http://www.investopedia.com...

1 - Financial assets or the financial value of assets, such as cash.

Seriously, the stupidest idea I've ever heard.

Hmmm, there isn't enough demand for you to use 100% of your money/machinery/land to turn a profit? I'm sorry, that must be difficult. I know, I'll fix your problem by taxing you because you aren't running at 100% capacity.

Oh, you're saving up to expand to a different market? Sorry, you can't hold onto money. I'll have to tax that.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2012 11:58:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 11:53:47 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:49:12 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:37:33 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:34:05 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:21:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:12:33 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 11:01:34 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:57:49 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Tax unused money... and stock transactions, because both are negative for the economy?
Money that is invested roes more for a economy then money that do nothing.
Second high changes in stock transaction is done by traders that are speculating, they aren't investing they are causing panics in order to make themselves rich at the expense of the economy . They help create bubbles, increase costs of goods, reduce production and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.
http://www.portfolio.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.heatingoil.com...
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Do you have any idea where our business world would be without stocks? Do you have any idea how many businesses get the capital they need through stocks?
Taxing stock transactions doesn't eliminate stocks, it reduces incentives to speculate, gamble and manipulate stocks.
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Yeah, let's just tax people for investing in companies, more than we do already.
People who actually use stocks to invest in companions don't participate in many stock transaction the tax falls primarily on speculators who get rich at the expense of the overall economy.
At 3/3/2012 10:38:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
We'll also tax anybody who SAVES their money? HOW DARE YOU BE RESPONSIBLE! YOU CAN'T SAVE YOUR MONEY!!!! WE'LL TAKE IT ALL UNLESS YOU SPEND IT ALL!!!!

Good plan.
learn to read dumbass

'Traders' don't do anyting about the price of anything. They balance out between shorts and longs, the actual speculation is done by large electronic funds with hard stops they are protecting. You're not going to hurt them with a tax like that, but you are going to hurt traders, who are regular people.
Are you stupid? How is a tax that largely falls on speculators not hurting t but actually hurts people that aren't taxes by it? Dumbass

I'm telling you, speculating isn't a game done by the traders. They ABSOLUTELY do not define the market. They follow the trends set by the big boys. They could all drop out and nothing would change.

At 3/3/2012 11:01:34 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
2 - You really want to penalize people for saving their money? Think of where we would be if people hadn't been living so far out of their means... it's ridiculously stupid to tax people for saving money.
People who save their money don't do massive stock trading, and changes. Meaning its not a tax on saving money dipshit, its a tax on speculating and other activities that destroy jobs and GDP.

You said tax on unused capital. If you have money that you aren't using, you would be taxed on it.
Capital is not the same as money, only retarded right winger would not know that

At 3/3/2012 11:21:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Hmmm, where do I have money that I'm not using? MY SAVINGS ACCOUNT.
No if your money is in a savings account t is being invested in other activates, that is unless your bank decdes that it wont use the money but will just sit on it
At 3/3/2012 11:21:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
You can't even remember your own plan.
You being stupid does not = me not know sometihng

So, what unused capital are you going to tax? Not money in savings accounts, not money in checking accounts, not money in stocks, not money in assets...

Where do you think people and corporations keep their money? In huge piles of cash under their beds?
Capital is defined as things that produce goods meaning the tax would fall on things that are not producing goods
Perhaps if you used the smal brain you had you would understand

http://www.investopedia.com...

1 - Financial assets or the financial value of assets, such as cash.

Seriously, the stupidest idea I've ever heard.

Hmmm, there isn't enough demand for you to use 100% of your money/machinery/land to turn a profit? I'm sorry, that must be difficult. I know, I'll fix your problem by taxing you because you aren't running at 100% capacity.

Oh, you're saving up to expand to a different market? Sorry, you can't hold onto money. I'll have to tax that.
If you have so much that you cant produce enough things that people want then you aren't using the capital efficiently therefor taxing you because you are inefficient reulsn making incentives to be efficient ; I do realize that you are too stupid to relaize that 2+2 is 5...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 12:11:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/3/2012 11:58:46 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote: I do realize that you are too stupid to relaize that 2+2 is 5...

Haha
twocupcakes: 15 = 13