Reply With QuoteBooRadley (05-31-2012)
It's taxed whether she gave it alive or dead, if it's of sufficient value.Originally Posted by hadit
The conclusion you draw is flawed. Anyone who won't risk money for a 20% return but will for a potential 25% return has no business investing his own money, let alone anyone else's. Investing is belief in getting a positive return.You need to follow the argument. Chachma has already made the point that investors will not take as many risks if the rewards are less, which, as I then pointed out, makes starting and expanding small businesses that much more difficult.
He's not leaving you debt. He's leaving an encumbered asset to do with as you wish - maintain it or sell it. Indebtedness is not generational. If the business owes more than it's worth, you don't assume the difference as a personal debt. That's his creditors' problem.If Dad has a business that is in debt and leaves it to me, I am then liable to pay the debts the business owes, so where's the beef? If he leaves me a house with a mortgage on it, I have to pay the mortgage or sell the house. Again, where's the beef? IOW, secured debt must be paid.
And that was because of the tax cuts. We disconnected taxation from expenditures on a no-limit credit card, enticing us to spend like crazy with no (immediate) downside.Because we spent even more than the increased revenue generated by the tax cuts.
That was so incredibly dumb.
BooRadley (05-31-2012)
Wouldn't everyone get a C even if everyone scored 1/100 or 99/100 if grading on curve?
You and I apparently agree that the tax cuts resulted in more economic activity, which generated more revenue, which was met in turn by irresponsible spending.
The ambassador died, Obama lied.
We agree on that, and I'm also saying that if we hadn't so disconnected costs of operations from citizens' own pocketbooks there'd have been less interest in irresponsible spending. If the only way to make ends meet long term is by borrowing, that's not a money management problem, that's an policy catastrophe bordering on malfeasance.
I suppose so. But why do you assume they are grading on curve?
"The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com
The investment markets are one big curve. It's not how much you make, it's how much more you make than the other guys.
I didn't really assume, just noting that if he did grade on a curve, then regardless of what everyone scored, the entire class would receive a C if everyone received the average score.
Gallileo and Da Vinci both made a shit load of money for that time and place especially for people who weren't members of the rulng elite. Astronomy was Gallileo's hobby, his business was making telescopes. You need to learn more about renaisssance Italy.
Cut throat capitalism at it's best/worst.
Annoy a leftist: Think logically.
Freedom&Liberty (06-01-2012)
No it's not. If it was, no one would lose anything. People lose all the time.
The ambassador died, Obama lied.
C'mon. Even on a curve people perform below average, meaning in markets they lose money.
Because socialism doesn't address inequities nor is it a system designed to improve the actual worth of another man...It's simply a take-and-give scheme that is designed to satisfy the wants and needs of many so that the few that desire power have control of the masses.
Capitalism gets accused of being a system based on greed but honestly, what is more greedy than coveting the hard earned wealth of others to satisfy your lust for power or to pacify the wants of the lazy and irresponsible.
Scandal? The government dispatched more firepower to arrest Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in Los Angeles than it did to protect its mission in Benghazi.
Which explains why socialist societies generally don't last long unless they introduce some degree of capitalism into their economy.
Capitalism makes the world go round. But like most systems it can self-destruct if it isn't given guidance and direction.Capitalism gets accused of being a system based on greed but honestly, what is more greedy than coveting the hard earned wealth of others to satisfy your lust for power or to pacify the wants of the lazy and irresponsible.
The only thing we really argue about is how much regulation and where it's applied. Some of us think it should be pretty much left alone and whatever happens, happens. Others think that oversight is more prudent to keep it from flying off the rails (again), causing unnecessary, avoidable collateral casualties. That's all we really discuss.
Archaix (06-01-2012)
Or vice versa....Convince us the lowest performing worker will work harder...
Exceptions do not define the rules
Sure....If the government could simply print a ton of money that had value.
The biggest problem with this analogy (and it's simply an analogy Boo, it doesn't completely demonstrate reality) is that the F students are moved up to D's but in real life the D students are not moved up to C's. We are subsidizing a system the rewards failure and does not encourage those at the very bottom to improve.
Scandal? The government dispatched more firepower to arrest Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in Los Angeles than it did to protect its mission in Benghazi.
Again, the fact that they gained material wealth for their endeavors was the residual of having pursued their interests. They'd have continued seeking truths even if it hadn't had a marketable value at the time.
There are only a few ways of acquiring wealth - inheriting it, marrying it or earning it. Pretty much the only way to earn it is to follow passions and interests that are marketable. If one doesn't have a passion that there is a market for, he doesn't stand much of a chance of getting wealthy. Tax policy doesn't change that.
People become successful and attain wealth by doing what they do because that is what they are, not because of economic ideologies.
I'm not sure it's that broad. I think the arguments come from the consequences of regulations and from the fact that over site becomes over regulation to the point of squelching freedom and enterprise.
Scandal? The government dispatched more firepower to arrest Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in Los Angeles than it did to protect its mission in Benghazi.
Freedom&Liberty (06-01-2012)
Exactly, as I said. It where and how much. Some prefer to err on the side of caution, others are inclined to run the risk of too little, too late.
Read about 'em sometime, Davinci was all about the money. The more grandiose the project the more money it takes to do it. Galileo was as much a money grubber as anyone. The same is true in spades of almost all the great artist and architects of Renaissance period. The only people you find bitching about the monied class were the third rate talents who never got any of their loot because they hadn't the talent to get the backing. It hasn't changed much since then except of course for the critics who are now even sorrier than they've ever been and vastly more inclined to be suck ups than real critics.
Annoy a leftist: Think logically.
The trouble is the governing class can never leave well enough alone nor is there any reason for them to do so.
Annoy a leftist: Think logically.
Marketing products requires wealth. Tax policies are used in determining marketing strategies. You really haven't thought this through have you?
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks