By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - You will earn what Obama wants you to earn.

SciFiBoy on 22 March 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
SciFiBoy said:

 

define "right mind" if you mean wether or not theyre intelligent, then you were calling them idiots, if you mean "right-wing mindset" then fair play but that means youre spoke out of context.

Obama is imposing higher taxes on the financial sector? yes? thats a good thing, makes the people repsonsible for the crisis pay the price and a fair share given that they earn 75x the average wage or something daft like that

Obama wants to make the banks lend again? again this is a good thing, more lending will help mortgage holders and small bussiness get through the hard times

Obama wants more regulation? yet again this is a good thing, means that the new lending is done sensibly and does not involve large risks, that way the financial sector is secure

 

By right mind, I mean a good way of thinking, not right or left.

And where did Obama raise taxes on the financial sector?

As far as making banks lend...

Here is the problem.

Banks want to lend. They just only want to lend to people who will pay the loans back. Right now, it's hard to know who that is. Bankers are smart. They don't throw good money after bad. What Obama is trying to do, is say “give more small businesses loans even if they are high risk, and if it fails, we will pick up the bill”.

The reason banks won't loan these small businesses money, is because they will fail. Banks have people who look over the business plans, and understand a good one from a bad one.

Why is it a good idea to fund a bad one?

This is what happened in the housing industry. Banks did not give loans to people who were likely to not pay them back. Government made those loans profitable to Banks, so Banks gave them out.

The same thing will happen with small businesses.

Explain to me why this is a good idea?

 

if banks wanted to lend responsibly, how did we get into this mess? (may be different in the US, im in the UK)

at no point did i say they should lend to bad bussiness

i think housing should be dealt with by the government buying up empty homes and renting them to people

if the banks dont lend at all then no-one can get a home and no bussiness can stay afloat, so you have mass unemployment and homlessness

bankers and not all geniuses, if they were, we wouldnt be in this mess



Around the Network
SciFiBoy on 22 March 2009
Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
TheRealMafoo said:
SciFiBoy said:
TheRealMafoo said:
SciFiBoy said:
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:

 

Flame bait?

I never just post “Obama sucks” or rarely ever post an editorial of my own. I always post articles from either CNN or the NYT. I make sure none of my articles are from Fox News, or Huffington. I purposely only post news that's mainstream and fact based.

Your thread on the front page:

Obama might be the dumbest president we have ever had.

Here is what you said:

Ok, I get that we have different ideologies, and feel that government should play a different role in people's lives. I also realize that does not make one person smarter than the other, just different.

But, this is unbelievable. I think it's obvious that the root cause of our current finical problems is the government incentivizing and guaranteeing loans that banks would otherwise not give. If the government had not stepped in and basically bribed banks to give subprime loans, we would not be in this mess.

Obama knows this. We all know this.

So why would anyone in their right mind think it's a good idea to do it again?

Then you throw out a link to an article which you have not even discussed in the least.  You didn't post any contents from that article or tell anyone what the article was even about.

 

 

i know, lol, that other thread was pure flame bait, especially the bolded part, i mean wtf? how is that gonna do anything other than cause an argument?

 

That post is now 24 pages long, and currently still having a good debate in it. Not sure I would use that article as an example of flame bate.

 

so you wouldnt mind if i made a thread called "Obama is doing the right thing, if you disagree youre an idiot"?

 

Go for it. make sure you explain what he is doing right, and why thinking it's wrong is idiotic.

btw, I didn't call people an idiot for thinking it was right. I asked them why anyone in there right mind would think it was a good idea. No one seemed to have a good answer.

 

define "right mind" if you mean wether or not theyre intelligent, then you were calling them idiots, if you mean "right-wing mindset" then fair play but that means youre spoke out of context.

Obama is imposing higher taxes on the financial sector? yes? thats a good thing, makes the people repsonsible for the crisis pay the price and a fair share given that they earn 75x the average wage or something daft like that

Obama wants to make the banks lend again? again this is a good thing, more lending will help mortgage holders and small bussiness get through the hard times

Obama wants more regulation? yet again this is a good thing, means that the new lending is done sensibly and does not involve large risks, that way the financial sector is secure

That's not a higher tax.  What he's putting in place is a wage cap.

As in.  No matter how hard you work you can't make anymore since your going to get taxed like 90% on it.

Also he's putting all this power in the fed... which was one of the main causes of our meltdown...

whats wrong with a wage cap? isnt it 500k a year? thats what 250x what say a nurse earns here in the UK

if youre earning 500k, 10% is 50k still more than most people earn

how does giving government more say in financial sector pay and regulation cause the problem? it certainly didnt in the UK, here the problem was not enough regulation

 



SciFiBoy on 22 March 2009
Snesboy said:
SciFiBoy said:

Higher Taxes I choose you!

 

Fixed.

 

@Monty

Mafoo is right. Somewhat.

 

 

so we shouldnt tax the super rich? what do you think taxes do? they pay for your police force, your army, and anything else in the public sector, progressive taxation is the only sensible tax system



SnesTea on 22 March 2009
SciFiBoy said:
Snesboy said:
SciFiBoy said:

Higher Taxes I choose you!

 

Fixed.

 

@Monty

Mafoo is right. Somewhat.

 

 

so we shouldnt tax the super rich? what do you think taxes do? they pay for your police force, your army, and anything else in the public sector, progressive taxation is the only sensible tax system

That's not what I am saying. Everyone should be taxed. Just make it a percentage of whatever you make. For example, 10% federal tax on 100,000 dollars is different from the same percentage on 10,000 dollars. That's what the government should do, but until then, I will be waiting for my refund in the mail.

 



SciFiBoy on 22 March 2009
Snesboy said:
SciFiBoy said:
Snesboy said:
SciFiBoy said:

Higher Taxes I choose you!

 

Fixed.

 

@Monty

Mafoo is right. Somewhat.

 

 

so we shouldnt tax the super rich? what do you think taxes do? they pay for your police force, your army, and anything else in the public sector, progressive taxation is the only sensible tax system

That's not what I am saying. Everyone should be taxed. Just make it a percentage of whatever you make. For example, 10% federal tax on 100,000 dollars is different from the same percentage on 10,000 dollars. That's what the government should do, but until then, I will be waiting for my refund in the mail.

 

 

oic imo taxes should be proportional to income

example:

Salary: under 10k = Tax: 0%
10-20k = 5%
20-50k = 10%
50-100k = 25%
100k-1m = 50%
1m+ = 75%

this should apply for most taxes, income tax, local tax, inheritance tax, corporation tax, etc



Around the Network
SnesTea on 22 March 2009

^Now that I think about it, that's a really good idea. Like 75% of 1,000,000 is like still 250,000 dollars. You can easily live off that.



SciFiBoy on 22 March 2009
Snesboy said:
^Now that I think about it, that's a really good idea. Like 75% of 1,000,000 is like still 250,000 dollars. You can easily live off that.

 

exactly



Kasz216 on 22 March 2009
SciFiBoy said:
Snesboy said:
SciFiBoy said:
Snesboy said:
SciFiBoy said:

Higher Taxes I choose you!

 

Fixed.

 

@Monty

Mafoo is right. Somewhat.

 

 

so we shouldnt tax the super rich? what do you think taxes do? they pay for your police force, your army, and anything else in the public sector, progressive taxation is the only sensible tax system

That's not what I am saying. Everyone should be taxed. Just make it a percentage of whatever you make. For example, 10% federal tax on 100,000 dollars is different from the same percentage on 10,000 dollars. That's what the government should do, but until then, I will be waiting for my refund in the mail.

 

 

oic imo taxes should be proportional to income

example:

Salary: under 10k = Tax: 0%
10-20k = 5%
20-50k = 10%
50-100k = 25%
100k-1m = 50%
1m+ = 75%

this should apply for most taxes, income tax, local tax, inheritance tax, corporation tax, etc

You do realize that under your tax brackets someone who makes 1 million would have more takehome pay them someone who makes 1 million and 1 dollars right?

 



SciFiBoy on 22 March 2009
Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
Snesboy said:
SciFiBoy said:
Snesboy said:
SciFiBoy said:

Higher Taxes I choose you!

 

Fixed.

 

@Monty

Mafoo is right. Somewhat.

 

 

so we shouldnt tax the super rich? what do you think taxes do? they pay for your police force, your army, and anything else in the public sector, progressive taxation is the only sensible tax system

That's not what I am saying. Everyone should be taxed. Just make it a percentage of whatever you make. For example, 10% federal tax on 100,000 dollars is different from the same percentage on 10,000 dollars. That's what the government should do, but until then, I will be waiting for my refund in the mail.

 

 

oic imo taxes should be proportional to income

example:

Salary: under 10k = Tax: 0%
10-20k = 5%
20-50k = 10%
50-100k = 25%
100k-1m = 50%
1m+ = 75%

this should apply for most taxes, income tax, local tax, inheritance tax, corporation tax, etc

You do realize that under your tax brackets someone who makes 1 million would have more takehome pay them someone who makes 1 million and 1 dollars right?

 

 

its just an example to illustrate my point, if you think the 75% bracket should start a bit lower, thats fine



Kasz216 on 22 March 2009
SciFiBoy said:
Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
Snesboy said:
SciFiBoy said:
Snesboy said:
SciFiBoy said:

Higher Taxes I choose you!

 

Fixed.

 

@Monty

Mafoo is right. Somewhat.

 

 

so we shouldnt tax the super rich? what do you think taxes do? they pay for your police force, your army, and anything else in the public sector, progressive taxation is the only sensible tax system

That's not what I am saying. Everyone should be taxed. Just make it a percentage of whatever you make. For example, 10% federal tax on 100,000 dollars is different from the same percentage on 10,000 dollars. That's what the government should do, but until then, I will be waiting for my refund in the mail.

 

 

oic imo taxes should be proportional to income

example:

Salary: under 10k = Tax: 0%
10-20k = 5%
20-50k = 10%
50-100k = 25%
100k-1m = 50%
1m+ = 75%

this should apply for most taxes, income tax, local tax, inheritance tax, corporation tax, etc

You do realize that under your tax brackets someone who makes 1 million would have more takehome pay them someone who makes 1 million and 1 dollars right?

 

 

its just an example to illustrate my point, if you think the 75% bracket should start a bit lower, thats fine

 

And I think we already waste too much tax money on stuff that doesn't work.  Feeding more money to the inefficien t system before there is reform in how it works is foolish.

It's like trying to pour water in a cup with a hole.  The answer isn't to pour more water it's to fix the hole.

We could accomplish all we accomplish now on a much tighter budget.