he disagrees, yet still acknowledges that tww arguments will not change someone's mind.

who's the troll?

4/5/2010 11:47:52 PM

This guy.

4/5/2010 11:55:22 PM

dude, learn to read.

i said that it's not going to happen immediately, like flipping a switch, but that solid arguments can influence someone to have a shift in belief over time.

4/5/2010 11:57:47 PM

^Which is true (see progressive Supreme Court rulings @ Civil Rights movement)

4/6/2010 12:00:13 AM

Quote :

"^Historically, in the US, that has never been the case. Our companies thrived in the past under what we would consider exorbitant rates today."

Exactly. Large corporations thrive under high-tax environments. However, there is a difference between a highly profitable General Motors and lifestyle enhancing innovation. Upstart firms tend to be a major source of innovation, but their formation is also dampened by high tax rates, both through capital starvation (as large firms re-invest capital internally at low returns rather than returning it to investors as dividends and face taxation) and venture retardation (it takes more taxed profits to recoup the original investment).

So, yes, people respond to incentives. And taxes are a strong incentive to avoid paying them. As such, in the name of tax avoidance, corporations get larger through the misallocation of capital, which is then further misallocated through a tax-induced preference for debt (whose returns are tax deductible) over equity ownership (whose returns are taxed). Further boosting the growth of large firms, which have great debt ratings and can therefore play this tax-avoidance game.

We will never know what lifestyle enhancing goods and services never come to market because their suppliers do not survive infancy.

Again and as always, laws are not passed in America unless they are in the name of helping the rich. High tax rates are no different. High tax rates protect the investments and therefore power of the current rich by suppressing the potentially-rich, whose upstart companies were a threat. If an upstart car maker drives GM to bankruptcy, it is the American consumer who prospers thanks to innovation and low prices, while the old wealthy are left holding GM's equity and debt instruments.

4/6/2010 12:28:51 AM

Quote :

"Exactly. Large corporations thrive under high-tax environments. However, there is a difference between a highly profitable General Motors and lifestyle enhancing innovation. Upstart firms tend to be a major source of innovation, but their formation is also dampened by high tax rates, both through capital starvation (as large firms re-invest capital internally at low returns rather than returning it to investors as dividends and face taxation) and venture retardation (it takes more taxed profits to recoup the original investment). "

Except companies like Apple, Intel, and Microsoft started under these conditions.

The fact of the matter is that you're asking for action on theories that have no basis in the reality of American society.

It some bizarre, contrived theoretical world where humans are little more than robots, you may have a point. But in the real world, in a free society (which we've always had), you're never going to stifle innovation. And the best way to promote innovation is to promote the well-being of the populous in general, over a few powerful elite.

It's mind boggling that you think an economic situation near the turn of the century was somehow more conducive to new startups. It was precisely the monopolization and vertically controlled markets that spawned the progressive movement. If it wasn't for these reforms, we would have drifted MUCH closer to a fascist oligarchy.

4/6/2010 3:21:13 AM

Quote :

"Win online arguments! Enjoy battling it out on the bulletin boards? Like getting stuck into a good, pointless argument with only one aim - to win at any cost? Then this guide is for you - simply follow the 12-point guide below and success will be yours! 1. Get friendly Always refer to your opponent by his/her first name. Your messages will seem warm and friendly, despite the rabid ferocity of their content. After a few exchanges, begin to use a corruption of your opponent's name - begin with "William", then change to "Billy", then change to something like "Billy-Boy". Women don't enjoy having their names shortened either, so make sure that "Mrs. Elizabeth C. Osbourne-Smythe PhD, QC" is always addressed as "Lizzy". 2. Picky! Picky! Criticising your opponents spelling or grammar will make you look pedantic. Far better to deliberately misread a message, then follow-up with an utterly incongruous statement. And if they make a factual error - no matter how small - make sure you're on hand to remind them of their error as often as possible. 3. Be selective Selective editing is a good way to avoid engaging with your opponent's better arguments. Simply delete that intelligent, pointed question which ends paragraph three and reply instead to the weaker arguments beneath. Should your opponent post something like "I'm sorry but you're talking crap", snip everything but the first two words then graciously accept his apology. 4. Showboat Once the argument is in full swing, publicly thank all those people who have e-mailed you privately with their messages of support. Claim that you are too busy to reply to each of them personally at the moment, but promise to continue fighting on their behalf. 5. You've got history Boasting about how long you've been subscribed to a forum or newsgroup is not advised. Far better to make obscure references to the forum/newsgroup when only thirteen people knew it existed. Fondly recall a similar flame-war which took place in 1989 between "Big Al" and "Phyllis from Kent". If a newly arrived opponent produces a particularly strong argument, tell them that you've already discussed (and won) this debate last year and that you've no intention of repeating your crushing arguments all over again for their benefit. 6. There's lots of you Always refer to yourself in the plural, as though you are speaking on behalf of the whole newsgroup: "all we are trying to say is..." sounds much more pompous than "all I am trying to say is...". When other people join in the thread, the rules are simple: if they side with you, follow-up immediately and enthusiastically, congratulating them on their courage; if they side with your opponent, ignore the tossers. 7. One step ahead Pre-empt all replies. Tell your opponent that you know exactly how he or she is going to respond to your message because you've seen it all before. List all potential counter-arguments to your position and invite your opponent to choose one. 8. Beer and arguments don't mix Never, ever, rejoin a long-running argument after ten pints in the pub. Although the devastating logic of your drunken ramblings will seem inescapable to you at the time, your opponent will lap up the incoherent, inconsistent, beer-troubled flaws in your argument and you'll be unlikely to recover. If you've been involved in a particularly vehement argument where you've staked your reputation on the line, get a friend to lock away your PC on pub nights. 9. Bamboozle with links If your opponent's tenacity is proving too much for you, try a Google counter-attack. This involves posting up an endless stream of vaguely related links, insisting that there's more than enough evidence contained in the 50+ linked sites to crush any counter argument. Ensure you keep the references vague and preferably link to pages that are stuffed full of even more links. If your enemy can't find the evidence they're demanding, blame them for their lack of research skills - after all, you've already provided them with ample resources. 10. I didn't say that! Never apologise for anything, ever. 11. Play dirty Think the argument isn't going your way? Simply post one long, highly antagonistic message in which you completely misrepresent everything your opponent has said in the last three weeks. End by martyrishly declaring that the argument has dragged on for too long and that you have no choice but to kill-file/ignore your opponent. Ignore any further messages and/or quietly re-register under a new name. 12. Victory is yours! Won the argument? Congratulations - but remember to be utterly unbearable in victory. Make generous excuses for your opponent's behaviour ("I know you primary school technicians can be under a lot of stress", "the menopause can be a very difficult time", etc), but retain a calm tone of superiority ("the important thing is to learn from your mistakes"). State that you hope your opponent stays around and reassure him/her that other subscribers are sure to forget all about this sorry business in a couple of years. "

4/6/2010 9:07:53 AM

You cannot believe what you are saying. It seems you are saying that even at 100% rates people will not change their behavior in negative ways, which is stupid. We can argue over how dramatic an effect a 39.6% tax rate will have. We can argue over whether there are any inflection points in the effect. But to suggest "you're never going to stifle innovation" is absurd. Maybe your point is that in a free society we will never allow tax rates to get high enough to eliminate the startup and growth of new companies. It helps to look at the extreme to show the point: even a hypothetical tax rate of 100% would not prevent innovation. Remember, a large established corporation with well paid accountants would not pay a cent in taxes at tax rates of 100%. But how could a new company be started but through charity?

Yes, even at the 93% top tax rate of the 1930s and 1940s, some new companies were started (but not nearly as many as we were accustomed to). That does not disprove the assertion that taxes distort economic activity. It just proves that the tax rates at that time were not that high: yes, the top tax bracket was 93%, but only a handful of people paid that. Everyone else was taxed at far lower rates.

The companies you name were started after JFK slashed the tax rates of his predecessors.

4/6/2010 9:27:50 AM

In this thread, liberal white male douchebags bitch and complain about why they should be able to rob other white males who are more successful than them because the successful guys are racist.

Quote :

"God All American 23468 Posts user info edit post He's welcome to prove me wrong with his inspiring tale of a rags to riches story. Of how he fought the odds and, despite being male, White and middle class, managed to be successful in life. "

you're male, white, and middle class, yet you still managed to become a fuckup. maybe there's another piece of the puzzle that you're missing.

4/6/2010 10:55:06 PM

Welcome my sons....

Welcome... to the machine...

I can't wait till moron and these freaks get there way and the only reason i work at my job is to support the state. But then I can finally FEIGN an injury and be babysat on welfare the rest of my life like they are currently. THEN I'LL BE HAPPY FINALLY and not 'have' to go to my job!!111


I mean seriously, it's like all liberals are douchebags that really haven't tasted 1 bit of success in life so they find ways to steal it from the rest of us who found it and openly teach how to gain it for yourself. ha.

4/7/2010 8:07:44 AM

ha ha ha ha

Please tell me how you earned your success in life.

4/7/2010 8:53:03 AM

I went to school on a minority scholarship, so you tell me.

4/7/2010 8:59:41 AM

what are you a jew

4/7/2010 9:04:12 AM

one day maybe we'll get sick of working for our success .. and like [user]God[user] and [user]moron[user] we'll sit on the internet all day trying to spread cute ways to leech off others in the name of 'equality'

4/7/2010 3:45:33 PM

Quote :

"Please tell me how you earned your success in life."

if there was only another way besides using a govt force to make others give up larger and larger %'s of their wealth for you to have your own.

hmmmm

4/7/2010 3:52:34 PM

Quote :

"if there was only another way besides using a govt force to make others give up larger and larger %'s of their wealth for you to have your own."

you mean like us going to Iraq to depose Saddam? that logic cuts both ways, Chester.

4/13/2010 11:11:40 AM

^who said they supported the war?

4/13/2010 2:28:07 PM

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/small-businesses-dont-see-recovery-nfib-survey-2010-04-13?reflink=MW_news_stmp

4/13/2010 2:33:33 PM

Just to note on the above survey, I am most likely both more liberal and successful than most people on this board. I gained my success by making insanely rich people more insanely rich, so I think it would be great for the government to help the other people.

4/13/2010 6:25:45 PM