We have to answer this question first before we move on

"If everyone had infinity amount of dollars, how much would the price of goods and services be?"

12/5/2012 3:00:16 PM

Quote :

"Infinity is not entirely impossible if you give everyone a printing press to print their own money. While paper may be limited, the symbols on the paper can represent ever increasing amounts."

No, it is still entirely impossible. If it is possible, then tell me the amount of computer memory you would need to ledger such a transaction, then tell me where you can buy that amount of memory.

12/5/2012 3:27:56 PM

http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2012/12/gruden-talk-jon-gruden-discusses-the-fiscal-cliff-with-former-omb-director-david-stockman.html

12/5/2012 6:53:14 PM

Quote :

"infinity divided by infinity does not equal zero."

You're right, it equals 1. So $1.

12/5/2012 7:07:13 PM

infinity divided by infinity does not equal 1 either

12/5/2012 7:42:23 PM

If everyone had infinite dollars, goods and services would be priced in a different currency because nobody would gain any benefit from gaining more, since they already have infinity.

Now will you go away?

12/5/2012 8:32:53 PM

^^ yes it does.

12/5/2012 8:44:07 PM

Quote :

""If everyone had infinity amount of dollars, how much would the price of goods and services be?" "

It would change to some other commodity like selling your body

12/5/2012 9:20:32 PM

Quote :

"If everyone had infinite dollars, goods and services would be priced in a different currency because nobody would gain any benefit from gaining more, since they already have infinity. Now will you go away?"

Sorry, I won't go away, I'll move on to the next question. Very good for answering the question correctly, though.

Back to the debt limit, what is its primary job to do?
What does it protect against?
Does it stop the government from spending to infinity?

12/5/2012 9:34:39 PM

Primary purpose is buying syrup

12/5/2012 9:55:27 PM

Ok... Moving on...

I think the GOP is finally coming to terms that tax rates on the wealthy are going to go up. Either by itself or with the rest of the nation. The question is, will enough "see" the light that we can come up with a better solution than going over the "fiscal cliff." Personally, I think some Republicans would be thrilled if we did go over it.

I'm not too worried about the senate. I am far more worried about the house. They seem to have more nut job tea partiers. in it than the senate.

12/5/2012 10:07:22 PM

Who are "the GOP"?
Who are "some Republicans"?
Who are the nut job tea partiers?

12/5/2012 10:12:50 PM

Who do you think the GOP is?
Who do you think some Republicans are?
Who do you think are nut job tea partiers?

12/5/2012 10:14:39 PM

^^seriously? can we not have a serious discussion about the "fiscal cliff" w/o you trying to dominate the conversation with conspiracy theories? i only say this as a joke (kinda): but you seem to have gone off your meds recently, you're outta control.

12/5/2012 10:17:30 PM

See there you go again.
I ask a simple question and you go off attacking me.

Just answer the question.

12/5/2012 10:18:16 PM

no, just sit on the sidelines if you don't have anything to add, and quit asking your professorial questions that derail the thread.

12/5/2012 10:23:05 PM

GXB I don't think you understand the concept of infinity. 20 trillion is closer to zero than it is to infinity. 20 trillion trillion is closer to zero than infinity.

infinity is a poor example to use because when you include infinity the example loses all validity.

12/6/2012 12:06:02 AM

GeniuSxBoY

dude you need to stop trolling and derailing threads or your time in the shit-can will be very soon.

12/6/2012 9:55:17 AM

^suspend - derailing thread. has no mention of the fiscal cliff. sparky's one an only post in the entire thread.



The fiscal cliff happened due to reckless spending and lack of restraint.

Raising taxes is only going to give the government more money to spend and not a penny of it is going to go to the deficit.

They have turned the debt ceiling into a debt sunroof.

Any significant movement of wealth from taxpayers to tax consumers will not enhance prosperity; it will crush it, and it will breed dependence on a government that is fiscally out of control.

12/6/2012 11:29:07 AM

Reckless spending lead to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts?

Just admit that you don't know what the fiscal cliff is.

12/6/2012 11:54:30 AM

^^ don't fuck with me dude!

12/6/2012 11:59:19 AM

Quote :

"Reckless spending lead to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts? Just admit that you don't know what the fiscal cliff is."

message_topic.aspx?topic=632361&page=2

12/6/2012 12:10:37 PM

Quote :

"^^ yes it does."

No it doesnt

12/6/2012 1:04:06 PM

Ok I need someone to explain this thing to me like I'm 5.

This is my understanding:

The Fiscal Cliff: Because they were too chicken shit to do anything during the debt ceiling debate, the Congress chose to put a penalty on themselves if they don't do anything to reduce the deficit before Jan 1. What is the metric for this? Is there a certain number that they have to achieve, or do they just have to pass something? My understanding of the penalties of the "Cliff" is that the Bush tax cuts expire and certain spending cuts go into effect. What are the specific spending cuts? Also, why is this such a huge penalty? I understand that Wall Street will shit their collective pants for a while and taxes will go up, but won't this be a huge step in paying down the deficit? Isn't it kinda like ripping off a band-aid?

Dems: They want to let the Bush tax cuts for anyone making more that $250,000 expire. Is there any revision to the tax code in their plan such as closing loop holes? I understand that they want to keep as many deductions for the middle class as they can, but can't they propose, say a max total deduction? This would allow low/middle class to still keep all their deductions and cap the massive deductions that the rich receive. Are they being as stubborn as the GOP on reducing spending? I know that ObamaCare, SS, Medicare/cade are probably off the table, but are they open to any reforms to those instead of cuts?

GOP: Originally they were firm on their stand that there would be no tax increases, but I've heard that they are more open now. Does anyone know what their current stance on the tax code is now? Also I understand that they think that only cutting spending can cut the deficit. I agree that we waste a lot of money, but I have no idea what they want to cut/reform. The only thing that I have heard is them suggesting is the Affordable Care Act.

Like I said, I would like to hear any input as I am tired of reading the "news" that has turned into a gossip rag and doesn't focus on the ideas/plans on the table. I just hope that they realize that you can't just only tax or only cut spending to get out of this hole. Unfortunately compromise has become a dirty word in Washington, maybe both will stop pandering to their bases since there is a decent amount of time before another election.

(Are you guys seriously arguing over infinity divided by infinity? Come on I know we all have taken Calc. Since I don't feel like writing out the proof, here you go: http://www.philforhumanity.com/Infinity_Divided_by_Infinity.html. tl;dr its undefined)

[Edited on December 6, 2012 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2012 1:10:35 PM

That's roughly correct, I'd only add that the GOP have put forward a plan that claims it can achieve 800 billion in reduction through eliminating tax deductions, but the actual deductions they've listed only account for less than 300. In other words, the same tactic Mitt was using, aka "Pass my plan and you can see the savings later."

One other thing is that although the Dems aren't down for a deductions cap, the Republican plan doesn't include them either. I think deduction cap plans are too ham-fisted, personally. Deductions aren't created willy-nilly, I think capping them willy-nilly is reckless. Focusing on them also doesn't really reduce the long-term complexity of the tax code so despite sounding very simple it doesn't actually result in simplicity.

12/6/2012 1:18:29 PM

12/7/2012 11:33:55 AM

Not totally relevant to this thread, and I'm not sure how credible this is


Supposedly, it was closer to 40:1 prior to Reagan (i don't know how credible that is either)

12/7/2012 11:39:14 AM

^^ what?

12/7/2012 12:03:45 PM

Dear GOP, as a staunch support of conservative politics, I say stop being bullheaded about the whole tax thing. Go ahead and let them raise taxes on the top 2% so we don't get royally screwed. Then go back later and bargain for a tax cut. Win the senate back, something, but get this over with. I'm tired of hearing about this in the news, and I certainly don't want my taxes to go up. They are already going to go up 2% for Social Security, regardless of what you retards in DC decide, so make it as painless as possible.

12/7/2012 2:42:42 PM

^^^

Our number might be closer to 200:1 ?

Depends on what average worker pay is (i guessed 50k)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47565818/ns/business-us_business/t/american-ceos-hauled-record-pay/#.UMJMtKVNlUM

12/7/2012 3:10:16 PM

OK so help me understand something. I read this news article today (http://www.jsonline.com/business/companies-paying-dividends-early-to-avoid-uncertain-tax-landscape-6779sr1-182670401.html) claiming that companies are paying out dividends early to avoid the Obama tax increase. It’s my understanding that the proposed tax increases will only affect income tax, not corporate taxes. If that’s the case wouldn't the prudent rich guy want to limit his taxable income? For example, say I was a small business owner. I own a company that employs about 50 people and gross income is 104 million a year. That means I’m pulling in 2 mil a week. Not bad. I pay myself a salary of 10.4 mil or 10% of company earnings. After company expenses I net 52 mil a year which goes into a company bank account. If I want to reduce my income tax wouldn't I cut my salary to say 1 mil a year and bank the rest in the company account. I mean it’s still my money but it’s untouchable unless I sell the company. This seems to be the opposite of what these other companies are doing by selling dividends early. They are increasing the taxable incomes on their investors.

12/12/2012 11:22:44 AM

It doesn't sound like you know what a dividend is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend

Dividends payed out before January will be taxed at the current rate. Dividends payed after january will be taxed at the new, potentially higher rate. It's pretty simple really. Companies that are able to are trying to save their shareholders from a large tax bill during the usual dividend period next year.

Also, for those of you actually interested in following this issue, CNBC has by far the most informed and balanced coverage of what's going on.



[Edited on December 12, 2012 at 11:37 AM. Reason : dfasf]

[Edited on December 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM. Reason : asdf]

12/12/2012 11:35:16 AM

ah, so they will be paying dividends regardless so might as well do it early to save on taxes. gotcha!

12/12/2012 12:01:43 PM

Well, it will save taxes for their shareholders. Honestly, paying a special dividend is what any responsible company with excess cash should do. Leaving money sitting will do nothing beneficial for them, it should be either re-invested or be issued to share holders as a dividend.

By the way, I personally think it's total bullshit that dividends are even taxed as capital gains, since they aren't actually capital gains. It's a disbursement of profit, which has already had taxes levied on it once in the form of corporate tax.

12/12/2012 12:06:33 PM

Quote :

"It's a disbursement of profit, which has already had taxes levied on it once in the form of corporate tax."

Totally agree. This is why we should get rid of corporate tax as well as capital gains and tax all investment earnings as income. Of course, I also think we should correct gains for inflation, but no one seems to agree with me, and I've never heard anyone else on Earth suggest this, so it won't happen.

But anyway, it's what should happen.

12/12/2012 1:17:35 PM

Capital gains should be taxed at zero for the first 100k or so and thn as normal income after that IMO. Of course I also think our tax rate should be much lower anyway.

12/12/2012 1:25:57 PM

Quote :

"It's a disbursement of profit, which has already had taxes levied on it once in the form of corporate tax."

How far back do you go? you could say that the money coming in got taxed as income when the consumer made the money he used to purchase whatever, or that the income the consumer made was taxed as corporate tax when the employer made it, etc. etc. The current model taxes money when it changes hands, dividend payments are most certainly an instance of money changing hands.

12/12/2012 1:28:40 PM

It's not actually changing hands though. The shareholders, as owners of the company, already payed tax on it as profit. They then pay tax again when they give the money to themselves. It would be like having to pay taxes every time you transferred money from your checking to your savings.

Taxing dividends is actually not a particularly common practice.

[Edited on December 12, 2012 at 1:34 PM. Reason : dhjhg]

[Edited on December 12, 2012 at 1:37 PM. Reason : fghhj]

12/12/2012 1:33:47 PM

I am of the opinion that we have a spending problem. As such, my prioritized list is as follows:

1 - Spending reduction (including entitlements and the military)
2 - Simpson-Bowles ($1 tax increases for every $2 spending reduction)
3 - Fiscal Cliff Scenario
4 - Tax increases only with no entitlement reform.

Obviously, the Dem's will not accept #1, 2, or 3, and the Repubs will not except #4, 3 or 2. The entire discussion about less than $250k or greater than $250k is moot unless spending is curbed. The Fiscal Cliff will happen. Neither party will give up enough ground for anything else to happen.

12/13/2012 5:58:48 PM

Raise taxes on the top 2%, fix the estate tax (~45% after $3 mil), throw in $100 billion infrastructure stimulus and implement entitlement reform that kicks in over time.

It's that simple.

12/13/2012 6:34:55 PM

I really have idea why Joe Republican is so against raising taxes on the top 1-2%. They aren't part of it and I know no one believes in supply-side economics as a viable policy at this point, so what is it? Just being the "not democrats?"

I do get pushing for entitlement reform to be put on the table and it absolutely should be by the President.

12/13/2012 7:18:39 PM

As a matter of principle, I don't see why the top 1-2% should be required to pay a higher percentage in terms of overall taxation.

That said, I also understand that the regressivity of some other taxes necessitates somewhat of a progressive income tax, unless we ever manage to significantly overhaul our entire system.

I also share common ground with the left (and anyone with any degree of sensibility) that billionaires should not enjoy dramatically lower tax burden percentages, but I understand that raising their marginal rates isn't the solution--the whole issue there is that a large portion of their income isn't treated as income to begin with. We need to only allow the 15% rate on LTCG up to a certain point. We should probably treat dividends the same way for now, although I agree with slashing corporate tax rates and then just taxing dividends normally.

Grover Norquist is someone I probably agree with on most ideological matters, but I'm enough of a pragmatist to know that even if I could line-item the entire budget, I couldn't solve the fiscal problems in a reasonable timeframe without generating more tax revenue. We (to include the GOP) have so grossly overspent for so long that we have no longer left the option open to just fix the spending problem--we have to pay the piper for our years of budgetary abuse. Furthermore, I also understand the political reality that the GOP doesn't have the leverage to really fight this out anyway, due largely to completely screwing it away on other issues and losing their footholds in Washington.

12/13/2012 7:38:40 PM

to people who see a "spending" problem:

- Do you, even for a second, consider that reducing spending in current economic conditions could plunge us into a recession?
- What do you think about the lessons of austerity from Europe?
- More unemployment means both higher spending and lower revenue, how do we create growth to fix that?

12/13/2012 7:51:55 PM

Republicans need to play some hard ball:

Pass Obama's taxes,

-but fight as hard as you can for significant reductions to SS and Medicare that phase in over time. Tell Americans it was a hard choice, but it had to be done and will pay off later, etc -> Boom! suddenly Republicans can claim they are the party of fiscal responsibility again.

-the reality is that the rich, and especially the ultra-rich, aren't going to pay that much more in taxes than they are now. They will still have countless loopholes to cushion them -> Added bonus is you can paint Obama and Democrats as tax and spend libruls trying to redistribute wealth, etc etc.

-Immediately begin pressuring Obama on tax reform (something that is pretty popular with the public and Obama has shown interest in). Start passing bills in the house that lower everyone's tax rates and closes or caps deductions. There's a decent chance you get away with getting rich people to pay less in taxes than they currently do now

So in the end the rich will be paying about what they are now, but you get away with cuts to "entitlements" and you pick up some significant political ammo for midterm elections and beyond.





Obviously there are some hiccups that could occur in that plan, but to me it's so preferable when compared with backing yourself into a corner by toeing the line of some arbitrary "tax pledge" that was signed years ago. Their current stubbornness just makes them look unintelligent and not resourceful IMO.

12/13/2012 8:06:55 PM

The House worked 2 days this week and 2 days last week.

I guess Boehner doesn't really give a fuck and needs to go back to his bottle of bourbon.

12/13/2012 8:11:12 PM

^^ not only unintelligent and not resourceful, but they're picking a losing fight in my view.

12/13/2012 8:16:39 PM

Quote :

"Democrats Declare Checkmate in Fiscal Cliff Debate If Boehner refuses to pass the Senate bill before the end of the year, Democrats say their hand only gets stronger in the new year when the Senate will have 55 Democrats and at least five Republicans who have signaled they could vote to extend the middle-class tax cuts. “We have the political high ground -- there is no question about it. The sooner they realize it, the better it will be for them,” Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer said of the Republicans. “In 2010 it was the opposite. They had the political high ground and we had to do just about all cuts and no revenues. Now, the election was fought on revenues; we won it on revenues; the public is with us on revenues.” Indeed, polls show that a majority of Americans favor raising taxes on the wealthy and will blame the GOP if the country goes over the cliff. And Democrats don’t believe that Republicans have the time, the megaphone or the leverage to force Democrats into making significant entitlement cuts right now. Congress just spent the last year making more than $1 trillion in cuts and Democrats say they are well-insulated from charges that they’re unwilling to slash spending. “If we go over the cliff, it doesn’t last long. That’s why these guys are fundamentally checkmated,” said a senior Democratic leadership aide."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress-legacy/democrats-declare-checkmate-in-fiscal-cliff-debate-20121213

12/13/2012 9:12:30 PM

U.S. Ranks Dead Last In Overall Social Spending

Quote :

"The United States currently ranks thirty-fourth(34th) out of the thirty-four(34) members of the OECD in regards to spending on social programs, DEAD LAST. The amount the United States spends is currently only 7.2% of our gross domestic product on programs that make up our social contract with the American people. Remember a year ago when the conservative deficit hawks were warning that if the United States doesn’t start looking at our social programs we would end up like Greece? They told us the reason Greece was in financial trouble was due to their social programs and if we, the United States didn’t want to become like Greece, we needed to cut back on our social expenditures. Well Greece spends 21.3% on social programs, 14.1% more than the United States does. That is a big difference! Canada currently spends 26% of their GDP on social programs, yet their national debt is very small compared to the United States, it is about 50% of GDP. So is spending on social programs the real problem in America? According to these figures and data, the answer is no. It is a fabricated lie by those who seek to abolish the social contract and the new deal created almost 100 years ago."

http://www.politicususa.com/u-s-ranks-dead-last-in-overall-social-spending.html

12/13/2012 10:10:03 PM

Sweet, we need to open that gap up further, close the gap with military spending, and a bunch of other fiscal reforms.

12/13/2012 10:42:18 PM

^^

Quote :

"Update: I used some information that has since been corrected on the original site, Business Insider. It turns out that the United States spends 16.2% of our GDP on social programs, NOT 7.2%."

Jesus, just a bit off. That's why you shouldn't read stupid shit like that, makes you dumb, Then posting it makes you look real dumb.

12/14/2012 1:44:59 AM