Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Alighieri who wrote (679304)	10/17/2012 11:25:19 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) of 1573125

>> It means that at some point lowering taxes only leads to larger deficits, particularly when the nation is unable or unwilling to lower costs. Yes. There is a point below which you can lower tax rates and revenue will go down. That's true. We've never hit it and should keep lowering rates until we do, then increase them a tiny amount and that will be optimal. But we CAN lower costs and we must do it. That's the only viable option because no amount of additional taxes will solve the problem. Only cost cutting. >> The basic precepts of economic commonsense tells us that when the rich are already very rich more money won't cause them to create more jobs...only demand does that... The old chicken or the egg problem, and a point on which the left stays utterly confused. Why do you think we have had such tax policy in the past (all successful, I might add) including the section 38 investment credit, section 179 expense option, "bonus" depreciation, and various other expensing options in the tax code? And it has consistently worked. >> Of course...wealth is a zero sum game. Look at the distribution of wealth over the last 35 years for proof. That's a ridiculous claim. Just absurd. When the Waltons made all those billions it came right out of the pockets of poor people? That's nuts. Hell, Walmart provides jobs for 2.1 million otherwise unemployable people in their stores. That doesn't count construction personnel or the economic growth that is spurred in property surrounding their stores. There is no "wealth pie". It isn't like the money you make comes out of my pocket. I'm really quite surprised you made such a basic error. The idea that distribution of wealth in some way proves your claim is ridiculous. Yes, the wealthy got wealthier. But the fact that Zuckerberg has billions doesn't in any way adversely affect the poor and a s I'm just amazed you actually believe this nonsense.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next