it really really difficult earn money

[ariswin]

why it's so difficult to get money, is it normal? but few people r easy to make money, is it normal?

[joshSCH]

umm.. if you're smart enough then it isn't that hard :P

[Lardmeister]

Making lots of money is easy, but you have to learn (legally/politically) not to pay taxes on it, so it will be yours!

[MidiMagic]

The problem is that government takes 72 percent of the average worker's money in taxes. About half of that value is hidden in the purchase prices of the products you buy (and pay all the business taxes through).

So the more you ask government to do for you, the harder it is to work to get money. People are working 4 times as hard to make ends meet as they would have to work if there were no taxes. And if we "get" national health care, workers will have to work 10 times as hard.

For every person who doesn't work, someone else has to work twice as hard. Nothing is free.

[joshSCH]

Once again, you are spouting quite untrue, stupid information. BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS!!!!! GEEZ man.. how many times do I have to tell you.. no one is going to believe anything you ever say, because one, it's always ridiculous, and two, you never back it up with factual data!!!!

[MidiMagic]

Once again, you are spouting quite untrue, stupid information. BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS!!!!! GEEZ man.. how many times do I have to tell you.. no one is going to believe anything you ever say, because one, it's always ridiculous, and two, you never back it up with factual data!!!!

I did so once. I will do it again. But I am not going to send you to websites, because you would just discount them.

Instead, I want you to walk through the figures on your own income, the same as I did with mine. Get all of the figures from your governments, and ask businesses what portion of their product prices are their own taxes passed on to consumers (this is hard to get).

First of all, figure your direct taxes. If you are a typical worker, your total direct taxes will look something like this (these are my actual values from 2005):

- Federal income tax: 13 %
- Social tax (SS, MC, SSI, SMA) 7.5 %
- State income tax: 3.4 % (varies by state)
- County income tax: 1 % (varies by state)
- Real Estate tax: 2% (varies by locality)
- Sales tax: 6% (varies by state)
- Trash, sewer, and storm water tax: 1% (my city - required use by law)
- Miscellaneous taxes (utility, personal property, township, etc): 2.1%

Total personal direct taxation: 36 %

(Utility tax is the taxes tacked onto utility bills, not the utility use charges. But if government requires everyone to use THEIR monopoly utility (e.g. the trash collection, sewer, and storm water above) as opposed to letting people choose service providers, then it is a tax.)

Note that I didn't include gasoline tax, auto license taxes, or royalty taxes, since individuals are not required by law to use them.

But there are also hidden taxes:

Because your employer has to pay payroll tax on your job, your salary was reduced by 7.5 percent of your current salary (it is 93 % of what it would have been without the payroll tax).

Note that the business can't absorb this out of profit, because the tax is much larger than the profit. And if you don't want to count it as a reduction of your income, you have to count it as an increased cost of producing the product your employer makes. It costs you the same amount either way.

Subtotal: 43.5%

But now we must consider how much of the purchase price of each product is hidden tax.

The business must pay taxes too. And because the taxes are much larger than the profits, the only other source of money to pay the tax is to raise the price of the product. The taxes paid by each typical business are about 20 percent of its gross income (not profit) from the product. But there are at least 3 businesses the product passes through from raw materials to retail sale (manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer). This assumes the motor fuel taxes for transport are paid by the wholesaler. When these taxes are compounded, they equal around 50 percent of the product price.

That's right. About half of the price you pay for products is tax, because too many governments want to tax business too much! The tax does not come out of profit, but increases the price the business charges for the product. This can happen because all businesses selling the same product are subject to the same tax.

So YOU pay all business taxes on the products you buy.

Since 43.5% of your own income is direct or payroll tax, the rest is your real disposable income, 56.5%. But about half of that is tax, or 28.25%.

Total: 71.75%

I rounded it to 72% in the post, because the amount is approximate.

If you don't believe that, then compare the figures found in the back of the federal 1040 tax booklet. The social taxes and payroll taxes are 15% of the total economy, and 32% of the federal income. The remaining 68% is taxes you pay, either through direct taxation, or through increased product prices.

Since the 32% of the tax revenue is 15% of the entire economy, the entire federal tax revenue is about 47% of the economy. Adding in state and local taxes brings it up to about 72% of the economy.

So only 28% of your income actually went into the production of the products you buy.

The federal statistics hide this, by counting some of the same money twice. They add business income to personal income to get Gross National Income (GNI), forgetting that the personal income comes from payrolls taken OUT of the business income. Using the GNI, they "demonstrate" how taxes are a much smaller portion of the economy.

Liberals refuse to believe these figures, because:

1. They worship government, and can't believe government would do this to them. Instead, they blame the employers for not taking the hidden taxes (which are larger than profit) out of profit.

2. They believe in the disproved Keynesian Economic Theory. According to Keynesian economic equations, government can create wealth by spending money (it cant), and some believe that, if government becomes large enough, people won't have to work (this is preposterous).

If the Keynesian Economic Theory were true, the late 1970s would have been prosperous, rather than an economic disaster. This period showed that the Neoclassical model is much more accurate. But under neoclassical economics, the only source of wealth is work.

If you don't believe me, then show me that I am wrong.

[joshSCH]

I did so once. I will do it again.

Yes, that would be nice.

Instead, I want you to walk through the figures on your own income, the same as I did with mine. Get all of the figures from your governments, and ask businesses what portion of their product prices are their own taxes passed on to consumers (this is hard to get).

First of all, figure your direct taxes. If you are a typical worker, your total direct taxes will look something like this (these are my actual values from 2005):

- Federal income tax: 13 %
- Social tax (SS, MC, SSI, SMA) 7.5 %
- State income tax: 3.4 % (varies by state)
- County income tax: 1 % (varies by state)
- Real Estate tax: 2% (varies by locality)
- Sales tax: 6% (varies by state)
- Trash, sewer, and storm water tax: 1% (my city - required use by law)
- Miscellaneous taxes (utility, personal property, township, etc): 2.1%

Total personal direct taxation: 36 %

Okay, I'll assume that you didn't lie about these stats.

(Utility tax is the taxes tacked onto utility bills, not the utility use charges. But if government requires everyone to use THEIR monopoly utility (e.g. the trash collection, sewer, and storm water above) as opposed to letting people choose service providers, then it is a tax.)

No, because you would have to pay for it anyway idiot.

But there are also hidden taxes:

Because your employer has to pay payroll tax on your job, your salary was reduced by 7.5 percent of your current salary (it is 93 % of what it would have been without the payroll tax).

Note that the business can't absorb this out of profit, because the tax is much larger than the profit. And if you don't want to count it as a reduction of your income, you have to count it as an increased cost of producing the product your employer makes. It costs you the same amount either way.

Subtotal: 43.5%

You moron.. even if that is true, then it is already deducted when you receive your paycheck.. so you just added it AGAIN to the total percentage.

But now we must consider how much of the purchase price of each product is hidden tax.

The business must pay taxes too. And because the taxes are much larger than the profits, the only other source of money to pay the tax is to raise the price of the product. The taxes paid by each typical business are about 20 percent of its gross income (not profit) from the product. But there are at least 3 businesses the product passes through from raw materials to retail sale (manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer). This assumes the motor fuel taxes for transport are paid by the wholesaler. When these taxes are compounded, they equal around 50 percent of the product price.

That's right. About half of the price you pay for products is tax, because too many governments want to tax business too much! The tax does not come out of profit, but increases the price the business charges for the product. This can happen because all businesses selling the same product are subject to the same tax.

That is by far the dumbest thing I have ever heard of... and of course, you provide no evidence at all for this.. so, I will assume you made it all up (since this is what you usually do).

If you don't believe that, then compare the figures found in the back of the federal 1040 tax booklet. The social taxes and payroll taxes are 15% of the total economy, and 32% of the federal income. The remaining 68% is taxes you pay, either through direct taxation, or through increased product prices.

Since the 32% of the tax revenue is 15% of the entire economy, the entire federal tax revenue is about 47% of the economy. Adding in state and local taxes brings it up to about 72% of the economy.

So only 28% of your income actually went into the production of the products you buy.

The federal statistics hide this, by counting some of the same money twice. They add business income to personal income to get Gross National Income (GNI), forgetting that the personal income comes from payrolls taken OUT of the business income. Using the GNI, they "demonstrate" how taxes are a much smaller portion of the economy.

Wrong.. Idiotic.. Stupid.. you obviously know nothing of economics.

2. They believe in the disproved Keynesian Economic Theory. According to Keynesian economic equations, government can create wealth by spending money (it cant), and some believe that, if government becomes large enough, people won't have to work (this is preposterous).

You are such a dumbass!! Keynesian economics believe that the government should do something in order to fix the business cycle.. previously, it was believed that the business cycle would auto-correct. And yes, the government can create wealth by spending money. It's called fiscal policy. But, you're a dumbass and you wouldn't know that. This is how fiscal police works: There are two options.. 1.)Increase government spending which increases employment which causes consumer and business spending to go up, thus increasing GDP. The other way is to raise taxes.. which is political suicide, and the politicians would never do it.

If the Keynesian Economic Theory were true, the late 1970s would have been prosperous, rather than an economic disaster. This period showed that the Neoclassical model is much more accurate. But under neoclassical economics, the only source of wealth is work.

You seriously are the stupidest person on the planet, aren't you? In 1975 we switched to the view of the monetarists.. which is what most people are today. Monetarists basically believe that the economy is in the hands of the federal reserve, and monetary policy.

Neoclassical model?? WTF? This came prior to Keynesian economics, and they believed that the economy was self-correcting.. These people held the belief that the business cycle would always bounce back.. However, in 1929, this model was proven inadequate b/c it did not fix itself during the Great Depression. The government was forced to intervene, hence the evolution of Keynesian economics. Today, the neoclassical model is garbage, and no one believes in it.

Okay, so.. we have just proven that you know absolutely zilch about economics.. Do you possess intellect in any field at all? Or are you just an all-around stupid person?

[MidiMagic]

No, because you would have to pay for it anyway idiot.

- I wouldn't have to pay the storm water tax if the government hadn't squandered the money originally earmarked for it on art.

- I wouldn't have to pay the sewer tax if government didn't require sewers. I would have a septic tank. But government sees it as a way to get more money to waste on trivia.

- We used to drive to the dump with our trash for free.

You moron.. even if that is true, then it is already deducted when you receive your paycheck.. so you just added it AGAIN to the total percentage.

The name calling subtracts from your argument. And it's not the same money. The government takes 7.5% from you, and makes the employer pay a matching 7.5%, for a total of 15%. But you end up paying it yourself, either as a loss in your paycheck, or as an added cost which does not go into producing the product, but which is included in theprice of the product.

That is by far the dumbest thing I have ever heard of... and of course, you provide no evidence at all for this.. so, I will assume you made it all up (since this is what you usually do).

Wrong.. Idiotic.. Stupid.. you obviously know nothing of economics.

You are such a dumbass!! Keynesian economics believe that the government should do something in order to fix the business cycle.. previously, it was believed that the business cycle would auto-correct. And yes, the government can create wealth by spending money. It's called fiscal policy. But, you're a dumbass and you wouldn't know that. This is how fiscal police works: There are two options.. 1.)Increase government spending which increases employment which causes consumer and business spending to go up, thus increasing GDP. The other way is to raise taxes.. which is political suicide, and the politicians would never do it.

You seriously are the stupidest person on the planet, aren't you? In 1975 we switched to the view of the monetarists.. which is what most people are today. Monetarists basically believe that the economy is in the hands of the federal reserve, and monetary policy.

Neoclassical model?? WTF? This came prior to Keynesian economics, and they believed that the economy was self-correcting.. These people held the belief that the business cycle would always bounce back.. However, in 1929, this model was proven inadequate b/c it did not fix itself during the Great Depression. The government was forced to intervene, hence the evolution of Keynesian economics. Today, the neoclassical model is garbage, and no one believes in it.

Okay, so.. we have just proven that you know absolutely zilch about economics.. Do you possess intellect in any field at all? Or are you just an all-around stupid person?

[MidiMagic]

I hit the %$#$# time limit, so I have to do the second half again.

You moron.. even if that is true, then it is already deducted when you receive your paycheck.. so you just added it AGAIN to the total percentage.

The name calling subtracts from your argument.

And it's not the same money. The government takes 7.5% from you, and makes the employer pay a matching 7.5%, for a total of 15%. But you end up paying it yourself, either as a loss in your paycheck, or as an added cost which does not go into producing the product, but which is included in the price of the product.

That is by far the dumbest thing I have ever heard of... and of course, you provide no evidence at all for this.. so, I will assume you made it all up (since this is what you usually do).

Wrong.. Idiotic.. Stupid.. you obviously know nothing of economics.

You are such a dumbass!!

Your credibility is slipping. Argumentum ad hominum (name calling and abuse) is also a fallacious argument mode. very illogical.

Keynesian economics believe that the government should do something in order to fix the business cycle.. previously, it was believed that the business cycle would auto-correct.

That's classical economics. Neoclassical economics believes that government should do something, but that Keynesians are doing it wrong.

And yes, the government can create wealth by spending money. It's called fiscal policy.

That's NOT creating wealth. That's unbalancing markets so it looks like there is more wealth.

Creating money and creating wealth are two different things. Only work can create wealth.

That is is how fiscal police works: There are two options.. 1.)Increase government spending which increases employment which causes consumer and business spending to go up, thus increasing GDP. The other way is to raise taxes.. which is political suicide, and the politicians would never do it.

You don't even have the Keynesian model right. That is CUT taxes, not raise them. Raising taxes causes a recession in both Keynesian and Neoclassical economics.

You seriously are the stupidest person on the planet, aren't you?

More illogical argument?

In 1975 we switched to the view of the monetarists.. which is what most people are today. Monetarists basically believe that the economy is in the hands of the federal reserve, and monetary policy.

That is still part of Keynesian economics. And when the Democrats took over both Congress and the White House, they piled fiscal policy on top of the monetary policy. The result was 18 percent inflation and 15 percent unemployment.

Neoclassical model?? This came prior to Keynesian economics, and they believed that the economy was self-correcting.

That's the Classical model. The Neoclassical model says that the economy needs correction, but timed differently than the Keynesian model, and for different reasons.

However, in 1929, this model was proven inadequate b/c it did not fix itself during the Great Depression.

This is because the people running the federal reserve were also playing the stock market, and adjusting the monetary policy to make their stocks rise. The entire reason the depression lasted so long was that the dollar was too large, and there were not enough in circulation. But we didn't know enough about monetary policy to know that then.

The Keynesian fiscal policy also helped prolong the depression, because it was in overshoot.

The government was forced to intervene, hence the evolution of Keynesian economics. Today, the neoclassical model is garbage, and no one believes in it.

People believe the Keynesian model only because it the teachers unions demand that it be taught in public schools.

Okay, so.. we have just proven that you know absolutely zilch about economics.. Do you possess intellect in any field at all? Or are you just an all-around stupid person?

I have a minor in Economics.

The Neoclassical model believes in using fiscal and monetary policy together to quell the business cycle. Liberals try to stop the business cycle at the boom side, which is not possible.

Here is how fiscal policy works in Neoclassical economics:

- Fiscal policy is applied in a short burst to increase the output of the economy when it is heading downward, nto when it is at the bottom (which is too late).

- If fiscal policy is applied in a continuous action, it causes oscillation. The economy gets better for a while.

- The fiscal policy, combined with the better economy, causes inflation after a delay. The money market is slow to react, producing the delay.

- The inflation then causes a recession, counteracting the fiscal policy. The change in the national debt by the fiscal; policy also adds to the recession, again after a delay.

- The recession removes the inflation after a delay.

The purpose of fiscal policy in Neoclassical economics is to stop the oscillations, not to increase the production value. So it must be timed to act in the opposite direction of the motion of the economy, but a quarter cycle earlier, because of the delays.

Neoclassical economics also predicts other effects which are observed, but which are not predicted by Keynesian economics:

- Markets can never stay in an unbalanced state. They always return to balance, causing side effects to government policies.

- The side effects of policy always work to undo the policy, but usually after a delay.

- Government can't create permanent jobs. The side effects take away more jobs elsewhere.

- The minimum wage is undone by the side effects of inflation and unemployment.

- Price ceilings cause shortages.

- Price floors cause surpluses.

- The economy must oscillate around a natural center point. Only one thing can permanently move the center point to a better economy, and that is a permanent reduction of taxes. Everything else just increases or decreases oscillation around the center point.

All of these effects have been observed over the last 80 years. Keynesians blame "greedy businesses" for the side effects that ruin their policies. Instead, it is the result of the side effects of Keynesian policy itself unbalancing markets.

If you can't do better than spout the union beliefs your 12th grade teachers parroted, I suggest you take some real university econ.

[bumsfeld]

I agree with MidiMagic, the name calling is very immature! Most countries in Europe take about 50% taxes from you, and people have gotten used to it. For that we get free healthcare too!

[joshSCH]

Your credibility is slipping. Argumentum ad hominum (name calling and abuse) is also a fallacious argument mode. very illogical.

I've been using an ad hominem attack against you.. attacking your credibility is actually a legit form of argument and thus logical.

That's classical economics. Neoclassical economics believes that government should do something, but that Keynesians are doing it wrong.

Wrong. You are confused. I suggest you research the different economic models.

That's NOT creating wealth. That's unbalancing markets so it looks like there is more wealth.

Creating money and creating wealth are two different things. Only work can create wealth.

..and may I ask, what is your definition of 'wealth' ?

That is still part of Keynesian economics. And when the Democrats took over both Congress and the White House, they piled fiscal policy on top of the monetary policy. The result was 18 percent inflation and 15 percent unemployment.

huh? What are you talking about? Idiot.. the high stagflation of the early 80s was solved by the federal reserve. You have no idea at all what you're talking about.

That's the Classical model. The Neoclassical model says that the economy needs correction, but timed differently than the Keynesian model, and for different reasons.

Absolutely wrong. Do some research. The neoclassical model says that NO intervention is needed in economics.

This is because the people running the federal reserve were also playing the stock market, and adjusting the monetary policy to make their stocks rise. The entire reason the depression lasted so long was that the dollar was too large, and there were not enough in circulation. But we didn't know enough about monetary policy to know that then.

Okay, first of all you can't 'adjust monetary police to make stocks rise'. That there is a stupid statement. The reason the depression lasted so long was because it took forever for the government to actually intervene in economics.. remember, they were all neoclassical believers up until this point.. in which, everyone switched to Keynesian.

The Keynesian fiscal policy also helped prolong the depression, because it was in overshoot.

This statement is stupid.. completely wrong.

People believe the Keynesian model only because it the teachers unions demand that it be taught in public schools.

hahaha.. you just get dumber every second don't you? There are still many Keynesian believers out there (George W. Bush included), but most people are now monetarists.

I have a minor in Economics.

Where from? Some joke community college apparently.

The Neoclassical model believes in using fiscal and monetary policy together to quell the business cycle. Liberals try to stop the business cycle at the boom side, which is not possible.

WRONG! The neoclassical model came BEFORE fiscal and monetary policy. Wow.. are your parents this stupid too?

Seriously dude.. I don't understand how you are so stupid. Are you really a 9 year-old child? This is what reason has led me to believe.. Have you even graduated from high school? If you went right now and took the Economics and Physics AP tests, you would score a 0. If you took the SAT, you would score in the negatives. If you even enrolled in a high school course, you would fail. Your IQ is probably below average. Basically, you suck at life. You're nothing more than a failure.

[Infarction]

I agree with MidiMagic, the name calling is very immature! Most countries in Europe take about 50% taxes from you, and people have gotten used to it. For that we get free healthcare too!

And while it seems to work decently in Europe, I don't see it working well in the US for several generations. Our culture is just too different for that, and a lot of people probably don't trust the government to actually provide decent services (of any sort...)

Wrong. You are confused. I suggest you research the different economic models.

I know nothing of economics or the theory behind it, but I'd expect someone with a minor in the subject to have some idea of what they're talking about. Where's your credibility coming from, Josh? Or did I miss it somewhere in the "No, you're wrong go look it up" argument so prevalent in this forum?

That's NOT creating wealth. That's unbalancing markets so it looks like there is more wealth.

Creating money and creating wealth are two different things. Only work can create wealth.

..and may I ask, what is your definition of 'wealth' ?

Making money has never equated to making wealth. Wealth is a relative measurement of one party's assets to another party's; the party with more is the wealthier of the two. Making wealth, then, must occur from a means of acquiring assets. If we assume a constant amount of currency in circulation, then this only occurs in transactions between parties.

Making money on the other hand will decrease the value of currency. This could create wealth, but only as a side effect, or if there is only one party creating the currency. The side effect would be that anybody having non-cash assets would find that the monetary value of their assets would increase, causing them to appear more wealthy compared to a party whose assets lie primarily in cash reserves (which would be dropping in value).

Seriously dude.. I don't understand how you are so stupid. Are you really a 9 year-old child? This is what reason has led me to believe.. Have you even graduated from high school? If you went right now and took the Economics and Physics AP tests, you would score a 0. If you took the SAT, you would score in the negatives. If you even enrolled in a high school course, you would fail. Your IQ is probably below average. Basically, you suck at life. You're nothing more than a failure.

Wow. Your argument is so stunningly brilliant that I'm completely convinced. The only thing it's missing is data, some explanations of said data and how they relate to your argument, and perhaps a touch of a point other than attacking people.

[Lardmeister]

...
Seriously dude.. I don't understand how you are so stupid. Are you really a 9 year-old child? This is what reason has led me to believe.. Have you even graduated from high school? If you went right now and took the Economics and Physics AP tests, you would score a 0. If you took the SAT, you would score in the negatives. If you even enrolled in a high school course, you would fail. Your IQ is probably below average. Basically, you suck at life. You're nothing more than a failure.

I am very certain that any 9 year old child would use better language and debate than that stuff above.

[EnderX]

@JoshSCH:

You may be right. MidiMagic may be wrong. I neither know enough, nor (at this point in time) care enough to determine who is correct between the two of you on my own.

However, by presenting the arguments the two of you are in this forum, I find myself agreeing with MidiMagic. He tends to present arguments bolstered by at least some evidence. Once I find the time (and inclination; again, at the moment I really don't care about the topic itself) to look into it, I can attempt to verify, either for confirmation or denial, what MidiMagic has stated. You, on the other hand, seem to revolve around direct personal insults as your main mode of debate. This is not an attack on the credibility of the person, which would indeed be valid, it is an attack on the person. Calling someone an idiot does not decrease their credibility except among those who would be willing to accept any comment tossed out by any random individual.

And I'm sorry, Josh, but your style is the one that reminds me of a nine-year old child. The type of attacks (and they are attacks) you make against MidiMagic's person sound more like the tauntings of an elementary school child than any kind of reasoned response.

If you have hard facts to bolster your statements, Josh, please provide them for us to view ourselves. Otherwise, I'm afraid that I, at least, will view your own arguments (given without evidence of your own counterpoints) as being a 'shoot the messenger' syndrome for those whose statements you disagree with...which would tend to bias me in favor of their arguments.

Stop picking Midimagic...Josh your post doesn't make any sense.

[Lardmeister]

It also seems to depend in which currency you make your money. If you made your money in Euro or Canadian Dollars in the past few years, you would be 30% richer than someone who made US Dollars.

Look at the Chinese, they have bought close to a trillion dollars in US treasury bonds which was used to finance the war in Iraq. Now with the US Dollar sinking like the Titanic, they have lost huge sums of money! There is a saying: "A fool and his money are soon parted!"

[MidiMagic]

I will quote from the macroeconomics book I used in college:

"Modern macroeconomics is often seen as a battleground for conflict between two implacably opposed schools of thought - monetarism, represented by its champion, Milton Friedman, and "keynesianism", or nonmonetarism, or fiscalism, represented by economists such as Franco Modigliani and James Tobin. This view is seriously misleading. There are indeed conflicts of opinion and even theory between monetarists and nonmonetarism, but much more there are major areas of agreement: there is far more to macroeconomics than the topics on which monetarists and fiscalists disagree. We do not emphasize the monetarist-fiscalist debate in this book, preferring to discuss substantive, while mentioning alternative views where relevant."

Macroeconomics
Rudiger Dornbusch & Stanley Fischer
(C) 1978 McGraw-Hill page 5

In the book, they then outline how all markets interact with each other, how markets cannot stay out of balance, how monetary and fiscal policy interlock together, and how, if misused, fiscal and monetary policies create an oscillatory feedback loop.

[Ravenous Wolf]

i have a very low grasp of economics but i know that keynesianism is being used outside of where it is supposed to be used. correct me if i am wrong but is the basis of keynes not that when there are large amounts of unused resources because of recession or something like that then the government can by means of fiscal or monetary policy draw those unused resources into production. it does not say anything about creating wealth based on a concept of not working. in fact its backbone is getting the idle economic resources to work. so i dont quite get what midimagic means about faulty kaynesianism. is it possible that he understands it incorrectly? or that others use keynes beyond what it was meant tobe used. like i said unused resources.

as for the taxes. i am not going to argue percentages with him but his argument seems plausable. i find it hard to believe that government would tax up to 72% but josch provides no logical arguments against it. just some name calling.

i also agree with midimagic that the only way to earn money is for someone(not nescesarily the one ending up with it) to work for it. even in a world without money it would still apply. someone has to make the nets and boats used in fishing. or plow the land for agriculture. there is no such thing as a free lunch. only a stolen one. of course this does not say you should not be an entrepeneur who makes an honest profit.

[Lardmeister]

You only make (real) money, if you know something not everyone else knows! The stock market is a good example of this.

[jwenting]

You only make (real) money, if you know something not everyone else knows! The stock market is a good example of this.

yes, we make a lot of money selling stock market information to stock brokers :)

[Lardmeister]

My dad argues that if your stock broker is't a very rich person, he isn't very good.

[Lardmeister]

Just saw a strange definition of "rich" on TV:
"If your commode (toilet) is made form Italian marble and costs $26,000, then you might be considered rich, or a minister of the Faith Healing Christian Churches of America."

[bumsfeld]

Lardmeister, thanks for some real definitions of "rich"! It's funny to see people vote conservative just because they think they are rich making $80,000 per year!

My definition of rich is to be able to buy one yacht, one fancy Mercedes car and one $16,000 umbrella stand with your lose pocket change. This may be eaqual to your hourly income.

[Infarction]

Lardmeister, thanks for some real definitions of "rich"! It's funny to see people vote conservative just because they think they are rich making $80,000 per year!

I don't know where that is, but I want to move there... :P

My definition of rich is to be able to buy one yacht, one fancy Mercedes car and one $16,000 umbrella stand with your lose pocket change. This may be eaqual to your hourly income.

That's a little excessive IMHO, but I would give a similar definition...

[jwenting]

I wonder why bumsfeld seems to think only "rich" people vote "conservative" (by which he probably means Republican, when most of the richest people in the world are hardline communists (many of whom got that rich by stealing from everyone else).

[bumsfeld]

I wonder why bumsfeld seems to think only "rich" people vote "conservative" (by which he probably means Republican, when most of the richest people in the world are hardline communists (many of whom got that rich by stealing from everyone else).

Just give us couple of actual names of those supper rich pinkos!

My definition of Republican is guy driving large pickup truck with couple of guns displayed in the back window. Conservative is something much more noble!

[Infarction]

Just give us couple of actual names of those supper rich pinkos!

Bill Gates. Not communist, but liberal (Democrat).

[Ravenous Wolf]

in american politics what exactly is the difference between republican and conservative? and then there are repulican and democratic too? isn't everyone democratic in america? everyone vote or has the right to. does that not make it democratic?

[Ancient Dragon]

in america a democrat is a political party, not a type of government. And No, the USA is not a democracy but is a republic. There are no true democracies anywhere in the world. A republican is also a political party. The terms liberal and conservative are also used to mean democrats and republications -- why I have no idea, its a little confusing to many of us too.

[jwenting]

especially since what Americans call a "liberal", Europeans call a socialist.
The term "conservative" was coined by the left to make rightthinking people look like a bunch of stone age idiots who can't stand "progress". The left call themselves "progressive"...
In reality it's the left that can't stand progress, or rather they want change for the sake of change and only towards goals that have been shown time and again to lead to disaster (world communism, socialised healthcare, massive government, skyhigh taxes, total government control over everyday life, nationalisation of industry, etc. etc.).