General Investing and Economics Discussion - No Politics

[Lotta Booze]

Ok, I’ll play cite ONE item above that’s incorrect.

Every single argument you try to ascribe to me. Those are all lies.

You still have not posted one shred of evidence that the Chinese government created COVID-19. You're crafting a conspiracy.

What other facts are you going to start posting? The melting point of steel and the temperature that jet fuel burns at?

If you believe that the Chinese government created this, which you clearly do, then that's fine. Whatever. But don't also say that you only believe in things backed up with evidence. Because you still have not provided a shred of it.

 

[Lotta Booze]

And also:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext

"We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens. This is further supported by a letter from the presidents of the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine and by the scientific communities they represent. Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus. We support the call from the Director-General of WHO to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture."

 

[LibertyTurns]

Every single argument you try to ascribe to me. Those are all lies.

You still have not posted one shred of evidence that the Chinese government created COVID-19. You're crafting a conspiracy.

What other facts are you going to start posting? The melting point of steel and the temperature that jet fuel burns at?

If you believe that the Chinese government created this, which you clearly do, then that's fine. Whatever. But don't also say that you only believe in things backed up with evidence. Because you still have not provided a shred of it.

I stated facts the. based on those reached my own conclusion.

Fact- Originated in Wuhan
Fact- Wuhan has Chinese military’s bio terror weapons lab
Fact- Chinese Wuhan bioterror weapons lab previously, specifically SARS V-2
Fact- Chinese researchers are know to sell animals they’re done using for research at local markets for cash

I can go on. All you post is: Lie, Not True, etc. Gimme some evidence anything you’re posting is not a lie other than you have an opinion, ie refute a single fact. You have none other to suggest others are lying.

 

[awbuzz]

What "better policies"? We've given big tax breaks to corporations, who instead of giving raises or saving for a rainy day plowed the money into stock buybacks which are now going down the toilet. Then come the CEOs groveling on their hands and knees for a bailout. The tax breaks fueled a trillion dollar deficit which is now going to be a >two trillion dollar deficit. I believe in capitalism, but this is Disaster Capitalism.

Tax revenues from 2017 to 2018 did increase by a very modest 10 billion dollars, but revenues as a percent of GDP went down 2.5%. The tax cuts increased the deficit.

Are people really that dense or just trolling?

Excessive spending caused the deficit.

If you make more money but then spend more than the additional that you made, you were spending at a deficit rate.

 

[Lotta Booze]

I stated facts the. based on those reached my own conclusion.

Fact- Originated in Wuhan
Fact- Wuhan has Chinese military’s bio terror weapons lab
Fact- Chinese Wuhan bioterror weapons lab previously, specifically SARS V-2
Fact- Chinese researchers are know to sell animals they’re done using for research at local markets for cash

I can go on. All you post is: Lie, Not True, etc. Gimme some evidence anything you’re posting is not a lie other than you have an opinion, ie refute a single fact. You have none other to suggest others are lying.

So no evidence...just speculation.

And sure, ignore the medical journal. Believe in your own speculation over scientists and doctors. Do you.

 

[awbuzz]

Yes, inflation is about 2% per year. So tax revenue increasing 2% per year is healthy. Why we're growing spending 9% per year is beyond me. Its ridiculously pathetic, but see the previous discussion on Medicare and Social Security. They're just pilfering the treasury.

Apparently the blind cannot see that fact.

 

[LibertyTurns]

So no evidence...just speculation.

And sure, ignore the medical journal. Believe in your own speculation over scientists and doctors. Do you.

I feel sorry for you. Have a great day.

 

[bobongo]

Excessive spending caused the deficit.

That's half the equation.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

That's half the equation.

If increasing taxes at roughly 2% a year (the general rate of inflation and growth of the economy) is only one-quarter enough to balance the books, yikes. Furthermore, if people think we need to be increasing taxes 9% per year so it matches spending levels, yikes again. That’s really confiscatory and damaging and unworkable. Do you want to keep paying 9% more than you paid last year, in perpetuity?

 

[Lotta Booze]

That's half the equation.

On the other side of this (hopefully sooner rather than later) I'll just have to laugh at anyone who thinks we can reduce spending to get out of the fiscal hole we're in. "It's a spending problem". Ok. Learn math.

 

[bobongo]

If increasing taxes at roughly 2% a year (the general rate of inflation and growth of the economy) is only one-quarter enough to balance the books, yikes. Furthermore, if people think we need to be increasing taxes 9% per year so it matches spending levels, yikes again. That’s really confiscatory and damaging and unworkable. Do you want to keep paying 9% more than you paid last year, in perpetuity?

I mean spending is half the equation and revenue is the other half.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Nobody will answer the question - are you okay paying 9% more taxes year after year in perpetuity?

For being science people, to take the position that increasing spending at 4x the rate of inflation is not a problem is pretty silly honestly. No problem here!

This is one of those times I wish we could just secede and let you all have fun with that if that’s what you want. Pay taxes until your hearts content. Just don’t pull me into that world.

 

[Lotta Booze]

Nobody will answer the question - are you okay paying 9% more taxes year after year in perpetuity?

For being science people, to take the position that increasing spending at 4x the rate of inflation is not a problem is pretty silly honestly. No problem here!

This is one of those times I wish we could just secede and let you all have fun with that if that’s what you want. Pay taxes until your hearts content. Just don’t pull me into that world.

I'll answer. Yeah sure.

If I'm paying 9% more in taxes year over year then that's because I'm making more money year over year. A OK with me!

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I'll answer. Yeah sure.

If I'm paying 9% more in taxes year over year then that's because I'm making more money year over year. A OK with me!

If only that’s what were happening. I should have clarified, since the median wage is increasing about 2% a year. Would you be okay with increasing your taxes 4x more each year than your raise?

 

[Lotta Booze]

If only that’s what were happening. I should have clarified, since the median wage is increasing about 2% a year. Would you be okay with increasing your taxes 4x more each year than your raise?

Is any politician proposing any plan like that whatsoever? I have not seen one even amongst the most "radical" socialists around

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Is any politician proposing any plan like that whatsoever? I have not seen one even amongst the most "radical" socialists around

LOL. That’s what you’d have to do to match the increase in spending to balance the budget. LOL, I’m illustrating to you the implications of what you’re advocating.

 

[Lotta Booze]

LOL. That’s what you’d have to do to match the increase in spending to balance the budget. LOL, I’m illustrating to you the implications of what you’re advocating.

No, because how you're defining raising taxes doesn't square up with raising tax rates. We've been over this before. You can clearly raise tax revenue without raising tax rates. And that's where your math falls apart on the whole "raising taxes 4x more than your raise". It doesn't work like that

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

I'll answer. Yeah sure.

If I'm paying 9% more in taxes year over year then that's because I'm making more money year over year. A OK with me!

Really? 9% per year. Have you heard the fable about Chinese rice and working for one grain of rice per day?
Just like the Chinese King, you sound like you have no understanding of compounding interest rates.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

No, because how you're defining raising taxes doesn't square up with raising tax rates. We've been over this before. You can clearly raise tax revenue without raising tax rates. And that's where your math falls apart on the whole "raising taxes 4x more than your raise". It doesn't work like that

So the answer is no. But you think you can find another way to get there by increasing the work force or something like that when unemployment is already at 3%.

 

[Lotta Booze]

Really? 9% per year. Have you heard the fable about Chinese rice and working for one grain of rice per day?
Just like the Chinese King, you sound like you have no understanding of compounding interest rates.

bwelbo's not talking about tax rates, just absolute tax revenue

In a super simple hypothetical if I'm making $100k and I'm paying a 20% flat tax rate I'm paying $20k in taxes. If I get a raise of $10k every year then I'm paying $2k more in taxes every year. Or....10% more every year. Yeah, I'll take that