Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 62

Thread: CBO Reports RECORD SURPLUS After Tax Cuts

  1. #31

    Default

    "Top marginal rate" does not effect many people. In 1961 (the first year on that chart) the rate applied to 0.00235% of the population (and only to the amounts of their income above a certain level). It is not a good basis for trying to see how much taxes were cut.

    https://taxfoundation.org/some-historical-tax-stats/

    The top marginal tax rate in 1960 was 91%, which applied to income over $200,000 (for single filers) or $400,000 (for married filers) – thresholds which correspond to approximately $1.5 million and $3 million, respectively, in today’s dollars. Approximately 0.00235% of households had income taxed at the top rate.
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Half the crap I write here is just to entertain myself.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-fr...gans-tax-cuts/

    Q. Did the 1981 Reagan tax cut spur enough economic growth that it paid for itself?
    A. When Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington in 1981, circumstances were very different than they are today. Inflation was nearly 10 percent. The Federal Reserve had pushed interest rates into double digits. The federal debt was about half what it is today, measured as a share of the economy. The Reagan tax cut was huge. The top rate fell from 70 percent to 50 percent. The tax cut didn’t pay for itself. According to later Treasury estimates, it reduced federal revenues by about 9 percent in the first couple of years. In fact, most of the top Reagan administration officials didn’t think the tax cut would pay for itself. They were counting on spending cuts to avoid blowing up the deficit. But they never materialized.

    Q. So the spending cuts never materialized, the deficit increased, and then what?

    A. As projections for the deficit worsened, it became clear that the 1981 tax cut was too big. So with Reagan’s signature, Congress undid a good chunk of the 1981 tax cut by raising taxes a lot in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987. George H.W. Bush signed another tax increase in 1990 and Bill Clinton did the same in 1993. One lesson from that history: When tax cuts are really too big to be sustainable, they’re often followed by tax increases.
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Half the crap I write here is just to entertain myself.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  4. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dean.engelhardt View Post
    Balanced Budget Amendment or GTFO.

    In terms of messaging, current GOP team doesn't seem to capitalize on such things as Dems did.









    What happeened, Isreal-Palestine conflict fallout balooned military spending and killed debt free projections?

    Today Debt is how many $Trillions?

  5. #34

  6. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    We decided that we needed a couple of decades-long wars, plus some smaller wars on the side.
    Bush tax cuts combined with starting major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush wanted to "return the money to the (rich) people".
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Half the crap I write here is just to entertain myself.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  7. #36

    Default

    https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-...-idUSL1N1TE1MB

    U.S. government posts $147 billion deficit in May

    WASHINGTON, June 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. government had a $147 billion budget deficit in May, an increase of 66 percent from the same month last year as the ledger took a hit from declining revenue and higher spending, according to Treasury Department data released on Tuesday.

    Treasury reported a budget deficit of $88 billion in the same month last year, the department’s monthly budget statement showed.

    Economists polled by Reuters had forecast the Treasury recording a $144 billion deficit in May.

    When accounting for calendar adjustments, the government’s deficit was $131 billion compared to an adjusted deficit of $88 billion in the same month in the previous year.

    Economists caution that the Trump administration’s corporate and individual tax cuts along with an increase in government spending will drive up the country’s deficit despite a robust economy in which the unemployment rate has fallen to an 18-year low.
    More at link.
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Half the crap I write here is just to entertain myself.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  8. #37

    Default

    I've had a habit of checking the total debt for many years. One thing I've learned is that the numbers jump around a lot. The debt will barely grow for awhile, then it'll balloon like crazy. You almost have to look at it annually for it to make sense. We've been stuck at 20.1 T for a couple months but I expect by the end of the year it'll be pushing 21T.

    Democrats think lowering taxes always lowers revenue and republicans always thinks lowering taxes raises revenue. Both sides have it wrong. We're close to the peak of the laffer curve so it won't make much difference whether we lower or raise taxes. The real problem is the spending and Trump is increasing that like crazy.

    You know what's funny? I can always predict when Zippy and TheCount will reply to a thread. Anytime someone makes an easily refuted false claim in favor of republicans or against democrats, BOOM, like stink on poop, here comes Zippy and TheCount!
    Last edited by Madison320; 06-12-2018 at 01:58 PM.

  9. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I've had a habit of checking the total debt for many years. One thing I've learned is that the numbers jump around a lot. The debt will barely grow for awhile, then it'll balloon like crazy. You almost have to look at it annually for it to make sense. We've been stuck at 20.1 T for a couple months but I expect by the end of the year it'll be pushing 21T.

    Democrats think lowering taxes always lowers revenue and republicans always thinks lowering taxes raises revenue. Both sides have it wrong. We're close to the peak of the laffer curve so it won't make much difference whether we lower or raise taxes. The real problem is the spending and Trump is increasing that like crazy.
    Revenues and even spending do vary from month to month. April is a a high revenue month due to people paying income taxes then. Compared to last year, the May figures for the deficit was up 66%- a big increase.

    But do tax cuts lead to higher revenues? Short term, they definitely reduce them. Any economic stimulus of growing the economy- adding jobs which expands the tax base- takes a very long time to show up. It also depends on what people do with their tax cuts. If cuts are spend on goods and services, the economy can grow- people buy stuff so the stores need to order more goods from producers who need to hire more people to produce more. That happens if most of the tax cuts go to those at lower incomes since they spend more of their income on goods and services. If you cut taxes for the wealthy, they are not likely to increase their spending on goods and services so will not create more jobs. If Bill Gates gets another $100 million from tax cuts, he won't go buy more things. Give a million poor people another $100 and they will go to the stores and spend it.

    Trump cuts (like Bush cuts) went mostly to the wealthy so will have limited impact on stimulating the economy and expanding the tax base and thus tax revenues.

    Do you end up higher than if the tax cuts never happened? What percent of that growth was due to the tax cuts and what percent due to other factors?
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 06-12-2018 at 02:05 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Half the crap I write here is just to entertain myself.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  10. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Bush tax cuts combined with starting major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush wanted to "return the money to the (rich) people".
    I'll give you Iraq, but there's no realistic scenario in which we were not going to war with somebody after 9/11.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  11. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Revenues and even spending do vary from month to month. April is a a high revenue month due to people paying income taxes then. Compared to last year, the May figures for the deficit was up 66%- a big increase.

    But do tax cuts lead to higher revenues? Short term, they definitely reduce them. Any economic stimulus of growing the economy- adding jobs which expands the tax base- takes a very long time to show up. It also depends on what people do with their tax cuts. If cuts are spend on goods and services, the economy can grow- people buy stuff so the stores need to order more goods from producers who need to hire more people to produce more. That happens if most of the tax cuts go to those at lower incomes since they spend more of their income on goods and services. If you cut taxes for the wealthy, they are not likely to increase their spending on goods and services so will not create more jobs. If Bill Gates gets another $100 million from tax cuts, he won't go buy more things. Give a million poor people another $100 and they will go to the stores and spend it.

    Trump cuts (like Bush cuts) went mostly to the wealthy so will have limited impact on stimulating the economy and expanding the tax base and thus tax revenues.

    Do you end up higher than if the tax cuts never happened? What percent of that growth was due to the tax cuts and what percent due to other factors?
    I agree that in the short term tax cuts tend to reduce revenues. In the long run it depends on where you are on the laffer curve (all things being equal).

    You're totally wrong about tax cuts for the wealthy. Tax cuts for the wealthy is the main driver of economic growth. Poor people spending money does not grow the economy. Rich people investing in production is what grows the economy.

  12. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I agree that in the short term tax cuts tend to reduce revenues. In the long run it depends on where you are on the laffer curve (all things being equal).

    You're totally wrong about tax cuts for the wealthy. Tax cuts for the wealthy is the main driver of economic growth. Poor people spending money does not grow the economy. Rich people investing in production is what grows the economy.
    So growth comes from not from demand but from investment. If Ford Motor Company doubled the amount of cars they produce, would that would grow the economy- even if nobody could afford to buy any of those cars and they sat on sales lots? On the other hand, if people are buying more cars from Ford, they will start making more cars. You need both investment and demand. But without demand, the investment is wasted and produces nothing.

    If Bill Gates took his $100 million and bought Ford stock shares, how many jobs would that create? His broker will be delighted with the commission but won't add any jobs anywhere. If people bought $100 million worth of Ford cars, how many jobs would that create? Which has the bigger impact on jobs and hence tax revenues?
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 06-12-2018 at 02:36 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Half the crap I write here is just to entertain myself.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  13. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So growth comes from not from demand but from investment. If Ford Motor Company doubled the amount of cars they produce, would that would grow the economy- even if nobody could afford to buy any of those cars and they sat on sales lots? On the other hand, if people are buying more cars from Ford, they will start making more cars. You need both investment and demand. But without demand, the investment is wasted and produces nothing. If Bill Gates took his $100 million and bought Ford stock shares, how many jobs would that create? If people bought $100 million worth of Ford cars, how many jobs would that create? Which has the bigger impact on jobs and hence tax revenues?
    Investment grows the economy, not trading stocks. Demand is infinite. If Bill Gates invested 100 million in a super efficient car factory, that made super cheap cars, people would buy them.

    If we stole 100 million from Bill Gates and passed it out to poor people, would it grow the economy more than allowing Gates to keep his money?

  14. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Investment grows the economy, not trading stocks. Demand is infinite. If Bill Gates invested 100 million in a super efficient car factory, that made super cheap cars, people would buy them.
    So Ford can make an infinite amount of cars and sell all of them. Why don't they? Because demand isn't infinite? Because there are limits on how many they can sell? Ford adjusts their output based on how much they expect to be able to sell- not based on how many they can produce.

    Infinite demand assumes people have infinite resources to buy things with. But incomes are limited so people have to limit what they buy. If you give them more money, then they can increase their demand/ purchasing. Then producers will increase their output to fulfill that increased demand.

    If we stole 100 million from Bill Gates and passed it out to poor people, would it grow the economy more than allowing Gates to keep his money?
    If your goal is to add more jobs, yes. Money being spent creates more jobs than money sitting around in a bank or stocks. Is it proper to take $100 million from Bill Gates is a separate question.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 06-12-2018 at 03:02 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Half the crap I write here is just to entertain myself.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  15. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I paid $20 more this year.
    No change for me.
    Do something Danke

  16. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So Ford can make an infinite amount of cars and sell all of them. Why don't they? Because demand isn't infinite? Because there are limits on how many they can sell? Ford adjusts their output based on how much they expect to be able to sell- not based on how many they can produce.

    Infinite demand assumes people have infinite resources to buy things with. But incomes are limited so people have to limit what they buy. If you give them more money, then they can increase their demand/ purchasing. Then producers will increase their output to fulfill that increased demand.



    If your goal is to add more jobs, yes. Money being spent creates more jobs than money sitting around in a bank or stocks. Is it proper to take $100 million from Bill Gates is a separate question.
    I have always seen this as a chicken vs the egg dilemma. I truly think both are equally important and dependent on each other. The investors and producers cannot sell their good if the consumers do not have the money and the consumers cannot spend their money if there are no producers. So I would be distributing the money back back to both classes if I had to return surplus money from the govt.

    No one group is more important than the other.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  17. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So Ford can make an infinite amount of cars and sell all of them. Why don't they? Because demand isn't infinite? Because there are limits on how many they can sell? Ford adjusts their output based on how much they expect to be able to sell- not based on how many they can produce.

    Infinite demand assumes people have infinite resources to buy things with. But incomes are limited so people have to limit what they buy. If you give them more money, then they can increase their demand/ purchasing. Then producers will increase their output to fulfill that increased demand.



    If your goal is to add more jobs, yes. Money being spent creates more jobs than money sitting around in a bank or stocks. Is it proper to take $100 million from Bill Gates is a separate question.
    Raising the standard of living not adding jobs should be the goal. Communist countries have 100% employment but they have to eat dirt. Taking 100 million from Gates and giving it to the poor LOWERS the overall standard of living because the producer (Gates) now has less resources to produce stuff. More stuff = higher standard of living.

  18. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    I have always seen this as a chicken vs the egg dilemma. I truly think both are equally important and dependent on each other. The investors and producers cannot sell their good if the consumers do not have the money and the consumers cannot spend their money if there are no producers. So I would be distributing the money back back to both classes if I had to return surplus money from the govt.

    No one group is more important than the other.
    That may be true, if the entire tax burden was on the poor the overall productivity level might be lower. But the fact is that we're nowhere close to that. Currently the most productive pay almost the entire tax bill so any additional wealth redistribution from rich to poor is only going to lower the standard of living even further.

    That's why I prefer a flat tax where the law is the same for everyone. I hate laws that only apply to certain minorities.

  19. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Raising the standard of living not adding jobs should be the goal. Communist countries have 100% employment but they have to eat dirt. Taking 100 million from Gates and giving it to the poor LOWERS the overall standard of living because the producer (Gates) now has less resources to produce stuff. More stuff = higher standard of living.
    Adding jobs raises the standard of living. Giving Bill Gates another $100 million in tax breaks only raises his standard of living. Giving one million people a $100 tax break raises the standard of living for a lot more people- granted directly not by much but once they take that money to the hardware store to buy some stuff, the hardware store owner has more money to spend at the grocer's and then he has more money to spend... it multiplies through the economy.

    You get more bang for the same buck by giving it to poorer people than to rich people.
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Half the crap I write here is just to entertain myself.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  20. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Adding jobs raises the standard of living. Giving Bill Gates another $100 million in tax breaks only raises his standard of living. Giving one million people a $100 tax break raises the standard of living for a lot more people- granted directly not by much but once they take that money to the hardware store to buy some stuff, the hardware store owner has more money to spend at the grocer's and then he has more money to spend... it multiplies through the economy.

    You get more bang for the same buck by giving it to poorer people than to rich people.
    That explains why communist countries have such high standards of living. They take your logic to the extreme.

  21. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    That explains why communist countries have such high standards of living. They take your logic to the extreme.
    Taking yours to the extreme we should give all the money we have to the already rich and everybody will be better off. When the top one percent have all of the money and the rest none, the standard of living will be amazing.
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Half the crap I write here is just to entertain myself.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  22. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Taking yours to the extreme we should give all the money we have to the already rich and everybody will be better off. When the top one percent have all of the money and the rest none, the standard of living will be amazing.
    No, my extreme would be that everyone gets to keep their own money. Taking everything from one group and giving it to another is your idea. And your idea fails because there's no incentive to produce since it's just going to get stolen from you anyway.

  23. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    No, my extreme would be that everyone gets to keep their own money. Taking everything from one group and giving it to another is your idea. And your idea fails because there's no incentive to produce since it's just going to get stolen from you anyway.
    North Korea is the only country I know of that doesn't tax income.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  24. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    North Korea is the only country I know of that doesn't tax income.
    Saudi Arabia also doesn't tax income at least for foreign workers.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  25. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    North Korea is the only country I know of that doesn't tax income.
    They will still find other ways of taxing you. They need money to fund their government.

    http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/A...-TAXATION.html

    All direct taxes were abolished in 1974; the DPRK thus became the first country in the world to abolish income taxes collected from its citizens. As a result, the population is dependent on the government for many services. The government collects a percentage (turnover tax) on all transactions between producers and state marketing agencies. Fees are charged to farmers for seeds, fertilizer, irrigation water, and equipment. Consumers pay a tax for the use of water and certain other household amenities. The tax on collective farms is 15% of the harvest, paid in kind. Refugees from North Korea report that a similar in-kind tax was being assessed on the private plots that proliferated during the 1990s, but there is no official confirmation of this assessment.

    All foreign-invested enterprises are subject to income, property, turnover, and local taxes. In the four special economic zones established by the government, one in 1991 and three in 2002, the tax on profits for most enterprises is set at 14%; for enterprises involving high technology, infrastructure construction, or light industry, the tax rate is 10%. Resident aliens in the DPRK must pay personal income taxes; the rate varies from 4% to a top rate of 20%.
    https://www.fool.com/investing/gener...ome-taxes.aspx

    In no particular order, the 10 countries with no income taxes are:

    United Arab Emirates
    Oman
    Bahrain
    Qatar
    Saudi Arabia
    Kuwait
    Bermuda
    Cayman Islands
    The Bahamas
    Brunei

    Notice a trend?
    With the exception of Brunei in Asia, this entire list of income-tax free countries is dominated by Middle Eastern or tropical tourist destinations that rely on essentially two factors to help generate revenue. For the six Middle Eastern countries and Brunei, it's oil and natural gas deposits that contribute to a significant portion GDP, while the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, and Bermuda rely on tourism and the extremely high living costs to drive wealthy individuals into their country.

    In many cases, however, oil and gas revenue and tourism aren't enough to keep the economic hamster on its wheel. Although these countries don't directly tax their citizens with an income tax, there are other forms of revenue collection.

    Many countries, for instance, require citizens to contribute to a national social security fund while also requiring employers to make contributions on behalf of their employees. You'll find this practice in place in Kuwait, Oman, the Bahamas, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, just to name a few.
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Half the crap I write here is just to entertain myself.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  26. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    They will still find other ways of taxing you. They need money to fund their government.

    http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/A...-TAXATION.html



    https://www.fool.com/investing/gener...ome-taxes.aspx
    And its not just the fact that there is no income tax but they also have a very generous welfare system. free post secondary education, healthcare, housing etc etc. Thanks the fact that they socialized their oil wealth. I know some people would prefer that some individual had taken over said oil fields and enrich themselves with it.

    And yes, I get the irony that even with it being socialized, the majority of the people making the most benefit from oil are well connected govt officials.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  27. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    North Korea is the only country I know of that doesn't tax income.
    Yeah, because there's no income to tax!

  28. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Yeah, because there's no income to tax!
    No, it's a little more complicated than that. But I hope that capitalism slips in and the government leaves it like that.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  29. #58

  30. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    'Their' oil wealth? Who is they and how did they come to collectively own all of the oil?
    Good question. It is just happened to be that way and trying to take away from the collective will surely lead to a bloody war. So things remain they way they are
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  31. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    And its not just the fact that there is no income tax but they also have a very generous welfare system. free post secondary education, healthcare, housing etc etc. Thanks the fact that they socialized their oil wealth. I know some people would prefer that some individual had taken over said oil fields and enrich themselves with it.
    In a capitalist society individuals don't "take over oil fields", they buy them voluntarily. It's only when things get "socialized" that property is stolen from the rightful owner.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. U.S. Mint Reports Record Silver Sales in 2013
    By Smaulgld in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-12-2013, 03:44 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-28-2008, 03:16 PM
  3. EXXON MOBILE Corp. Reports RECORD NET PROFITS for 2007!
    By HOLLYWOOD in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-04-2008, 12:00 PM
  4. Reports of Record Breaking Turnout
    By iamvoodoo in forum New Hampshire
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 01-08-2008, 11:46 AM
  5. CNBC: Giuliani exaggerates his record on tax cuts
    By bbachtung in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-07-2007, 02:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •