You reading compensation fail you.
I think he was not comparing, but rather illustrating the point that just because it is a law, doesn't make it right or moral.
Thoughts on the "Fair Tax"
- Thread starter BigNBushy
- Start date
I think he was not comparing, but rather illustrating the point that just because it is a law, doesn't make it right or moral.
AlabamaRedneck
New Member
The real drain on our economy is...POOR PEOPLE.LOL!
no tax on consumption is progressive, as the poor spend a disproportionately larger share of their income on purchases.
and with aggregate demand accounting for about 2/3 of our economy, slapping a massive tax on the practice is about the stupidest idea ever for everyone who enjoys a strong economy.
lol, prebate.
what could ever go wrong with that?
you were looking for the 16th amendment, by the way.
Poor people should pay a higher tax rate than rich people, in order to discourage their perpetuation...
Poor people don't create jobs...nor can they afford (nor are they smart enough to see the need for) contraception...instead, they fuck irresponsibly and shit out pups at ridiculous rates...
And then they're given tax breaks (i.e. they're paid) for shitting out more pups to be fed by my tax dollars via welfare...
Fuck poor people. They prove their stupidity by being poor. While they should NOT be persecuted, neither should they be encouraged to continue the welfare cycle by being PAID for being poor via welfare...
Basically the same argument Rush Limbaugh made once. The bad economy is because of all the poor people.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
this is why you are stupid.
AlabamaRedneck
New Member
I'm not a fan of Limbaugh...but he is right about SOME things...including this...
AlabamaRedneck
New Member
The economy is not bad because of poor people...it's bad because the US government gives them money, instead of spending the money on things that actually have a chance of returning value...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
every single penny they receive is spent because they are poor, and consumer spending, aka aggregate demand, is two thirds of our economy.
you're clearly no economist. more of a sock puppet moron.
AlabamaRedneck
New Member
I may be no economist, but I know waste when I see it...and paying people for being poor is a waste...
In my engineering job (which you don't have, I know) if I was a drain or waste in any way, I would be FIRED TOMORROW, with no apologies whatsoever...
Poor people are a drain on EVERYONE IN OUR COUNTRY...yet they are encouraged to remain being poor, since they are paid for being poor by our government...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
how so?
do the dollars they spend back into the economy not boost aggregate demand, which is responsible for two thirds of our economy?
is it a waste when i go out and spend money at a private business that depends on my dollars to keep their lights on and their employees paid?
probably just a euphemism for auto-erotic asphyxiation. you're not bright enough to engineer anything beyond a slip and slide.
silasraven
Well-Known Member
you know what its like to try and put a return on something given from the government. its out of this world difficult. you get it, then you get some freak telling you to give it all away, you've had it given to you so someone else needs it more. while you try to divide it up so your rents paid months in advanced and your early on every bill and your good for school. this almost always never gets to happen. the moment you get it something comes up and someone tries to steal it, religious freaks mostly.
AlabamaRedneck
New Member
Paying people for being poor is STUPID and only encourages more people to be poor...
AlabamaRedneck
New Member
Yes, they spend my money that the government gives them...on cigs and booze and heroin...and ramon noodles for their deprived children that they had because they were too stupid to understand birth control...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
giving money to people who will spend it all back into the economy is probably one of the best ideas, right behind investment into education, health care and infrastructure.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
either that or they were too poor to afford birth control.
AlabamaRedneck
New Member
Do you REALLY think they spend the welfare money they get from me and your wife on BIRTH CONTROL?...hahahaha Buck...they spend it on cigs and booze and heroin...you BIG DUMMY (as my bro-in-law calls me)...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you've conducted a survey then i take it?
AlabamaRedneck
New Member
Well no sir, I haven't...just seems to make sense...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
just like a 90% reagan win makes sense?
AlabamaRedneck
New Member
A 90% Reagan win makes PERFECT sense...since both you and I voted for him Buck...
For future reference, if something appears in the United States Code it's because congress passed a law. That's the only way something can get there. 12 USC 461 is the codification of Section 19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act; section 201(a) of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-351) amended Section 19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act to add the text that I quoted you; section 128 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-343) amended section 201(a) of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 to move up the start date. Federal regulations issued pursuant to an act of congress are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, not the United States Code.
Prior to passage of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act, the Fed had no authority to pay interest on reserve balances.
I'm not saying they don't want the money, I'm saying it's a miniscule amount, which makes the idea that the goal was simply to pad bank profits implausible and unlikely. There are far more profitable things the banks could spend their money lobbying for.
Like I said, I'm not the right person to explain the academic economic reasons for it, so I really can't say anything more than that about it.