Global Warming

[me]

Heck no!  Don't plug!  If you have to pay for it, let it rip!!!! 

[Henry Hawk]

ok, i have to explain further:  this magic investor money, which would have been taxed, now goes to a non-taxable investment -- creating a larger tax deficit.  so where does the money come from to fill that hole?

for one, when the private investor world begins to hire employees to R&D and to actualy produce a product, there will be more federal revenue being generated....and the best of all of this is, that GOV has very little to do with this....it is encouraging free enterprise to excel and opens the market....

[awol]

for one, when the private investor world begins to hire employees to R&D and to actualy produce a product, there will be more federal revenue being generated....and the best of all of this is, that GOV has very little to do with this....it is encouraging free enterprise to excel and opens the market....

so you're saying that the tax burden should be shoved off on the end consumer, and the workers.

let's see your figures on that.

[Henry Hawk]

so you're saying that the tax burden should be shoved off on the end consumer, and the workers.

let's see your figures on that.

No, I'm saying that encouraging Private Investor will create jobs, thus generating MORE federal tax revenue...........it is a WIN/WIN situation.

the taxes NOT paid by the private investor will more than be compensated by the increased employement AND, it can bring and end to our enviromental problems.

[Ghost of Jaco]

No, I'm saying that encouraging Private Investor will create jobs, thus generating MORE federal tax revenue...........it is a WIN/WIN situation.

the taxes NOT paid by the private investor will more than be compensated by the increased employement AND, it can bring and end to our enviromental problems.

Exactly, Henry! I think AWOL (welcome back, btw. I sincerely hope you are feeling better) is arguing from a point of view that says money is owned by the government. So whenever people get to keep more of their hard-earned money (as opposed to paying more of it out in taxes) then somehow that has to be "paid for". In truth, the gov't has no money, only the people have money. Allowing people to keep more of it to use for their own best interests and purposes (such as investing in companies doing R&D to help clean up the planet) does not create a hole that needs to be filled.

[awol]

...In truth, the gov't has no money, only the people have money... Allowing people to keep more of it to use for their own best interests and purposes (such as investing in companies doing R&D to help clean up the planet) does not create a hole that needs to be filled.

soooooo, common defence, infrastructure, social welfare...

these don't cost anything.  right?

[Ghost of Jaco]

That's not at all what I said, awol. Go back a re-read my post.

[awol]

In truth, the gov't has no money, only the people have money.

clarify, then.

[Ghost of Jaco]

clarify, then.

Ok, I'll try.
The gov't does not earn any money. People with jobs earn money.
The gov't has no money of it's own to fund anything. People have money.
Are you with me so far? Good.

The gov't takes the people's money from them in the form of taxes, fines, tariff's, etc, and spends the money on gov't programs, the military, infrastructure, etc (after taking a hefty cut for their OWN paychecks, btw).

So, lets say that a company needs to raise money for R&D because they feel they can create a widget that will stop global warming. Let's say the need $1000. So the company offers shares of stock to the public to raise the money.
People could invest in the company with their after-tax dollars, if they have enough, that is, and the company can raise the money and get to work easing global warming! They sell their widget and make a nice profit. The stock price goes up and the people who own stock have now increased their net worth.

Sounds good to me...how about you?

Now, from another point of view:
The gov't owns the means of production and therefore the "profits".
The company still needs the $1000 dollars, so they apply for a gov't grant to get the money.
However, Senator Obama of Illinois (for example) has a political pal who helped him get elected, so he denies the grant and gives the money to his pal's company instead, who aren't making widgets to ease global warming, but are mostly engaged in making contributions to political campaigns.
Global warming isn't eased, and the people did not increase their net worth. Well, I suppose Obama's buddy did increase his wealth.

Now, back to scenario #1:
What if the gov't allowed people to keep MORE of their hard-earned money? Then the people would have more to invest in global warming widget makers, wouldn't they? And there would be no need for the gov't to be playing "special interest" games that line the pockets of only a few while the rest just pay more taxes and get less for it.

So, allowing peoiple to keep more of their money doesn't "cost" anything. Gov't overspending (can you say "bridge to nowhere"?) causes deficits, but that means the people owe money to themselves. And raising taxes won't solve THAT, either.

Ok, that is my attempt to clarify, lol! I hope that it helps.

[me]

Don't forget "Big Dig"....   (That little Boston job)

[Henry Hawk]

 

[me]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig_(Boston,_Massachusetts)

[awol]

Ok, I'll try.
The gov't does not earn any money. People with jobs earn money.
The gov't has no money of it's own to fund anything. People have money.
Are you with me so far? Good.

The gov't takes the people's money from them in the form of taxes, fines, tariff's, etc, and spends the money on gov't programs, the military, infrastructure, etc (after taking a hefty cut for their OWN paychecks, btw).

so, you agree that the gov't needs money for "programs", military, and infrastructure.  these things cost a predictable ammount of money each year.  so if the gov't takes in less money...?

(i ignored the rest of your post, as it is nothing but a false dichotomy)

[DannyBoy]

OK Ghost and Henry.  I really like what you've posted.  I think Mr awol is being difficult just for the fun of it.  He should go tax the profitable "non profit" green organizations. They might have a few less of the millions of trust fund dollars to keep the ecomaniacs jetting around the world creating chaos and fear mongering in the name of Gorebal Warming.

[me]

OK Ghost and Henry.  I really like what you've posted.  I think Mr awol is being difficult just for the fun of it.  He should go tax the profitable "non profit" green organizations. They might have a few less of the millions of trust fund dollars to keep the ecomaniacs jetting around the world creating chaos and fear mongering in the name of Gorebal Warming.