• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

lol. It's amusing how you rejected Reagan's supply side economics.

Still pretending that government can't create wealth eh?

You don't even know what supply side economics are, do you? It's hillarious that you threw that in there as some sorta rebuttal to my argument!...:rofl

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created using incentives for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as adjusting income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation.

Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The prop owner is only ahead if he gets the increase in value in cash. Otherwise, he isn't ahead a damn thing. He still has to shell out cash to pay the property taxes, which is going to come from a different liquidity source than the value of his property. An increase in value isn't going to produce liquid, it will only produce equity. You can't pay taxes with equity.

No, he is ahead, period. He may not stay ahead, depending on the future of his property value, but he is ahead, he has more assets, has more wealth, due to the actions of the government. Liquidity has nothing to do with this, and is just your attempt to move the goalpost.
 
The prop owner is only ahead if he gets the increase in value in cash. Otherwise, he isn't ahead a damn thing. He still has to shell out cash to pay the property taxes, which is going to come from a different liquidity source than the value of his property. An increase in value isn't going to produce liquid, it will only produce equity. You can't pay taxes with equity.

Flawed logic: claiming government cannot fund its operation without taxing its citizens (dependence) can work against you. Can business operate in a profitable manner without the active presence of the US government? You know... roads, power, water, defense, judicial systems etc...??? Your classic chicken or the egg scenario.... Great argument:roll:
 
You don't even know what supply side economics are, do you? It's hillarious that you threw that in there as some sorta rebuttal to my argument!...:rofl

Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself?

Supply side economics seeks to increase economic activity and therefore revenue by reducing taxes and growing the tax base.

From your own link:

In 1981, Robert Mundell told Ronald Reagan that by cutting upper bracket taxation rates and lowering tax rates on capital gains, national output would increase so much that tax revenues would also increase. Mundell claimed that the economic expansion would also mop up excess liquidity and bring inflation back under control. After the tax cuts were implemented, nominal revenues quickly returned to - and ultimately surpassed - previous levels. While revenues dropped as a share of GDP, supply-siders note they intended for this fall to happen, since cutting tax rates would preclude a rise in taxes collected relative to national income.

Expansion of tax base to increase revenue without raising taxes. Which you argued was delusional.
 
No it hasn't. All that you've stated is merely a transfer of wealth. Merely because you are paid more (or at all) next year does not equate to wealth being created.

It's only a transfer of wealth if that increase in salary was created by a government entitlement. Otherwise, I've earned more money because either my company can afford to pay me more, because they are making more profit, or because I made them more money and they are cutting me in on their profit increase.



That may be more of your fault in taking advantage of it more then anything else.

Take advantage of what? A government handout? :rofl



Say what? Paper gains are still gains. By your reasoning, someone holding gold who sees his gold investment rise in market value 1,000% is not ahead because his gains are not realized.

When you're going to get a loan, or you're selling out, yeah paper gains are great. If you're paying taxes on those gains, then they suck ass. That's why some wonderful person invented, "depreciation". Depreciation is our friend...:rofl



Actually you can. Heard of a home equity loan?

We're talking about property taxes, not loans. You know the difference, yes?
 
No, he is ahead, period. He may not stay ahead, depending on the future of his property value, but he is ahead, he has more assets, has more wealth, due to the actions of the government. Liquidity has nothing to do with this, and is just your attempt to move the goalpost.

Have you ever owned property?

Liquidity has everything to do with it. Typically, liquidity is called, "profit", and is everything!
 
Last edited:
Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself?

Supply side economics seeks to increase economic activity and therefore revenue by reducing taxes and growing the tax base.

From your own link:



Expansion of tax base to increase revenue without raising taxes. Which you argued was delusional.

I find it trully amazing that some Libbos would bring in tax cuts to counter my argument...:rofl
 
Flawed logic: claiming government cannot fund its operation without taxing its citizens (dependence) can work against you. Can business operate in a profitable manner without the active presence of the US government? You know... roads, power, water, defense, judicial systems etc...??? Your classic chicken or the egg scenario.... Great argument:roll:

What kind of work do you do?
 
It's only a transfer of wealth if that increase in salary was created by a government entitlement. Otherwise, I've earned more money because either my company can afford to pay me more, because they are making more profit, or because I made them more money and they are cutting me in on their profit increase.

You just cited an example proving you wrong.

When you're going to get a loan, or you're selling out, yeah paper gains are great. If you're paying taxes on those gains, then they suck ass. That's why some wonderful person invented, "depreciation". Depreciation is our friend...:rofl

So you think that paper gains aren't gains? Why do people measure their wealth that includes paper gains then?

We're talking about property taxes, not loans. You know the difference, yes?

Except you are still wrong. Still don't know what a home equity loan is do you? You wrongly claimed that you can't pay taxes with equity. Except that a home equity loan lets you do exactly that.

You are wrong as usual.

I find it trully amazing that some Libbos would bring in tax cuts to counter my argument.

You are the liberal. Aside from that fact, you said that Redress's argument which was nothing more then supply side economics didn't work in reality.

Redress stated: "One way to do this is to increase the tax base. Adding improvements that increase property values would then increase the income from property taxes. Every one wins. The government brings in more money, people have more money, and wealth is created."

To which you replied: "What dream world do you live in? Seriously?"

What Redress stated was expansion of the tax base to increase revenue without raising taxes.....which is the premise of supply side economics. And you called that a "dream world."
 
Liquidity has everything to do with it. Typically, liquidity is called, "profit", and is everything!

That is uber-fail.

Liquidity is never profit. Liquidity is the ease at which an asset can be used as cash in arm's length transactions. That is not the definition and has never been the definition of profit. Firms can be highly profitable and highly illiquid. Firms can also be highly liquid and highly unprofitable. Liquidity and profit are two somewhat unrelated concepts.
 
Does it have anything to do with this thread?

Of course it does, because it will speak to your level of experience in the real world.

I'll go first: I've been operating my own business for 11 years.
 
That is uber-fail.

Liquidity is never profit. Liquidity is the ease at which an asset can be used as cash in arm's length transactions. That is not the definition and has never been the definition of profit. Firms can be highly profitable and highly illiquid. Firms can also be highly liquid and highly unprofitable. Liquidity and profit are two somewhat unrelated concepts.

What grade are you in? Because obviously, you're still in high school and have zero experience in the real business world.
 
What grade are you in? Because obviously, you're still in high school and have zero experience in the real business world.

lol. Trying to cover up your uber-fail?

Tell me, if firm A has $500 million in liquid assets, but only has $5 million at work making 5% with total costs of $100,000 for a net profit of $125,000, is that $500 million called "profit" or is the $125,000 called profit?

In another case, if a firm made $500 million with costs of $250 million, but had AP and AR schedules that resulted in money only being liquid for about a day, is the on average daily amount that is liquid called profit or the $250 million?

I know you are lying about running your own business.
 
lol. Trying to cover up your uber-fail?

Tell me, if firm A has $500 million in liquid assets, but only has $5 million at work making 5% with total costs of $100,000 for a net profit of $125,000, is that $500 million called "profit" or is the $125,000 called profit?

In another case, if a firm made $500 million with costs of $250 million, but had AP and AR schedules that resulted in money only being liquid for about a day, is the on average daily amount that is liquid called profit or the $250 million?

I know you are lying about running your own business.

Depends on where it all came from. Where did the money come from? And, is that liquidity before, or after expenses?
 
Are you so goddamned stupid to think that profit can't quickly converted to cash therefore making it liquidity?

Profit is generally in some kind of cash form, digital or physical barring barter exchange. But liquidity is not profit. Microsoft has somewhere between $40 and $50 million sitting in cookie jar accounts for earnings smoothing. That's highly liquid. Is that reported as profit? :rofl

Depends on where it all came from. Where did the money come from? And, is that liquidity before, or after expenses?

What the hell? It does not matter where it all came from. Liquidity is a concept applied to assets' ability to emulate cash. It is unrelated to the concept of profit!

Under your asinine definition of "profit = liquidity" partnership money contributions are profit because they are highly liquid.
 
Last edited:
Profit is generally in some kind of cash form, digital or physical barring barter exchange. But liquidity is not profit. Microsoft has somewhere between $40 and $50 million sitting in cookie jar accounts for earnings smoothing. That's highly liquid. Is that reported as profit? :rofl

Liquidity isn't always profit. However, profit is always liquidity. Welcome to the real world, little girl.
 
What the hell? It does not matter where it all came from. Liquidity is a concept applied to assets' ability to emulate cash. It is unrelated to the concept of profit!

Under your asinine definition of "profit = liquidity" partnership money contributions are profit because they are highly liquid.


It does matter where it comes from. Ifit comes from typical revenue, then it still has to deduct expenses, therefore is gross revenue. If it comes from sideline items, such as my case equipment rental vs. line haul, then there are no expenses that have to be deducted, other than taxes.
 
Liquidity isn't always profit. However, profit is always liquidity. Welcome to the real world, little girl.

Wrong again!

(This thread should be retitled how many times can Apdst be wrong?)

Profit is not always liquid. If I trade my barrel which I paid $5 for for a bike that was worth $15, I have made a profit of $10. Is my bike a liquid asset? Not really. If I exchange for an item that does not have a readily available market, can I easily turn that item into cash?

Furthermore, if you have a deferred exchange, you still have profit because of the commitment between the parties. But you do not have liquid assets.

If I trade something for an annuity in which's value exceeds my item, I have made a profit. But it's annuity and therefore not a liquid asset.
 
It does matter where it comes from. Ifit comes from typical revenue, then it still has to deduct expenses, therefore is gross revenue. If it comes from sideline items, such as my case equipment rental vs. line haul, then there are no expenses that have to be deducted, other than taxes.

And how does that matter to liquidity?

oh wait. It doesn't. You are wrong.
 
Wrong again!

(This thread should be retitled how many times can Apdst be wrong?)

Profit is not always liquid. If I trade my barrel which I paid $5 for for a bike that was worth $15, I have made a profit of $10. Is my bike a liquid asset? Not really. If I exchange for an item that does not have a readily available market, can I easily turn that item into cash?

Furthermore, if you have a deferred exchange, you still have profit because of the commitment between the parties. But you do not have liquid assets.

If I trade something for an annuity in which's value exceeds my item, I have made a profit. But it's annuity and therefore not a liquid asset.

Actually, it should be retitled, "how many times can OC spew insults, and never back up a single ****ing thing".

Why haven't you been banned yet?
 
Actually, it should be retitled, "how many times can OC spew insults, and never back up a single ****ing thing".

Why haven't you been banned yet?

Getting angry at me because you are constantly wrong about everything is hardly a justification for me to get banned.

1) You are wrong about not being able to pay taxes with equity
2) You are wrong that government cannot create wealth
3) You are wrong in arguing Redress's statement is not supply side economics
4) You are wrong that liquidity is defined as profit
5) You are wrong that profits are always liquid
 
Getting angry at me because you are constantly wrong about everything is hardly a justification for me to get banned.

1) You are wrong about not being able to pay taxes with equity
2) You are wrong that government cannot create wealth
3) You are wrong in arguing Redress's statement is not supply side economics
4) You are wrong that liquidity is defined as profit
5) You are wrong that profits are always liquid

Pay taxes with equity? What ****ing la-la land do you live in?!? I mean, no ****!

That's even more stupid than the crap that misterman and Goldenboy have posted on this thread. Geeeeez!!!!!!

I want you to show me that in the tax code. Don't come back till you can.
 
Back
Top Bottom