maudlin27

Reply to McCain is toast in Politics JoeUser Forums

[quote] I noticed obama kept on going "if you are a small business making under 250K a year"...So to sell for 250K a year you need to spend 125K on stock... now add to that about 3000$/month for renting a store... now add to that taxes, now try to employ people... oops no more money! [/quote] Presumably Obama is talking about businesses making>$250k in profit, rather than turnover; if you're taxing turnover you can end up taxing a loss making business much more than a profit making

Reply to The American Dream, but only for those on their way up in Politics JoeUser Forums

[quote] Governments aren't moral or immoral any more than a car is moral or immoral. Human beings are moral and immoral [/quote] A government is chosen by the people, and made up of people, hence you can apply concepts of morality and hold them up to certain ethical standards, unlike a car which is an object (unless we're talking about the driver of a car, of course). [quote] it's theft to confiscate what one person makes to give to another by force which is wh

Reply to Small Business Owner Confronts Obama - Spread the Wealth in Politics JoeUser Forums

[quote] I suppose it is fair to you that between 30 and 40% pay no federal taxes at all, and may even get money back? How fair is that? [/quote] Potentially very fair, if they are unable to survive with the most basic of necessities without that being the case. Of course I expect the benefits system is actually more generous than what I'm supporting since it would likely need to be for the figure to be as high as 30-40%, but yes, it could be fair. [quote] If a flat tax is 10%

Reply to Liberal super majority: The ramifications in Politics JoeUser Forums

[quote] Union supremacy [/quote] You may get it, but there's a good chance you won't. To give you an example, in the UK we currently have the labour government in power. To appeal more to the electorate, they decided to rebrand themselves and no longer be the strong pro-Union party that they were historically. The result is that while unions have caused some problems over the years they've been in power, they haven't strengthened them specially, and have often been opposing t

Reply to The American Dream, but only for those on their way up in Politics JoeUser Forums

Society can't function effectively without a government - we need a government, and we therefore need taxes. The government also, to maximise benefit to us, needs to provide certain services that the private markets can't do effectively - street lighting to help cut crime; services like the police+fire departments. Defence spending in case a neighbouring country wants to invade. They also need to raise taxes so they can regulate some markets which might not be functioning optimally, and to tr

Reply to WSJ: Obama's 95% Illusion in Politics JoeUser Forums

[quote] He [McCain] reminds me of the President from the movie The American President, who does not fight back when his opponent is slinging so much mud at him he could build Mount Everest behind the White House [/quote] Um...yeah, Obama's the one throwing the most mud atm, not McCain! [e digicons]:rofl:[/e] [quote] The WSJ has a great piece on Obama’s nonsense that 95% of Americans will receive a tax cut... here are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is

Reply to Joe the Plumber Unlicensed and a Tax Deadbeat? in Politics JoeUser Forums

Wow, you really touched a nerve there! How dare you say anything against the person McCain used to base so many points around? It's just not allowed! You can only try and point out discrediting facts about someone if they're a democrat/liberal here it seems [e digicons]:D[/e] . Either way, I bet 'Joe' is regretting asking that question given all the attention he's received (+hence dirt thats been dug up)! I wonder what the odds are now on a new McCain add attacking Obama for taking a

Reply to More GalCiv II v2.0 stuff in GalCiv Journals GalCiv2 Forums

Why the need to change research speed mid-game? Being able to at the start of the game is fine (allows you to set the pacing of the game), but to be able to change it at will whenever you want during a game? It's so abusable and also I can't see it adding that much value, hence I'm a bit bemused why it's felt to be needed - why not just not bother with it and include something else instead? At the very least if it was included, make it an optional mechanic with a control, such as having a vot

Reply to Mortgage Extension in Politics JoeUser Forums

Well seeing as banks are so unwilling to lend now, while there is also an oversupply of homes, basically meaning house prices are sent crashing (increase supply, decrease demand = lower prices), renting might be a possibility - that is, instead of just forcing someone out of their home and flogging it for next to nothing, just take over the home+charge them the market rent. If they can't afford it, they'll have to go and rent from somewhere else. Fewer homes get sold, you bypass the problem o

Reply to Leverage Lovers in Politics JoeUser Forums

[quote] Particularly during the Reagan and the Bush years though Clinton was not completely inculpable, financiers did not care for these controls and regulations of principals, thus, they exploded leverage [/quote] The problems arising atm are due to excessive debt taken out over the current decade. Rewind just 10 years and I doubt you'd see banks bloated with toxic debt that is next to worthless but able to be sold for more temporarily. Lending, or even increased le

Reply to European ideals succeed. in Politics JoeUser Forums

[quote] The american rights ideals have failed. No countries are ditching the universal health care or cutting taxes on the rich while avoiding the needs of their poor [/quote] I disagree. Yes, the US system does seem to be failing (partially), but it's not like Europe can hold up say the French way of things as a shining example either - in France you get great benefits, it's hard to lose your job, there are improved public services, etc. etc., but there is a cost - for example unemp

Reply to Small Business Owner Confronts Obama - Spread the Wealth in Politics JoeUser Forums

[quote] Sounds like a suitable incentive to become rich(er) to me [/quote] What, making someone starve/go without a home(/insert other necessity here), so that they try and work more? What if they're already working as much as they can (without say damaging their health by working non-stop+getting little to no sleep)? How does it help them to have an incentive to become richer if they can't, and are forced into absolute property? That's the problem with such a fixed rate of tax, becau

Reply to Super majority of CEOs think Obama will be a disaster in Politics JoeUser Forums

What's the big problem with the notion of 'everyone out for themself' anyway? One of the biggest problems I have with the financial crisis is how so many politicians have jumped on the bandwagon of blaming greed. Greed is, surprisingly, typically a good thing. You can work with greed, you can understand it, you can for plan it, count on it, you can build an economy around it, and use it to make everyone better off. In the case of firing workers due to a tax hike, again what's wrong wi

Reply to Health Insurance is a "Right"? in Politics JoeUser Forums

[quote] That's not enough though. Not even close. Because someone takes a risk to start up a business and fails, they're screwed. That's just life. But if they succeed, then they can look forward to the government taking half of it. At some point, which differs from person to person, the tipping point occurs and people decide not to take that risk because the risk/reward ratio is no longer favorable to them [/quote] Why wouldn't it be enough though? To gi

Reply to Small Business Owner Confronts Obama - Spread the Wealth in Politics JoeUser Forums

[quote] I wish they would just go to a flat tax, income redistribution is for the birds...Can the rich guy afford it? Sure, but that doesn't make it fair[/quote] A flat tax isn't fair. The main justification for it is that the efficiency savings via it's simplicity outweigh the cost in 'fairness'. If you're poor, a far higher proportion of your income is being spent on necessities than if you're rich. Therefore, you have much less income that can go towards taxes. Why should you be ta

Reply to Health Insurance is a "Right"? in Politics JoeUser Forums

[quote] If I take a risk, the government will take half of what I earn if my venture is successful. If I take a risk and I lose it, I'm simply screwed. [/quote] One solution to that problem which would allow higher taxes without such a negative impact on investment (as a result of risky decisions rewards being reduced, but the penalties remaining unchanged) could be to allow businesses to claim loss relief at their rate of tax, and get an immediate refund. It wouldn't

Reply to Super majority of CEOs think Obama will be a disaster in Politics JoeUser Forums

[quote] Taxes to a company are just another type of cost and are dealt the same as any type of cost [/quote] There's a big difference between (the typical) taxes and costs - costs don't care what your profit is, while taxes do. That is, taxes (ignoring the unit taxes, sales taxes, etc.) will be on a proportion of profits, and hence won't have a direct impact on prices that an increase in costs would - that is, costs can cause you to make a loss, [profit] taxes generally won't (except

Reply to Health Insurance is a "Right"? in Politics JoeUser Forums

[quote] By saying it's a right, basically says that it will be a government mandate and that in one way or another, you will be forced to have health insurance. What a joke? [/quote] A joke? I'd consider it inhumane to deny people necessary medical treatment, and hence view essential healthcare as a right people should have. I also think that the vast majority of people would share this viewpoint. It's therefore not too much of a streatch to then extend that principle and say yo

Are voters really so gullible/stupid? in Politics JoeUser Forums

Most of the political adverts I've seen for both the candidates are laughable in their content, either using blatently taken out of context quotes to try and twist their meaning, or missing out half the facts in something, or making really petty points to try and score points somehow. The thought I'm left with after seeing them is - are the voters really that stupid? A few quick examples of some of the adverts: http://www.yo

Reply to Michael Moore Says... in Politics JoeUser Forums

[quote] the root cause of this issue is stupid POOOOORRRRR people who bought houses they couldn't afford [/quote] There are two sides to most stories though - in this case while the poor were clearly culpable in taking on loans they couldn't afford, so to were the lenders for lending so irresponsibly. It's harder to attach the stupid tag to them of course - the employees would have simply been acting in their best interests or on the managements instructions, thanks to the contracts e

Reply to Michael Moore Says... in Politics JoeUser Forums

[quote] APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO CRIMINALLY INDICT ANYONE ON WALL STREET WHO KNOWINGLY CONTRIBUTED TO THIS COLLAPSE [/quote] So in other words, put someone in prison for acting legally? Retrospective criminal law changes are a terrible route to go. If they've done something illegal under current criminal law, fine. If they haven't, then change the law for the future, not the past. [quote] THE RICH MUST PAY FOR THEIR OWN BAILOUT [/quote] Let me get this straight:

Reply to The bail out bill is going to cost us more that three trillion dollars in Politics JoeUser Forums

[quote] we all should know by know that it will cost more than the trillion dollars they initially asked for under the guise of 750 billion. The Congressional lack of understanding in business is shining through once again [/quote] No, calling a 75

Reply to Say What?? in Politics JoeUser Forums

[quote] Wanna make a quick 19 million bucks? All it'll take is 3 weeks [/quote] Can't you do it quicker with the lottery?

Reply to Dead horse buffet in Everything Else GalCiv2 Forums

[quote] Yes, logically, the shareholders don't want their stock to go up five bucks today and down five hundred tomorrow. Also logically, the CEO doesn't want the same thing the shareholders do. He makes money by the stock going up, and if it doesn't go up, they'll can him anyway, so trading two bonuses for one bonus just so he can do the sensible thing in the shareholders interest isn't very sensible. People are stupid, it's an unavoidable reality t

Reply to Dead horse buffet in Everything Else GalCiv2 Forums

[quote] The problem here is the assumption that it *wasn't* maximizing shareholder value - in fact it was . . . for a time [/quote] It's quite clear it wasn't IMO - short term gains at the expense of heavy long term losses are not maximising shareholders value. The value of a share is basically the value of what you (or to be more accurate, the market) expect all the future income streams (via dividends) from that share to be (assuming the government distributes its profits via divide