BILL O'REILLY FEARS AN OBAMA TAX INCREASE ON THE RICH

Is sadam a piece of shit or not? Gasing your own people? WTF. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Bill O'Reilly --------- Saddam ??????????????????????????

Bill O'Reilly --------- Saddam ?????????????????????????? Originally Posted by Laz

that is the question. what you Obama peps thinct?

His point is that his continueing [sic] to work employs a lot of people that use that income to provide for their families. If you remove his incentive to continue working by taxing so much that it is not worth his effort he will stop. Originally Posted by Laz

Why will his working create more jobs than his going fishing? Some other talking head will take his place and they will have to hire staff. If he quits and fishes, he'll spend more on fishing, etc. I think this is a flawed argument.

Arguably, if he spends more in retirement than he does while he works -- and most of the very wealthy do -- then he creates more jobs whether he is replaced or not. And if he is replaced as a talking head, then it's clearly a net gain in jobs, unless he becomes a non-spending recluse.

Instead of a Buffet Tax, i think we need an O'Reilly Tax. Originally Posted by Doove

Maybe you should listen to the point he is trying to make instead of just blathering. Originally Posted by Laz

Maybe you should get a sense of humor.

He could quit tommorrow (sic) and go fishing without any impact on his happiness.

If that were true, he'd quit tomorrow and go fishing. Granted, he does have enough money to where he could quit and go fishing, but he loves what he does. I'd even argue that his love for doing it is the main reason why he does it - not the pay. So he's no more likely to quit based on the tax rate than Tom Brady or Alex Rodriguez - other people who love what they do. He's just lying to try to defend his position. Common amongst Conservative types.

If that happens the government gets less revenue, the employees that work for him are unemployed and he is fine.

What TTH said.

Why will his working create more jobs than his going fishing? Some other talking head will take his place and they will have to hire staff. If he quits and fishes, he'll spend more on fishing, etc. I think this is a flawed argument.

Arguably, if he spends more in retirement than he does while he works -- and most of the very wealthy do -- then he creates more jobs whether he is replaced or not. And if he is replaced as a talking head, then it's clearly a net gain in jobs, unless he becomes a non-spending recluse. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

True his air time will be filled but what about his books or the bold and fresh tours or the money he raises for charity. The point is it is not necessarily a wash.

I absolute disagree it is a wash or even a gain if "someone" with talent quits producing and retires. He who replaces him may or very likely may not be nearly as successful. Especially if we are specifically talking about O'Reilly. He has the #1 rated show. Sorry, not easily replaced. You think Hannity could take his place? I can't stand watching Hannity whereas O'Reilly often has very fair points to make. Take politics out of it. When Jim Rome retires from radio, his void will be filled but his success most likely not duplicated. Advertisers don't flock to low(er) ratings as they do with talent that draws huge ratings.

Let's take TTH for example. He loves to tell us how good he is at his job. I am sure he has a good staff but if not for him and HIS talents would the staff be as large, or as well paid? If TTH answers yes, then you TTH are being intellectually dishonest or you have been trumping up your abilities. When TTH retires to live in Crete or Isreal or wherever he is going if he has a successor at his firm they will likely NOT be as successful.

True talent is not easily replaced.

When a "talent" at any position is removed, those around them, those who had jobs because of their success and talent, are also removed and/or severely limited.

True his air time will be filled but what about his books or the bold and fresh tours or the money he raises for charity. The point is it is not necessarily a wash. Originally Posted by Laz

He can't write and fish?

And if his book isn't published, then another book might be. And if the public doesn't spend $x on his books, they'll likely spend it on something else -- a movie, someone else's book, etc. The money that would be spend on his production isn't going to evaporate.

I don't create wealth, and neither does O'Reilley. We just move it from one pocket to another.

I don't create wealth, and neither does O'Reilley. We just move it from one pocket to another. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

By your definition who creates wealth?

By your definition who creates wealth? Originally Posted by Laz

when Barrack orders a bridge 2 b built, he creates wealth.

when Barrack orders a bridge 2 b built, he creates wealth. Originally Posted by Af-Freakin

How many bridges does he need to order until we are all wealthy?

when Barrack orders a bridge 2 b built, he creates wealth. Originally Posted by Af-Freakin

A bridge does not create any more wealth than Bill O'Reilly

A bridge does not create any more wealth than Bill O'Reilly Originally Posted by Laz

why does your kind read OReily's books rather than some other book? The guys an idiot. A new bridge reduce travel costs. makes stuff cheaper. Saved money is wealth, just like saving money in a bank account.

why does your kind read OReily's books rather than some other book? The guys an idiot. A new bridge reduce travel costs. makes stuff cheaper. Saved money is wealth, just like saving money in a bank account. Originally Posted by Af-Freakin

People advertising on Bill O'Reilly's show sell more products, create more jobs, sales generate taxes to government to pay for bridge. All things that generate wealth. That does not consider his business activities also do those things.

FYI - I have never read one of his books. That is not a statement pro or con about his books, just a statement of fact.

By your definition who creates wealth? Originally Posted by Laz

That depends on your definition of "wealth" in any given context and that question is suitable for a graduate seminar in economics, quite frankly. In my mind, in the context of macroeconomics when one talks of "creating" wealth, that must mean to bring into existence a tangible product that can be sold for more than the sum of it's various inputs. It is hard to think of a service that "creates" wealth directly. This definition is somewhat akin to the one that Adam Smith uses in Wealth of the Nations.

Smith's ideas were amplified by Henry George:

1. Wealth is material. Human qualities such as skill and mental acumen are not material, hence cannot be classified as wealth.
2. Wealth is produced by labor. Land possesses all the essentials of wealth but one -- it is not a product of labor, therefore it is not wealth.
3. Wealth is capable of satisfying human desire. Money is not wealth; it is a medium of exchange whereby wealth can be acquired. Nor are shares of stock, bonds or other securities classifiable as wealth. They are but the evidences of ownership. None of these satisfy desire directly; if they are destroyed, the sum total of wealth is not decreased.
4. Wealth has exchange value.”

I think that most instances that fall outside these parameters are instances of shuffling money from one pocket to another.

Of course the issue of what is "tangible" is a bit of an ill fit when it comes to things such as software, etc. I think that they are clearly tangible in this sense of the word.