Do Tax Cuts Stimulate the Economy?

[Againsheila]

If their investing their money...it's helping the economy. Don't agree with me, that's your right...but don't tell me I'm wrong.

LOL. Not only wrong, but kind of stupid. Yes, the very wealthy did invest the money that they saved on taxes and created jobs. Jobs in China, jobs in Indonesia, jobs in Mexico. but not jobs here, and here we are, in one hell of a fix, economically. And you and the rest of the cretins are suggesting that we cut taxes on the wealthy even more?

Rockhead I do see that your rearing that sociialist head of yours once again. I know you have a wealth envy and this is no more than sour grapes to you. I get it rockhead.
You mention jobs in China, Mexico, and Indonesia. But the idiot in you came out and said "not here." OK assbite...show me where you read that they don't invest in America? And you talk about me being stupid. Yes they do invest here assbite, one of the main reasons is that year in year out, decade in decade out, the dollar has been the most stable denomination in the world. You know rockhead, if you looked in the mirror in the morning, you would see in bold letters written across your forehead "I'm Stupid."
I will tell you a little secret, the reason why we are in an economic fix right now isn't because of the wealthy..it's because of the politicians, numnuts. Like I said you have wealth envy, and your stupid...live with it.

Just to put things in perspective, the dollar is falling like a rock, where do you think they're putting their money?

 

[Againsheila]

Your going to have to trust me on this Sheila...when the rich invest their money, it does help the economy. It helps create jobs with the businesses they invest in. Job creation is where the employees make their money. If the businesses have 401K's, or IRA's the employee can invest for their retirement, and help build businesses to create more jobs. I know, I know, you didn't look at that angle. But, that's what I'm here for. I'm here to help you see the other side of the coin that the left failed to show you....Your welcome.

Nope, investing their money doesn't necessarily create jobs anymore than giving $billions to the banks helped people from being foreclosed on. It just makes the rich, richer and that doesn't help anybody but the rich.

Now, if you want to put that money into job creation, do so, CREATE jobs.....don't give tax breaks to the already obscenely wealthy.

I'll disagree with you too Sheila. At least on the last line... other than infrastructure construction and maintenance and human resources for the bureaucracy, government has no business 'creating' jobs. It doesn't know what to produce and has little incentive to produce anything efficiently, that is why China is using free enterprise, with direction from 'The People', to create an economy that will dwarf ours if we don't get our shit together.

It is o.k. for The People to give incentives to the auto industry to build electric cars, especially if it is done in concert with incentives to the energy industry to build a correlating distribution system. But, if the government takes it upon itself to build cars, the odds are high that no one will want one, especially after a few years of stagnant production.

Risk of failure is an incredible motivator to see what your prospects need to become customers.

-Joe

It is okay for the government to give away our taxmoney, ONLY with strings attached. IE..produce x number of jobs that pay x amount for x amount of time, fail to do that, the money goes back to the taxpayers.

They gave $billions to the banks with no strings..small wonder CEO's got $millions in bonuses for driving their banks into the ground in the first place and yet, they aren't lending that money to the people that would spend it.

The top 10% of our country own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, they should be paying 90% of the taxes, and at one time, they were.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Wealth envy is one of the top 10 attacks of the left.

Is that the new soundbit to add to "class warfare?" How about duped dupes, servants, lackeys or feudalites?

Economic inequity might be a closer definition.

But, without your soundbites, what fun would this be?

The left talks more about penis or vagina envy. Leave it up to the right to be so typically puritan.

Trickle down, the sparrow and the oats doesn't work. Get the middle class, the 80% of the population working and you will have economic prosperity. Only get the upper 5% of the rich spending and you (I mean you then non rich) won't have crap.

80% of 300,000,000 is 240,000,000 spending on goods and services.

This is a hell of a lot more money that will generate jobs that 5% of 300,000,000 spending on extra things they want.

 

[Againsheila]

Joe, I think what I'm trying to get across is that we don't raise taxes on anyone...rich or middle class. What we have to do is reign in our governments spending, and not let the "wealthy" shoulder the burden. There are not enough wealthy to do so. I really don't think that a family making 250K a year should be considered wealthy.

if this was the 50's yea.....now these guys at that level are just living comfortably.....that number should be much higher,maybe the million + club.....i dont know.....why dont we ask Warren Buffet what he thinks is the WEALTHY cut off line......i bet he knows

<<

I think it has to do with the bell curve. The majority, is suppose to be in the middle class, with a few in the top and a few in the bottom. How many are making $250,000 a year or more? We sure the heck aren't and we consider ourselves middle class. The top 10% own more than 90% of the wealth, they should be paying 90% of the taxes.

 

[Meister]

LOL. Not only wrong, but kind of stupid. Yes, the very wealthy did invest the money that they saved on taxes and created jobs. Jobs in China, jobs in Indonesia, jobs in Mexico. but not jobs here, and here we are, in one hell of a fix, economically. And you and the rest of the cretins are suggesting that we cut taxes on the wealthy even more?

Rockhead I do see that your rearing that sociialist head of yours once again. I know you have a wealth envy and this is no more than sour grapes to you. I get it rockhead.
You mention jobs in China, Mexico, and Indonesia. But the idiot in you came out and said "not here." OK assbite...show me where you read that they don't invest in America? And you talk about me being stupid. Yes they do invest here assbite, one of the main reasons is that year in year out, decade in decade out, the dollar has been the most stable denomination in the world. You know rockhead, if you looked in the mirror in the morning, you would see in bold letters written across your forehead "I'm Stupid."
I will tell you a little secret, the reason why we are in an economic fix right now isn't because of the wealthy..it's because of the politicians, numnuts. Like I said you have wealth envy, and your stupid...live with it.

Just to put things in perspective, the dollar is falling like a rock, where do you think they're putting their money?

On the sidelines...the worlds money is doing the same thing as ours. No country is immune on what's going on now. Sheila, we have a president that is not saying a word to help consumer confidence. But, he has actually talked down our economy. I don't know if this is by design, or he's just too green for the job. Clinton has even talked to him on the subject. If it's by design, then I know he's in the tank with Pelosi, and a socialist agenda. I'm middle class and I have my money in a money market, and I know the wealthy are doing something similiar, and have money still in the market riding it out. Having said that, In every protfolio a person should have some of their assets in the foriegn market, I did...but like I said, some assets.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Your going to have to trust me on this Sheila...when the rich invest their money, it does help the economy. It helps create jobs with the businesses they invest in. Job creation is where the employees make their money. If the businesses have 401K's, or IRA's the employee can invest for their retirement, and help build businesses to create more jobs. I know, I know, you didn't look at that angle. But, that's what I'm here for. I'm here to help you see the other side of the coin that the left failed to show you....Your welcome.

I'm going to disagree Mr. Meister.

Money in the hands of the middle class is what creates jobs, because only then will the investor-class citizen have an incentive to create a product or service designed to separate a middle-class citizen from some of that money.

-Joe

Joe, I think what I'm trying to get across is that we don't raise taxes on anyone...rich or middle class. What we have to do is reign in our governments spending, and not let the "wealthy" shoulder the burden. There are not enough wealthy to do so. I really don't think that a family making 250K a year should be considered wealthy.

My mantra has always been that it is not about higher or lower taxes on any particular group or class, but fair taxes on all of us...

Combine that with a government that macro-directs industry within the framework of a solid vision for the next 50 to 100 years, in concert with infrastructure construction, research and limited entitlements for both corporate and private citizens and we may just reach the stars.

...In the humble opinion of this Average Joe...

-Joe

 

[xsited1]

I am saying that given the current tax structure in the United States, cutting taxes will increase the deficit, which is merely Keynesian economics in drag.

I have no reason to doubt you, but do you have any data to back that up?

Yes, Reagan cut taxes and the deficit rose. Reagan raised taxes and the deficit was narrowed. Bush II cut taxes and the deficit rose. Bush I raised taxes and the deficit narrowed. Clinton raised taxes and the deficit narrowed. Canada raised taxes and the deficit was eliminated. The government of Saskatchewan raised taxes and the deficit was eliminated.

There is no empirical evidence to suggest that cutting income taxes that are not excessive increases revenues. There is evidence that when taxes are excessive, such as when the UK eliminated the 98% tax on unearned income, revenues rose. There is also evidence that when royalty taxes on natural resources are cut, revenues can rise. And cutting corporate income taxes can also raise revenues. There is also some evidence in the developing world that cutting income taxes raises revenues when there is an amnesty for tax evasion since tax evasion is widespread. However, there is no evidence that a general cut in broad-based taxes in a Western economy raises revenues. When Arthur Laffer first proposed this idea, he had no empirical evidence to back it up. He proposed it as a theory on an undefined curve. In fact, the empirical data across different budgetary jurisdictions in the Western world overwhelmingly suggests otherwise.

Reagan cut taxes AND government spending increased. Clinton raised taxes, but he also cut spending sharply. I believe if you remove government spending from the equation, you'll see that government revenues increased. There's a balance. You can't just say that "Regean cut taxes and the deficit rose."

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

 

[AVG-JOE]

Actually, you are both right (Joe and Meister). The workers do make the money for the upper class, without the workers the upper class wouldn't exist. However, it is because of government regulations that the upper class can often ignore this and forget who earns them the money. Think about it for a moment, by regulating how they do business you are narrowing the competition, thus the workers have fewer choices in jobs, by taxing them too much you do pretty much the same thing. Not taxing them at all would be a mistake for the country, but over regulation is also a huge mistake. We need a middle ground.

You know... we would need little if any regulations if taxes were fair and the entire board of directors of any given corporation were subject to jail time if their corporation made a boo-boo.

Just a thought...

-Joe

 

[Againsheila]

Now, if you want to put that money into job creation, do so, CREATE jobs.....don't give tax breaks to the already obscenely wealthy.

somebody making 250,000 to a million a year are not obscenely wealthy Shiela.....if you dont believe me...ask Miester,that is what he is here for....

Wealth envy is one of the top 10 attacks of the left. It is so easy to get the sheep on your side especially when the economy is failing. Why should people have to work hard and give up more free time for their money when all they have to do is wait for the government to re-distribute the wealth. High achievers are a major target of the left and it makes you wonder if it is because they have so few.
What happens when the wealthy run out of money and the poor are still waiting with their hands out without any skills? Something to think about.

Wealth envy? If I were envious of wealthy people, I'd be wealthy. I give too much to others and care too much about others to climb over people for a little more money.

I bet we spend a much higher portion of our income on charity than the wealthy do, and we spend much of it directly, we can't deduct it from our taxes. That means we know poor people personally and we help them out, not though any corrupt organization that keeps the majority of the donations for their ceo's and upper management. We actually give money to people to pay their rent. We've had a homeless man living with us and we were supporting him and we couldn't even deduct him as a dependent because he moved in in Feb, not Jan 1.

No, I'll never be wealthy. Should I win the lottery, the majority of the money will go to help others...I've already made plans to act as a cashier and tell everyone their groceries are on me. How much money do you need anyway? I have nice things, but they are only things. Yeah, I'd like to go on a cruise but that's not likely to ever happen, so what, I'll live without it.

$250,000 is more than we have in our retirement account. I consider that to be wealthy.

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually, you are both right (Joe and Meister). The workers do make the money for the upper class, without the workers the upper class wouldn't exist. However, it is because of government regulations that the upper class can often ignore this and forget who earns them the money. Think about it for a moment, by regulating how they do business you are narrowing the competition, thus the workers have fewer choices in jobs, by taxing them too much you do pretty much the same thing. Not taxing them at all would be a mistake for the country, but over regulation is also a huge mistake. We need a middle ground.

You know... we would need little if any regulations if taxes were fair and the entire board of directors of any given corporation were subject to jail time if their corporation made a boo-boo.

Just a thought...

-Joe

*smirks* Now you're getting the idea. These regulations passed by those who want to demonize the rich have only given them more power over the poor, while harming the worker. Many companies try to dance around the regulations to make it more fair for the worker but because they are law they can't half the time. Look at Microsoft, they followed most of the regulations to the letter and still were attacked for becoming one of the largest corporations. Now they don't hire non-union members and thus many of those who could have gotten careers with them were shut out, just because they are too frightened to break even the smallest rule.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Actually, you are both right (Joe and Meister). The workers do make the money for the upper class, without the workers the upper class wouldn't exist. However, it is because of government regulations that the upper class can often ignore this and forget who earns them the money. Think about it for a moment, by regulating how they do business you are narrowing the competition, thus the workers have fewer choices in jobs, by taxing them too much you do pretty much the same thing. Not taxing them at all would be a mistake for the country, but over regulation is also a huge mistake. We need a middle ground.

You know... we would need little if any regulations if taxes were fair and the entire board of directors of any given corporation were subject to jail time if their corporation made a boo-boo.

Just a thought...

-Joe

*smirks* Now you're getting the idea. These regulations passed by those who want to demonize the rich have only given them more power over the poor, while harming the worker. Many companies try to dance around the regulations to make it more fair for the worker but because they are law they can't half the time. Look at Microsoft, they followed most of the regulations to the letter and still were attacked for becoming one of the largest corporations. Now they don't hire non-union members and thus many of those who could have gotten careers with them were shut out, just because they are too frightened to break even the smallest rule.

Getting the idea? My dear, I have been preaching the idea for years.

Obama is proof that if you kick an ostrich hard enough in the ass it will pull its head out of the sand and take a look around.

-Joe

 

[rayboyusmc]

Who is the ostrich?

 

[FactFinder]

Well it was rich people who gave us the current mess. Those who can't operate with self conscience rather than regulation. Those who played the pricing games to drive home prices and oil to gouging and unsustainable levels knowing all along that the prices did not mesh with reality. They tapped the average consumer dry where they could no longer afford to buy more stuff.

Funny thing ... the rich people were forced to give loans to the poor people who had no chance (and many no desire) to pay them back. Also ... many poor people live on credit cards. The unsettling fact is that it wasn't just the rich, as a matter of fact this time I see that the rich have much less to be blamed for considering most of the "super rich" are donating money willingly to support programs that feed and clothe, and even house, the poor. Really ... so instead of them funding programs that show they work you would rather the government take the money and use it in more programs that haven't worked while still forcing them to give out loans to people who don't even want to pay them back? Same shit, different president.

OK, let's say certain of the rich. Most people had no idea that these inflated home prices had risen so much relative to wages. When anything rises that fast it is bound to implode. My home doubled in value in a few years. I knew something was wrong with that and threw the dozens of home equity loan preapproved go buy yourself a yaught crap right into the crapper. But...I'm a bit older. I seen these sorts of things before. Way too many people believed that the values would go nothing but up. True for years until the certain people figured how to drive a falsified demand through unregulated loaning.

 

[KittenKoder]

Well it was rich people who gave us the current mess. Those who can't operate with self conscience rather than regulation. Those who played the pricing games to drive home prices and oil to gouging and unsustainable levels knowing all along that the prices did not mesh with reality. They tapped the average consumer dry where they could no longer afford to buy more stuff.

Funny thing ... the rich people were forced to give loans to the poor people who had no chance (and many no desire) to pay them back. Also ... many poor people live on credit cards. The unsettling fact is that it wasn't just the rich, as a matter of fact this time I see that the rich have much less to be blamed for considering most of the "super rich" are donating money willingly to support programs that feed and clothe, and even house, the poor. Really ... so instead of them funding programs that show they work you would rather the government take the money and use it in more programs that haven't worked while still forcing them to give out loans to people who don't even want to pay them back? Same shit, different president.

OK, let's say certain of the rich. Most people had no idea that these inflated home prices had risen so much relative to wages. When anything rises that fast it is bound to implode. My home doubled in value in a few years. I knew something was wrong with that and I there the dozens home equity loan preapproved go buy yourself a yaught crap right into the crapper. But...I'm a bit older. I seen these sorts of things before. Way too many people believed that the values would go nothing but up. True for years until the certain people figured how to drive a falsified demand through unregulated loaning.

Stop and think this one through ... I'll walk you through it.

Banks are forced to loan money to people who cannot afford it. They default and half claim bankruptcy to avoid paying it back, the other half just don't pay the loans back. The money is still owed even when the house is claimed. So, where does that money come from? They have to raise the prices they resell the houses at to cover their losses and try to break even (no matter how much a house is they rarely sell for what they are actually worth and usually have to be let go at much less). Let's assume that they barely break even with the inflated prices, making no profit at all. This makes investors stop investing and the company loses even more worth and no one gets paid (even the workers for the bank) because there isn't any money to pay them.

 

[editec]

Joe, I think what I'm trying to get across is that we don't raise taxes on anyone...rich or middle class. What we have to do is reign in our governments spending, and not let the "wealthy" shoulder the burden. There are not enough wealthy to do so. I really don't think that a family making 250K a year should be considered wealthy.

if this was the 50's yea.....now these guys at that level are just living comfortably.....that number should be much higher,maybe the million + club.....i dont know.....why dont we ask Warren Buffet what he thinks is the WEALTHY cut off line......i bet he knows

<<

I think it has to do with the bell curve. The majority, is suppose to be in the middle class, with a few in the top and a few in the bottom. How many are making $250,000 a year or more? We sure the heck aren't and we consider ourselves middle class. The top 10% own more than 90% of the wealth, they should be paying 90% of the taxes.

Good point.

ONLY looking at taxable incomes to establish what our system looks like is a mistake.

Asset distribution give us, I think, a much clearer picture of what really drives our economy.

Here is that picture

 

[FactFinder]

Funny thing ... the rich people were forced to give loans to the poor people who had no chance (and many no desire) to pay them back. Also ... many poor people live on credit cards. The unsettling fact is that it wasn't just the rich, as a matter of fact this time I see that the rich have much less to be blamed for considering most of the "super rich" are donating money willingly to support programs that feed and clothe, and even house, the poor. Really ... so instead of them funding programs that show they work you would rather the government take the money and use it in more programs that haven't worked while still forcing them to give out loans to people who don't even want to pay them back? Same shit, different president.

OK, let's say certain of the rich. Most people had no idea that these inflated home prices had risen so much relative to wages. When anything rises that fast it is bound to implode. My home doubled in value in a few years. I knew something was wrong with that and I there the dozens home equity loan preapproved go buy yourself a yaught crap right into the crapper. But...I'm a bit older. I seen these sorts of things before. Way too many people believed that the values would go nothing but up. True for years until the certain people figured how to drive a falsified demand through unregulated loaning.

Stop and think this one through ... I'll walk you through it.

Banks are forced to loan money to people who cannot afford it. They default and half claim bankruptcy to avoid paying it back, the other half just don't pay the loans back. The money is still owed even when the house is claimed. So, where does that money come from? They have to raise the prices they resell the houses at to cover their losses and try to break even (no matter how much a house is they rarely sell for what they are actually worth and usually have to be let go at much less). Let's assume that they barely break even with the inflated prices, making no profit at all. This makes investors stop investing and the company loses even more worth and no one gets paid (even the workers for the bank) because there isn't any money to pay them.

Banks were only too glad to. They sold the mortgages to finance houses right away and turned a commission. The finance houses knew these were questionable loans and started the derivatives process to mask their risk. That is why local banks are still well capitalized. If they had to back mortgages themselves they wouldn't have done it. They did have a right to refuse loans.
If people hadn't spun the market so much and priced the homes out of reality most buyers would have been able to make their mortgages. It is foreclosures that is driving the market down not bankruptcies but backruptcies will increase the longer the recession prevails.

 

[Meister]

OK, let's say certain of the rich. Most people had no idea that these inflated home prices had risen so much relative to wages. When anything rises that fast it is bound to implode. My home doubled in value in a few years. I knew something was wrong with that and I there the dozens home equity loan preapproved go buy yourself a yaught crap right into the crapper. But...I'm a bit older. I seen these sorts of things before. Way too many people believed that the values would go nothing but up. True for years until the certain people figured how to drive a falsified demand through unregulated loaning.

Stop and think this one through ... I'll walk you through it.

Banks are forced to loan money to people who cannot afford it. They default and half claim bankruptcy to avoid paying it back, the other half just don't pay the loans back. The money is still owed even when the house is claimed. So, where does that money come from? They have to raise the prices they resell the houses at to cover their losses and try to break even (no matter how much a house is they rarely sell for what they are actually worth and usually have to be let go at much less). Let's assume that they barely break even with the inflated prices, making no profit at all. This makes investors stop investing and the company loses even more worth and no one gets paid (even the workers for the bank) because there isn't any money to pay them.

Banks were only too glad to. They sold the mortgages to finance houses right away and turned a commission. The finance houses knew these were questionable loans and started the derivatives process to mask their risk. That is why local banks are still well capitalized. If they had to back mortgages themselves they wouldn't have done it. They did have a right to refuse loans.
If people hadn't spun the market so much and priced the homes out of reality most buyers would have been able to make their mortgages. It is foreclosures that is driving the market down not bankruptcies but backruptcies will increase the longer the recession prevails.

Doesn't the politicians have a role in this debacle? Aren't they ones who coaxed the lenders to fork over the bucks to questionable loans? Just askin...

 

[AVG-JOE]

Who is the ostrich?

It's a metaphor. Meteor?

No, metaphor. Definitely metaphor.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

Well it was rich people who gave us the current mess. Those who can't operate with self conscience rather than regulation. Those who played the pricing games to drive home prices and oil to gouging and unsustainable levels knowing all along that the prices did not mesh with reality. They tapped the average consumer dry where they could no longer afford to buy more stuff.

Funny thing ... the rich people were forced to give loans to the poor people who had no chance (and many no desire) to pay them back. Also ... many poor people live on credit cards. The unsettling fact is that it wasn't just the rich, as a matter of fact this time I see that the rich have much less to be blamed for considering most of the "super rich" are donating money willingly to support programs that feed and clothe, and even house, the poor. Really ... so instead of them funding programs that show they work you would rather the government take the money and use it in more programs that haven't worked while still forcing them to give out loans to people who don't even want to pay them back? Same shit, different president.

OK, let's say certain of the rich. Most people had no idea that these inflated home prices had risen so much relative to wages. When anything rises that fast it is bound to implode. My home doubled in value in a few years. I knew something was wrong with that and threw the dozens of home equity loan preapproved go buy yourself a yaught crap right into the crapper. But...I'm a bit older. I seen these sorts of things before. Way too many people believed that the values would go nothing but up. True for years until the certain people figured how to drive a falsified demand through unregulated loaning.

Dude... that is perhaps the most intelligent thing I have ever read on this board!

I don't mean that in a bad way either... competition for that title in anybodies book is going to be pretty stiff on this board.

-Joe

 

[glockmail]

My home doubled in value in a few years. I knew something was wrong with that and threw the dozens of home equity loan preapproved go buy yourself a yaught crap right into the crapper. But...I'm a bit older. I seen these sorts of things before. Way too many people believed that the values would go nothing but up. True for years until the certain people figured how to drive a falsified demand through unregulated loaning.

Aren't you happy now that you get to pay for people who made the wrong choices?