"If transferring wealth to the top 2% creates jobs, wouldn't we be swimming in jobs?"

[NYcarbineer]

When Mitt Romney asserted in a recent interview that his tax rate was fair and that it was necessary for job creation, I wish the interviewer would have followed up and asked him for some details and examples of how HE has created jobs in the US since he thinks his tax rate causes job creation. And then I would have asked for some specific examples from other people who are wealthy and get the same tax breaks.

In a report on Sensata (a Romney/Bain enterprise) laying off employees and outsourcing jobs, one person about to lose his job asks, "If transferring wealth to the top 2% creates jobs, wouldn't we be swimming in jobs?" (instead of outsourcing them which obviously creates more wealth due to much lower wages for the investors).

It doesn't impact the public with more jobs at all.

LINK

Its something the GOP won't bring up:

If tax cuts lead to prosperity and job creation; the Bush tax cuts that were extended would have delivered prosperity.

Obama has actually cut taxes more than Bush did.

Obama has extended all the Bush tax cuts, which means he's equaled Bush on those cuts,

plus, Obama cut the payroll tax and cut 288 billion in taxes in the stimulus bill.

 

[tjvh]

1. You aren't transferring weath with tax cuts. That's moronic. The money belongs to the person who earned it. A tax cut means you just aren't taking their money.

2. We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem.

3. You could tax all of the people who make over $250k a year 100% of their salary and not put a dent in the debt or the deficit.

4. The jobs happened shortly after the Bush tax cuts went into effect, we are a long ways out from that and a lot of obama job destruction since.

Yes you are transferring wealth if you're borrowing to fund the tax cuts.

You're giving government to current taxpayers without making them pay for all of it. You're borrowing money to give them tax cuts,

and someone else in the future will have to pay that money back.

Tax cuts paid for with borrowed money are a transfer of wealth from your descendants to you.

Not if you reign in reckless spending you don't transfer anything.

 

[NYcarbineer]

3. You could tax all of the people who make over $250k a year 100% of their salary and not put a dent in the debt or the deficit.

What kind of an argument is that? What is that an argument for?

If you ended the food stamp program completely, you wouldn't balance the budget either.

Is that an argument for not cutting a nickel out of the food stamp program?

 

[Toro]

When you tax people more and give it to others, you transfer wealth from those who earned it to those who did not.

When you erect trade barriers and do not allow capital to flow freely, you transfer wealth by making things more expensive for consumers, and from property owners who are restricted from freely exercising their rights over their property.

In both cases, your statement assumes common ownership of property, and what is one's is all's. I think most Americans would disagree with this sentiment. Most Americans don't think its a wealth "transfer" when people are allowed to keep more of their own income and are able to do what they want with their own property.

As for whether or not cutting taxes always creates jobs, that's another issue. But higher taxes and more regulations doesn't seem to though.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. You aren't transferring weath with tax cuts. That's moronic. The money belongs to the person who earned it. A tax cut means you just aren't taking their money.

2. We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem.

3. You could tax all of the people who make over $250k a year 100% of their salary and not put a dent in the debt or the deficit.

4. The jobs happened shortly after the Bush tax cuts went into effect, we are a long ways out from that and a lot of obama job destruction since.

Yes you are transferring wealth if you're borrowing to fund the tax cuts.

You're giving government to current taxpayers without making them pay for all of it. You're borrowing money to give them tax cuts,

and someone else in the future will have to pay that money back.

Tax cuts paid for with borrowed money are a transfer of wealth from your descendants to you.

Not if you reign in reckless spending you don't transfer anything.

When is the last time a major tax cut was predicated on a requirement that offsetting spending cuts HAD to be made, then and there,

so that the tax cut would not add to the deficit?

 

[NYcarbineer]

When Mitt Romney asserted in a recent interview that his tax rate was fair and that it was necessary for job creation, I wish the interviewer would have followed up and asked him for some details and examples of how HE has created jobs in the US since he thinks his tax rate causes job creation. And then I would have asked for some specific examples from other people who are wealthy and get the same tax breaks.

In a report on Sensata (a Romney/Bain enterprise) laying off employees and outsourcing jobs, one person about to lose his job asks, "If transferring wealth to the top 2% creates jobs, wouldn't we be swimming in jobs?" (instead of outsourcing them which obviously creates more wealth due to much lower wages for the investors).

It doesn't impact the public with more jobs at all.

LINK

Its something the GOP won't bring up:

If tax cuts lead to prosperity and job creation; the Bush tax cuts that were extended would have delivered prosperity.

So explain this to me, Candy...if raising taxes WILL deliver prosperity then why didn't Barry, Harry and Nancy get rid of the Bush tax cuts Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 2009?

I think we both know that the reason that didn't happen was because all three of your progressive leaders were only too aware that to do so would bring an already anemic economic recovery to a shuddering halt. Oh, they would have LOVED to...but they were scared shitless that they'd get blamed for putting us back into a recession.

People are now arguing that the potential job losses that will occur as a result of the spending cuts in the sequestration will also throw us back into recession.

So...

if everyone, one side or another, is going to argue that we can't raise taxes, or we'll go into recession,

or we can't cut spending, or we'll go into recession,

how do we ever do anything?

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are going into another recession because the Tea Party will not agree to tax cuts period.

 

[zeke]

Typical Rethug drivel.

Can't raise taxes on real rich people. Can't cut military spending. Can't cut tax breaks to big oil. Can't stop subsidizing agriculture.

What they can do is cut anything and everything that benefits rather poorer people.
Cause everybody knows they can't do anything about it.

Poor people have sucky lobbyists. They need to fire them and get better representation.

 

[Ernie S.]

Jealousy of the rich sure as fuck never created a job.

Michael Moore.

And barack obama's Cabinet...

 

[zeke]

And of course the Rethugs have Mittens Disease. You know the disease where you were for something before you were against it.

Like; defense cuts.

Rethugs were all for it during negoiations for sequestration. Then they were all against it when it came to pass.

That's the Mittens disease. Dreaded and evidentally incurable. Unless they are voted out of office.

 

[kiwiman127]

And so would the economies in Spain, Portugal, Iceland, France, England, and other countries in the European Union.

Actually, some of the countries you mentioned, cut taxes for the wealthy and cut spending. After that their economies slowed and they are now in another recession. One of them is the UK and things are even getting worse.

Wasn't it France that just announced that they were going to pull an Obama on their companies and 'tax the rich' at a rate of 75%? How many companies opted for a less greedy environment?
If you make it appealing to come to America, companies will come. And hire people.

The 1% aren't the wealthiest in this country. America is the 1% to Obama. Relieving us of it is a dream from his father.

Yes, France has plans to really raise the tax rates on the wealthy.
Conservative economist Ben Stein said on Fox, that revenues are a problem and that we should raise taxes on anyone making over $2 million and we should also cut spending. Also in a survey of economist a marge majority are practically begging for a tax increase along with spending cuts.
By the way, your Obama analogy with France is amusing. France has a real socialist running it's country. Comparing France's socialistic leader to Obama is pretty laughable. France has a real socialist running it's country, Obama is a socialist in the minds of only those who don't know what real socialism really is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Romney will be elected, Obama and the Dems will get everything in return for extending the tax cuts, and then the Democratic Senate and Romney and the House GOP leadership are going to pound the Tea Party into submission and then extinction.

 

[PredFan]

Nice try with your bullshit, but nobody TRANSFERS wealth to anyone, the wealthy EARN it.

Exactamundo.

 

[kiwiman127]

I wonder what these economists know that USMB posters don't know.

Economists' surprising election-year request: Raise taxes, please!
In a survey of economists who work mostly for banks and businesses, a majority said some additional tax revenue is needed, along with spending cuts, to reduce the federal budget deficit.
Economists' surprising election-year request: Raise taxes, please! - CSMonitor.com

It's probably the fact that these people know what they are talking about and don't have an ideology dictating their thinking.

 

[PredFan]

1. You aren't transferring weath with tax cuts. That's moronic. The money belongs to the person who earned it. A tax cut means you just aren't taking their money.

2. We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem.

3. You could tax all of the people who make over $250k a year 100% of their salary and not put a dent in the debt or the deficit.

4. The jobs happened shortly after the Bush tax cuts went into effect, we are a long ways out from that and a lot of obama job destruction since.

Yes you are transferring wealth if you're borrowing to fund the tax cuts.

You're giving government to current taxpayers without making them pay for all of it. You're borrowing money to give them tax cuts,

and someone else in the future will have to pay that money back.

Tax cuts paid for with borrowed money are a transfer of wealth from your descendants to you.

You don't borrow the money to give it to the people who got the cuts. You simply don't take it from them. You borrow the money to SPEND it. Stop spending it.

You are giving government to EVERYONE (whether they want it or not) and to make some people pay for it and others not is wrong, but it isn't transferring wealth. Government is not wealth.

Yes, someone will have to pay it back, so stop spending it.

Tax cuts ARE NOT a transfer of wealth. Wealth belongs to the people who earn it and not the government. The government spending money it has to borrow is not the fault of the taxpayers, that's idiotic.

 

[auditor0007]

When Mitt Romney asserted in a recent interview that his tax rate was fair and that it was necessary for job creation, I wish the interviewer would have followed up and asked him for some details and examples of how HE has created jobs in the US since he thinks his tax rate causes job creation. And then I would have asked for some specific examples from other people who are wealthy and get the same tax breaks.

In a report on Sensata (a Romney/Bain enterprise) laying off employees and outsourcing jobs, one person about to lose his job asks, "If transferring wealth to the top 2% creates jobs, wouldn't we be swimming in jobs?" (instead of outsourcing them which obviously creates more wealth due to much lower wages for the investors).

It doesn't impact the public with more jobs at all.

LINK

Its something the GOP won't bring up:

If tax cuts lead to prosperity and job creation; the Bush tax cuts that were extended would have delivered prosperity.

So explain this to me, Candy...if raising taxes WILL deliver prosperity then why didn't Barry, Harry and Nancy get rid of the Bush tax cuts Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 2009?

I think we both know that the reason that didn't happen was because all three of your progressive leaders were only too aware that to do so would bring an already anemic economic recovery to a shuddering halt. Oh, they would have LOVED to...but they were scared shitless that they'd get blamed for putting us back into a recession.

Raising taxes just to raise taxes won't do anything, however, raising taxes to bring down the debt somewhat while expanding government spending on real projects such as infrastructure does make a huge difference. Infrastructure spending in down at both the federal and state level and that is hurting everyone. What people miss in the equation when it comes to many of these types of projects is the fact that money for infrastructure is put right back into the private sector. Without that type of government spending, that type of work does not get done period. Unless roads are private roads, they have to have government spending to fix and update them. The thing is that it is private companies doing the work, and those private businesses rely on government spending.

 

[tjvh]

We are going into another recession because the Tea Party will not agree to tax cuts period.

I thought the Tea Party was nothing but a small group of extremists? Now they have the power to decide whether we can have Tax cuts? I wish you loons would make up your minds.

 

[buckeye45_73]

So we had the Bush tax cuts, which are still in effect. Where the hell are the jobs? Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, did we have an economic bust under Clinton like we did under Bush?

yeah we did.......it's call the dot com bust.....we were in a recession when Bush took over....and Clinton started affirmative action housing and deregulating loans....basically forcing banks to loan to poorer people who couldnt pay...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQJBpi-2CJE]Pundits Agree: Andrew Cuomo caused the Sub Prime Crisis - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Trajan]

When Mitt Romney asserted in a recent interview that his tax rate was fair and that it was necessary for job creation, I wish the interviewer would have followed up and asked him for some details and examples of how HE has created jobs in the US since he thinks his tax rate causes job creation. And then I would have asked for some specific examples from other people who are wealthy and get the same tax breaks.

In a report on Sensata (a Romney/Bain enterprise) laying off employees and outsourcing jobs, one person about to lose his job asks, "If transferring wealth to the top 2% creates jobs, wouldn't we be swimming in jobs?" (instead of outsourcing them which obviously creates more wealth due to much lower wages for the investors).

It doesn't impact the public with more jobs at all.

LINK

how does this transfer of wealth to the 2% work?

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. You aren't transferring weath with tax cuts. That's moronic. The money belongs to the person who earned it. A tax cut means you just aren't taking their money.

2. We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem.

3. You could tax all of the people who make over $250k a year 100% of their salary and not put a dent in the debt or the deficit.

4. The jobs happened shortly after the Bush tax cuts went into effect, we are a long ways out from that and a lot of obama job destruction since.

Yes you are transferring wealth if you're borrowing to fund the tax cuts.

You're giving government to current taxpayers without making them pay for all of it. You're borrowing money to give them tax cuts,

and someone else in the future will have to pay that money back.

Tax cuts paid for with borrowed money are a transfer of wealth from your descendants to you.

You don't borrow the money to give it to the people who got the cuts. You simply don't take it from them. You borrow the money to SPEND it. Stop spending it.

You are giving government to EVERYONE (whether they want it or not) and to make some people pay for it and others not is wrong, but it isn't transferring wealth. Government is not wealth.

Yes, someone will have to pay it back, so stop spending it.

Tax cuts ARE NOT a transfer of wealth. Wealth belongs to the people who earn it and not the government. The government spending money it has to borrow is not the fault of the taxpayers, that's idiotic.

Tax cuts are a transfer of wealth if money is borrowed to pay for what the tax revenues would have paid for because the people getting the government are not paying for it.

Someone else pays for it. That's what a transfer is.