Job Killing Taxes

[Wiseacre]

what i see is rhetoric and theory. "lower taxes, the savings will be passed on creating demand then expansion and jobs!"

we've had trickle-down for 30yrs and unemployment is sky-high. job creators? ya there?

banks have essentially FREE money to lend, and theyre not lending, why not? job creators, hello?

republicans are right when they say lower taxes help facilitate the velocity of money, in which case EVERYONE should have low tax rates. but the lower classes pay more, why? shits gotta be paid for. exactly. SOMEBODY has to pay up to run a country. give the rich the breaks, theyll sit on it. give the middle class the breaks, we'll burn through it

republicans have theory, and it doesnt pan out, theyre just getting in the way

im a DEMAND CREATOR. WE are demand creators. cut OUR taxes, THEN youll see growth.

boom. done.

Almost half the country pays no federal income tax now, so where's the demand?

% of Income
The top 10% of income earners now account for 50% of all income in the US.
The top 1% of income earners now account for 23.5% of all income in the efUS.
The top .1% (that’s 1 in 1000) now account for 11% of all income in the US.
Not since the year before the great depression has the top 10% of income earners neared 50%of all income.

% Income Growth 1979 – 2007
The top 1% had growth in income of 281%
The Middle 5 % had growth in income of 25%
The bottom had income growth of 16%


All of the above are from:
The 30-Year Growth of Income Inequality |

Taxes Paid by Income Percentile
Top 1% 20.3%
Top 10% 48%
The lowest 40% of the income earners earn 10.6% of all income, and pay 7.2% of all taxes.
So here is the difference, Wiseacre. The numbers here reflect total taxes: federal, state, and local.

The above is from: http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

And by the way, your statement that "Almost half the country pays no federal income tax now, so where's the demand?" is totally bogus. They pay about 9% of all federal income taxes on about 14% of the total income. You should be really pissed at whomever got you to believe that quote.


About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.
Half of Americans pay no federal income tax - Business - Personal finance - Tax Tactics - msnbc.com


Some of us see the value of not charging income taxes on those poor enough to not be able to live.


Not able to live? Isn't that a bit over the top, even for you?


By the way, are you at all concerned that Exon and GE paid essentially no us federal income taxes???

Actually, yes I am. It's about freakin' time we reformed the tax code for both corps and individuals, if it was me I'd lower the rates and pay for it by capping the deductions at say 10% of taxable income. And I'd yank all the subsidies too, which mostly go to the big corps. You do know that every single democrat voted to continue those subsidies in the latest farm bill, right? Got just enough repubs to pass it through the Senate, not sure how it'll work out in committee with the House though. And BTW I'd also change the tax law that taxes income earned overseas, like every other developed country does. Wonder who opposes that, and why.

 

[Rshermr]

If you really think that raising taxes leads to economic recovery then you are significantly out of touch with reality. As I remember it, Reagan believed the country would be better off if gov't spending was rediced, so he made a deal with the devil, in this case the democratic Congress to raise taxes if they would cut spending. So he raised taxes, but went to his grave waiting for the democrats to cut spending.

As for Clinton, he was fortunate enough to be president at a time of great economic expansion due primarily to the dot.com boom. As I recall, he raised taxes in 93 but the GOP Congress made him cut taxes in 95. IMHO it didn't really make a difference either time, the economy was booming irregardless of the tax rates. Personally, I think it makes sense to raise taxes in the boom periods to achieve a budget surplus that will be needed during the next bust period. But obviously, we are not in a boom period, and won't be as long as a democrat is in the WH or they control the Senate.

You should really try to find some rational, and impartial, proof for your claims. I can find none.

I am certain that nothing I could say or link to would in any way change your mind. In any event, it is pointless to argue with anyone who thinks the Reagan or Clinton tax hikes were responsible for the economic growth which followed. I'm pretty sure what I said is accurate, and besides, impartial proof of anything related to economics is hard to ifnd.

Particularly if you do not look for it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

who thinks the Reagan or Clinton tax hikes were responsible for the economic growth which followed.

Only an idiot would think tax hikes cause growth. They would cause growth though if the money was given to folks like Ford, Gates, and Jobs to start or expand businesses, but thats hardly what happens to the money which for the most part is 100% wasted on one shot welfare/entitlements that create untolled moral hazard and more and more dependency.

 

[JoeNormal]

who thinks the Reagan or Clinton tax hikes were responsible for the economic growth which followed.

Only an idiot would think tax hikes cause growth. They would cause growth though if the money was given to folks like Ford, Gates, and Jobs to start or expand businesses, but thats hardly what happens to the money which for the most part is 100% wasted on one shot welfare/entitlements that create untolled moral hazard and more and more dependency.

Out of curiosity, why then do you think there's a strong corellation between tax rates and growth?

 

[Wiseacre]

You should really try to find some rational, and impartial, proof for your claims. I can find none.

I am certain that nothing I could say or link to would in any way change your mind. In any event, it is pointless to argue with anyone who thinks the Reagan or Clinton tax hikes were responsible for the economic growth which followed. I'm pretty sure what I said is accurate, and besides, impartial proof of anything related to economics is hard to ifnd.

Particularly if you do not look for it.

I do not waste my time looking for something that is not there. Anyone who believes that tax hikes are in any way beneficial to growth is clearly out of touch with reality. Sometimes the economy grows IN SPITE OF tax hikes, as it did under Clinton, but that growth was sure as hell not because of those increases.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Out of curiosity, why then do you think there's a strong corellation between tax rates and growth?

too stupid!!!! There isn't!!!! America has the lowest taxes and is the richest country in human history!!

 

[JoeNormal]

Out of curiosity, why then do you think there's a strong corellation between tax rates and growth?

too stupid!!!! There isn't!!!! America has the lowest taxes and is the richest country in human history!!

You presumably saw the graph. There's a mathematical description of corellation that I could calculate and give you a number if that would mean anything to you. I'm guessing you'd have no idea how to interpret it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Out of curiosity, why then do you think there's a strong corellation between tax rates and growth?

too stupid!!!! There isn't!!!! America has the lowest taxes and is the richest country in human history!!

You presumably saw the graph. There's a mathematical description of corellation that I could calculate and give you a number if that would mean anything to you. I'm guessing you'd have no idea how to interpret it.

too stupid!!! Does the fool liberal know American History. We are the lowest taxed and the richest in human history!!! How on earth could taking money from our most productive and giving to our least productive increase productivity??


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Twenty-two million jobs were created during the Clinton administration.

1) Clinton was the president not the government

2) Clinton inherited economic boom from Bush 41

3) Clinton inherited tech boom

4) Clinton inherited Newt and first Republican House in 40 years who made him balance the budget and lie, "the era of big government is over."


A liberal will lack the IQ to know that correlation is not causality.

 

[JoeNormal]

too stupid!!!! There isn't!!!! America has the lowest taxes and is the richest country in human history!!

You presumably saw the graph. There's a mathematical description of corellation that I could calculate and give you a number if that would mean anything to you. I'm guessing you'd have no idea how to interpret it.

too stupid!!! Does the fool liberal know American History. We are the lowest taxed and the richest in human history!!! How on earth could taking money from our most productive and giving to our least productive increase productivity??


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow!!

I know quite a lot of human history AND I know what corellation is. Don't hurt yourself trying to think about this issue. It's quite obviously beyond your pay grade.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I know quite a lot of human history AND I know what corellation is. .

then why be so afraid to explain how higher taxes lead to productivity despite the evidence to the contrary?

What does your fear tell us about your intelligence and character and about liberalism???

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The chart below puts the lie to the Republican mantra that high marginal tax rates on the wealthiest among us kill economic growth. In fact-----in fact the empirical evidence shows; just the opposite is true, high marginal tax rates on the wealthiest among us equals economic growth.




Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent — the top rate during the 1990s — annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.

As Linden put it, “these numbers do not mean that higher rates necessarily lead to higher growth. But the central tenet of modern conservative economics is that a lower top marginal tax rate will result in more growth, and these numbers do show conclusively that history has not been kind to that theory.” Indeed, these numbers put the lie to the common Republican refrain that Obama and Democrats in Congress are trying to implement a “job-killing tax hike” by putting the top tax rate back to where it was under President Clinton.

obama just raised taxes on the middle class. June 28 2012

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

AND I know what corellation is.

why not learn to spell it too?

 

[JoeNormal]

I know quite a lot of human history AND I know what corellation is. .

then why be so afraid to explain how higher taxes lead to productivity despite the evidence to the contrary?

It provides evidence that Keynesian and demand side economics are correct.

 

[JoeNormal]

AND I know what corellation is.

why not learn to spell it too?

Touche. I put too much faith in spell check.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I know quite a lot of human history AND I know what corellation is. .

then why be so afraid to explain how higher taxes lead to productivity despite the evidence to the contrary?

It provides evidence that Keynesian and demand side economics are correct.

then why be so afraid to explain how higher taxes lead to increased productivity despite the evidence[America is lowest taxed and richest] to the contrary?

 

[expat_panama]

....a lower top marginal tax rate will result in more growth, and these numbers do show conclusively that history has not been kind to that theory....

On the other hand, history is very kind to the theory that lower marginal rates come with higher GDP...

 

[JoeNormal]

then why be so afraid to explain how higher taxes lead to productivity despite the evidence to the contrary?

It provides evidence that Keynesian and demand side economics are correct.

then why be so afraid to explain how higher taxes lead to increased productivity despite the evidence[America is lowest taxed and richest] to the contrary?

1) The higher taxes provide liquidity in the form of public worker income.

2) Lowering taxes beyond a certain point is counterproductive.

3) Taxes keep the infrastructure working adequately.

4) Reduced economic disparity creates a more unified workforce.

 

[JoeNormal]

....a lower top marginal tax rate will result in more growth, and these numbers do show conclusively that history has not been kind to that theory....

On the other hand, history is very kind to the theory that lower marginal rates come with higher GDP...

The graph is a reflection of technological and process improvements over time. (And probably inflation.)

 

[expat_panama]

....a lower top marginal tax rate will result in more growth, and these numbers do show conclusively that history has not been kind to that theory....

On the other hand, history is very kind to the theory that lower marginal rates come with higher GDP...

The graph is a reflection of technological and process improvements over time. (And probably inflation.)

No, actually it's pseudo-scientific scam, just like that goofy con that Star posted at http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/taxratesgrowth.jpg . The main difference between Star's chart and mine is not what they say about taxes, but rather the fact that most of know they're both laughable and he doesn't.