Let Capitalism Work! Tax the Rich!

[Listening]

Here is something from the Treasury Dept in 2007.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

It basically says that we have a lot of mobility in the U.S.

Someone is going to have get out a scale and compare the apples and oranges.

 

[WatertheTree]

I think we need to shrink government and issue huge tax cuts on the middle class. I think we need to shift taxes onto the rich. If the current rich dont dont want to play ball cause its not profitable enough then fuckem. I am sure there are plenty of middle class people that would appreciate a larger income, even if the government keeps more of it. Small business taxes should be eliminated. Big business taxes should be increased. We have no equality because our government does not promote it!

Just because I advocate a tax system based on promoting equality does not mean that I do not support ending government spending, or tax cuts for small business.

Short of stealing their money, you won't get at it. No matter how hard you try in today's global economy, you can only get at it through commerce.

And are you really silly enough not to realize that big business and government might as well be called the same thing. How do you think people get so rich ?

Economics teaches that if you start to see profit in an enterprise, then competition will show up and push that profit down to nothing....thus consumers get a great deal. When government gets involved (especially via regulation) then they create barriers to entry and artificially raise the demand cost curve (because there isn't the competition).

Look at oil refining. Try to build a new refinery anywhere in the U.S. and see how far you get.

I am very aware of the capture of our government by the oligarchy, and thats really the point. But as I am sure you are aware most people are as smart as a fucking dildo.

 

[WatertheTree]

Uh, no. Actually that's not true.
Try again.

This is an internationally accepted analysis of social mobility. It calculates "social mobility" a number of different ways, including simply comparing a son's income to his father's (highly correlated = low mobility).

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf

It finds that by most measures the US has a low social mobility for a Western democracy.

Um,. no.
Looking at the Forbes list of wealthy people, most of them did not start out wealthy.
Further, we have a very large immigrant population that tends to move rapidly up the socio economic ladder.
And no, I dont accept the OECD's word on anything. Same people who promised Greece wouldnt default.

 

[Listening]

I am very aware of the capture of our government by the oligarchy, and thats really the point. But as I am sure you are aware most people are as smart as a fucking dildo.

What is the point.

You want to do something you can't do....tax the rich.

BTW: I give people more credit than you apparently do.

 

[ClosedCaption]

If these tax breaks were about creating jobs, why not offer a tax break after they create the jobs? This honor system bs with taxes is fucking us and no jobs are being created but they are still handing out huge bonuses WHILE CUTTING JOBS!

We've tried this...Waterthetree makes a great point that can't seem to be debated so far

 

[oreo]

The common mantra amongst just about anyone that knows the economy is that Capatalism is good because it shoots productivity through the roof. This is true, allow people the chance to make there own fate and they are highly motivated to make something of themselves.

Also the common mantra amonst most neocons and people that are pushing for tax cuts for the rich is that it will create more jobs. The way to create more jobs is for rich people to get to work. To invest that money and expand there business and to hire people. They arent going to get any richer unless they work harder! They arent going to get richer unless they deserve it!

Instead of trying to give them everything they want, why dont we start taxing them harder, to give them an incentive to work?? This really isnt that radical of an idea, its something these same people have been doing to the working class of people. Paying them less so they work harder.

Can anyone explain to me why giving rich people everything they want, and allowing them to gain wealth and riches beyond measure, will create more jobs?? Especially considering that is counterproductive to the basic rules of capitalism??

Or is our economic model better represented by capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich?

There is currently about 3 TRILLION dollars sitting on the sidelines--waiting for something?

And here's a little hint from a DEMOCRAT and CEO as to what they're waiting for.

“I’m saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, progress and job creation in my lifetime. A lot of people don’t want to say that. They’ll say, ‘Oh God, don’t be attacking Obama.’ Well, this is Obama’s deal, and it’s Obama that’s responsible for this fear in America.”

“The guy [Obama] keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe ‘we ought to do something to businesses that don’t invest or hold too much money.’ We haven’t heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists.”

“Business is being hammered. The business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the president of the United States. Until he’s gone, everybody’s going to be sitting on their thumbs.”

--Steve Wynn of Wynn's resort and casino a DEMOCRAT and strong supporter of Harry Reid.

Steve Wynn's Anti-Obama Rant - Is He Right? | BNET


One Big Ass Mistake America

 

[auditor0007]

Man are you all over the place! Anyway, the rich already pay the majority of the taxes. Their money today is sitting on the sideline, not being invested for a variety of reasons. You think increases taxes on them will result in more job creation? Really?

The rich pay the majority of federal income taxes; they do not pay the majority of taxes. This is something so many of you fail to understand. You honestly believe the rich are being soaked when in fact, they are barely paying an equitable percentage based on their earnings, when all taxes are included. And yes, I believe they should be paying more. And yes, it is in their best interest to pay more. That doesn't mean we should tax them into oblivion, but they should pay substantially more.

Look at it this way; the person who makes barely enough to keep food on the table and a roof over his head really isn't gaining much from close to a trillion dollars in defense spending. However, a wealthy person who has his money tied up in companies throughout the world has much more to lose, so all that military spending is worth a lot more to the rich person. That's a very basic example, but it's true.

 

[oreo]

Man are you all over the place! Anyway, the rich already pay the majority of the taxes. Their money today is sitting on the sideline, not being invested for a variety of reasons. You think increases taxes on them will result in more job creation? Really?

The rich pay the majority of federal income taxes; they do not pay the majority of taxes. This is something so many of you fail to understand. You honestly believe the rich are being soaked when in fact, they are barely paying an equitable percentage based on their earnings, when all taxes are included. And yes, I believe they should be paying more. And yes, it is in their best interest to pay more. That doesn't mean we should tax them into oblivion, but they should pay substantially more.

Look at it this way; the person who makes barely enough to keep food on the table and a roof over his head really isn't gaining much from close to a trillion dollars in defense spending. However, a wealthy person who has his money tied up in companies throughout the world has much more to lose, so all that military spending is worth a lot more to the rich person. That's a very basic example, but it's true.

Then you admit it--it's not the tax revenue--it's the spending. It's not taxing the rich higher--it's that we need more taxpayers.

Clinton spent 164 million a day.
G.W Bush spent 1.6 BILLION dollars a day.
Barack Obama is spending 4.3 BILLION dollars a day.

The Federal Government is currently borrowing .43 cents on every dollar it spends.

You could tax the crap out of every single rich person in this country--and you wouldn't even put a SCRATCH on the debt of this country. There are ONLY 220K people in this country that make over 1 million a year out of 310 MILLION Americans.

 

[auditor0007]

Man are you all over the place! Anyway, the rich already pay the majority of the taxes. Their money today is sitting on the sideline, not being invested for a variety of reasons. You think increases taxes on them will result in more job creation? Really?

The rich pay the majority of federal income taxes; they do not pay the majority of taxes. This is something so many of you fail to understand. You honestly believe the rich are being soaked when in fact, they are barely paying an equitable percentage based on their earnings, when all taxes are included. And yes, I believe they should be paying more. And yes, it is in their best interest to pay more. That doesn't mean we should tax them into oblivion, but they should pay substantially more.

Look at it this way; the person who makes barely enough to keep food on the table and a roof over his head really isn't gaining much from close to a trillion dollars in defense spending. However, a wealthy person who has his money tied up in companies throughout the world has much more to lose, so all that military spending is worth a lot more to the rich person. That's a very basic example, but it's true.

Then you admit it--it's not the tax revenue--it's the spending. It's not taxing the rich higher--it's that we need more taxpayers.

Clinton spent 164 million a day.
G.W Bush spent 1.6 BILLION dollars a day.
Barack Obama is spending 4.3 BILLION dollars a day.

The Federal Government is currently borrowing .43 cents on every dollar it spends.

You could tax the crap out of every single rich person in this country--and you wouldn't even put a SCRATCH on the debt of this country. There are ONLY 220K people in this country that make over 1 million a year out of 310 MILLION Americans.

Oreo, your posts are usually reasonable, so I am assuming you just were rattling off numbers without thinking about what you were typing. We are currently spending over $10 billion per day. Clinton spent approximately $5 billion per day. So we are currently spending double what we were spending during the Clinton years, or at least the last few years of Clinton. Our economy is now just over 50% larger than it was the last year Clinton was in office. So, all things being even, our spending should be around $2.7 to $2.8 trillion. Instead, it is $3.8 trillion. However, defense spending increased dramatically after Clinton due to unfunded wars, and Homeland Security. SS also tapped out and the yearly surpluses are no longer there to borrow against. All this points to a need for additional revenue, no matter how you slice it. Yes, there is some excess spending, and we chose, right or wrong, to bail out the banks and the auto industry, which cost us a good chunk of change. But the fact is that while we need to find places to make some cuts in spending, our biggest problem is not having enough revenue. And we are not going to get more revenue by cutting taxes even more. We've been down that road, and it has led us to the terrible situation we are in currently.

Government has to be paid for. You want to make cuts, then tell us where. I'm all for cutting military spending to a certain point. I would even support dumping the Department of Education. However, I am mostly against cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and SS, other than possibly raising the retirement age by a few years. Realistic cuts to the Federal Government are not as easy as so many of you think. So we need a realistic approach to solving our financial problems, and that involves making some necessary cuts along with increasing tax revenue. Some of that can be done by getting the economy growing again, but some needs to be done by raising taxes.

 

[WatertheTree]

If these tax breaks were about creating jobs, why not offer a tax break after they create the jobs? This honor system bs with taxes is fucking us and no jobs are being created but they are still handing out huge bonuses WHILE CUTTING JOBS!

We've tried this...Waterthetree makes a great point that can't seem to be debated so far

I dont think we need to offer a large multinational company a god damn thing to hire anyone. That employee is going to make that company more profits, isnt that enough???

Why do we have to keep handing them everything?? What this country needs is competition from the bottom up. Like I have been saying, fuckem, if they wont hire people and get to work then lets empower smaller companies to take there market share.

If the banks wont lend then lets go to joeshmo bank of local and start working with them to boost smaller business.

None of our problems today are tricky to resolve, they are just presented that way because the role of government is to protect those business and not the people.

 

[Listening]

If these tax breaks were about creating jobs, why not offer a tax break after they create the jobs? This honor system bs with taxes is fucking us and no jobs are being created but they are still handing out huge bonuses WHILE CUTTING JOBS!

We've tried this...Waterthetree makes a great point that can't seem to be debated so far

I has been debated quite well.

 

[Listening]

I dont think we need to offer a large multinational company a god damn thing to hire anyone. That employee is going to make that company more profits, isnt that enough???

Why do we have to keep handing them everything?? What this country needs is competition from the bottom up. Like I have been saying, fuckem, if they wont hire people and get to work then lets empower smaller companies to take there market share.

If the banks wont lend then lets go to joeshmo bank of local and start working with them to boost smaller business.

None of our problems today are tricky to resolve, they are just presented that way because the role of government is to protect those business and not the people.

This is a much different take on your original post.

I agree we need to clear the way for small businesses to cut into the market share of large companies.

However, when the government bailed out GM and Wall Street nobody seemed interested in answering the question as to why we should not bail out smaller businesses. In my estimation, we should have let GM fail and break up into smaller pieces. We should have let Wall Street crash. In the ashes of those failures, more people would have access to what you are describing.

But instead all we hear is the BS about being saved from another Great Depression. Economics is about equilibrium...not rate. If it takes another depression to bring down the giant corporations (who are spooning with government), then so be it.

Taxing the rich does not fit into this equation though. That is a different topic.

In other words, I agree with you on your points above. They don't relate to the original premise in any way I can see. Under the current structure......taxing them more does nothing to help others.

 

[Big Fitz]

The common mantra amongst just about anyone that knows the economy is that Capatalism is good because it shoots productivity through the roof. This is true, allow people the chance to make there own fate and they are highly motivated to make something of themselves.

Also the common mantra amonst most neocons and people that are pushing for tax cuts for the rich is that it will create more jobs. The way to create more jobs is for rich people to get to work. To invest that money and expand there business and to hire people. They arent going to get any richer unless they work harder! They arent going to get richer unless they deserve it!

Instead of trying to give them everything they want, why dont we start taxing them harder, to give them an incentive to work?? This really isnt that radical of an idea, its something these same people have been doing to the working class of people. Paying them less so they work harder.

Can anyone explain to me why giving rich people everything they want, and allowing them to gain wealth and riches beyond measure, will create more jobs?? Especially considering that is counterproductive to the basic rules of capitalism??

Or is our economic model better represented by capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich?

One: Basic rule of economics, 'Subsidize what you want more of, Tax what you want less of."
If you tax income, people will be a disincentive to work as hard. They will instead find a balance point of best effort for return. If income is created by work, and productivity is an indicator of the quantity of work, taxes decrease the incentive to work as hard, because a laborer keeps less of their money, an investor will risk less, creating less investment capital, and an entrepreneur will risk less because the return is smaller.

Therefore, taxes are NOT an incentive to work as hard, or as much.

Two: A graduated tax code creates even GREATER disincentive.
The harder I work, the more I pay. I will instead find the "Sweet Spot" for maximum profit for minimum work. It's the 'Law of Thermodynamics" for economics in many respects. Money is lost at every step of the process through taxes and costs. You can only make the system so efficient, and if you put more strain on the outcome, the quicker the activity will cease.

Three: Nature rewards the most efficient. They conserve the most energy, and do the most work with the least energy.
The same is true with economics. The goal really is "Money for Nothing", but since that is as impossible to achieve as a perpetual motion machine, you look for the best efficiency... or rather return on investment. If you create a disincentive like taxation increases for productivity, achievement, volume or success, it will quickly dwindle.

Four: The government is not bound by profit motive and therefore is inefficient and unaccountable to failure.
All business must be profitable or fail. Government, because they have a monopoly on force (through the law, courts and military) can forcibly extract wealth from its populace to cover its shortfalls. This means it is not accountable for bad planning and management or even function and design. They just use guns and jails to get what they need from their citizenry till the population revolts, or they become so weak, an outside force conquers them and replaces them with a more efficient and successful model. Often this is to the detriment of all people in the nation.

Five: Government activity does not grow/increase work unless it provides a tangible product, but it is the worst possible method to achieve it.
In other words, a government gold mine would increase national wealth, but it would be much better handled through another private vendor with a profit motive. Since government is not accountable for doing things right or efficiently, they can screw up as long as they can keep being subsidized. This creates an apathetic government class who feels insulated from responsibility or accountability for their actions. This leads to an attitude of privilege or entitlement that is ill deserved since it is spawned by their own general incompetence. Combine this with the fact that 99% of all government jobs are nothing more than shuffling paper for the sake of its own existence, this is even worse. "The bureaucracy is expanding to handle the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." Growth without increased function or purpose ultimately leads to death as certain as Cancer.

Six: All government involvement are a net drain on the economy.
Like entropy, money is lost at every stage of development, production, marketing and distribution of a product. Government one of the largest net drains on any industry. Every tax removes more money from efficiency like sand in oil. If it's only minor impurities, the machine can tolerate it, but over time the wear will damage it. The more government involvement, the less efficient every process is in an economy. So the least government is the best government.

Seven: Government jobs DECREASE overall wealth of a nation.
How is a government job funded? By taxes. This means money comes out of the market to maintain them and therefore is unable to be invested wisely to increase the overall wealth of the people in the nation. But what about the taxes government workers pay, you say? That is just recycled back into the system. It's not self sustaining, see point Five.

Also, most government jobs are visciously aware of their own fragility and therefore are tenacious in their efforts at self preservation. That's why Reagan so blithely pointed out that the nearest thing to immortality on Earth was a government program. Once started, they create a base of people who will fight tooth and nail for their very survival and growth despite their actual functionality. If you had a bureau of farm management, the managers would shut down all the farmers first before endangering their own jobs to preserve the cash leaving them with no real work, but they'd all be paid for it. This is the nature of all bureaucracies run amok.

So there you go. Seven points debunking your argument of why taxing the rich, and why growing government is bad. It does the opposite of everything you think it does.

Of course, I don't expect you to believe a word I say, but that's okay. It's more for the benefit of those who still can be saved.

 

[The Rabbi]

Man are you all over the place! Anyway, the rich already pay the majority of the taxes. Their money today is sitting on the sideline, not being invested for a variety of reasons. You think increases taxes on them will result in more job creation? Really?

The rich pay the majority of federal income taxes; they do not pay the majority of taxes. This is something so many of you fail to understand. You honestly believe the rich are being soaked when in fact, they are barely paying an equitable percentage based on their earnings, when all taxes are included. And yes, I believe they should be paying more. And yes, it is in their best interest to pay more. That doesn't mean we should tax them into oblivion, but they should pay substantially more.

Look at it this way; the person who makes barely enough to keep food on the table and a roof over his head really isn't gaining much from close to a trillion dollars in defense spending. However, a wealthy person who has his money tied up in companies throughout the world has much more to lose, so all that military spending is worth a lot more to the rich person. That's a very basic example, but it's true.

The rich pay the majority of state income taxes, city income taxes, property taxes, and various excise taxes. Which taxes do they not pay? Please provide something other than wishful thinking.

 

[WatertheTree]

The common mantra amongst just about anyone that knows the economy is that Capatalism is good because it shoots productivity through the roof. This is true, allow people the chance to make there own fate and they are highly motivated to make something of themselves.

Also the common mantra amonst most neocons and people that are pushing for tax cuts for the rich is that it will create more jobs. The way to create more jobs is for rich people to get to work. To invest that money and expand there business and to hire people. They arent going to get any richer unless they work harder! They arent going to get richer unless they deserve it!

Instead of trying to give them everything they want, why dont we start taxing them harder, to give them an incentive to work?? This really isnt that radical of an idea, its something these same people have been doing to the working class of people. Paying them less so they work harder.

Can anyone explain to me why giving rich people everything they want, and allowing them to gain wealth and riches beyond measure, will create more jobs?? Especially considering that is counterproductive to the basic rules of capitalism??

Or is our economic model better represented by capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich?

One: Basic rule of economics, 'Subsidize what you want more of, Tax what you want less of."
If you tax income, people will be a disincentive to work as hard. They will instead find a balance point of best effort for return. If income is created by work, and productivity is an indicator of the quantity of work, taxes decrease the incentive to work as hard, because a laborer keeps less of their money, an investor will risk less, creating less investment capital, and an entrepreneur will risk less because the return is smaller.

Therefore, taxes are NOT an incentive to work as hard, or as much.

Two: A graduated tax code creates even GREATER disincentive.
The harder I work, the more I pay. I will instead find the "Sweet Spot" for maximum profit for minimum work. It's the 'Law of Thermodynamics" for economics in many respects. Money is lost at every step of the process through taxes and costs. You can only make the system so efficient, and if you put more strain on the outcome, the quicker the activity will cease.

Three: Nature rewards the most efficient. They conserve the most energy, and do the most work with the least energy.
The same is true with economics. The goal really is "Money for Nothing", but since that is as impossible to achieve as a perpetual motion machine, you look for the best efficiency... or rather return on investment. If you create a disincentive like taxation increases for productivity, achievement, volume or success, it will quickly dwindle.

Four: The government is not bound by profit motive and therefore is inefficient and unaccountable to failure.
All business must be profitable or fail. Government, because they have a monopoly on force (through the law, courts and military) can forcibly extract wealth from its populace to cover its shortfalls. This means it is not accountable for bad planning and management or even function and design. They just use guns and jails to get what they need from their citizenry till the population revolts, or they become so weak, an outside force conquers them and replaces them with a more efficient and successful model. Often this is to the detriment of all people in the nation.

Five: Government activity does not grow/increase work unless it provides a tangible product, but it is the worst possible method to achieve it.
In other words, a government gold mine would increase national wealth, but it would be much better handled through another private vendor with a profit motive. Since government is not accountable for doing things right or efficiently, they can screw up as long as they can keep being subsidized. This creates an apathetic government class who feels insulated from responsibility or accountability for their actions. This leads to an attitude of privilege or entitlement that is ill deserved since it is spawned by their own general incompetence. Combine this with the fact that 99% of all government jobs are nothing more than shuffling paper for the sake of its own existence, this is even worse. "The bureaucracy is expanding to handle the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." Growth without increased function or purpose ultimately leads to death as certain as Cancer.

Six: All government involvement are a net drain on the economy.
Like entropy, money is lost at every stage of development, production, marketing and distribution of a product. Government one of the largest net drains on any industry. Every tax removes more money from efficiency like sand in oil. If it's only minor impurities, the machine can tolerate it, but over time the wear will damage it. The more government involvement, the less efficient every process is in an economy. So the least government is the best government.

Seven: Government jobs DECREASE overall wealth of a nation.
How is a government job funded? By taxes. This means money comes out of the market to maintain them and therefore is unable to be invested wisely to increase the overall wealth of the people in the nation. But what about the taxes government workers pay, you say? That is just recycled back into the system. It's not self sustaining, see point Five.

Also, most government jobs are visciously aware of their own fragility and therefore are tenacious in their efforts at self preservation. That's why Reagan so blithely pointed out that the nearest thing to immortality on Earth was a government program. Once started, they create a base of people who will fight tooth and nail for their very survival and growth despite their actual functionality. If you had a bureau of farm management, the managers would shut down all the farmers first before endangering their own jobs to preserve the cash leaving them with no real work, but they'd all be paid for it. This is the nature of all bureaucracies run amok.

So there you go. Seven points debunking your argument of why taxing the rich, and why growing government is bad. It does the opposite of everything you think it does.

Of course, I don't expect you to believe a word I say, but that's okay. It's more for the benefit of those who still can be saved.

Thank you captian assumption.

Your post is just more of the same old. Lets give the rich everything they want or otherwise they wont be productive anymore!

So what?

Taxes should go to where the money in the money supply is at, not to where the majority of the people are at. Tax code should promote equality, not reinforce inequality. If they dont want to get off there asses to help pay for the society that enables them to have that wealth then FUCKEM, promote competition from smaller business to take there market share.

Your line of thinking is accurate for middle and low class only! There is an endless supply of business people who would be more then happy to take the market share of these huge business if they dont want to get to work. And the new guys coming up from the bottom wont care if they get taxed.

This whole idea that our entire economy and lives are dependent on rich people getting richer if a total fucking LIE. It is based on the principal that they are the only ones that can say create a company like haliburton, but that is just not true. All government has to do is encourage growth of medium sized companies and allow them to compete with the big guys that 'dont want to pay taxes'.

Instead what we do is the opposite, we shield big business from competition and then worship the ground they walk on when they say shit like 'if you tax us we wont produce'.

Bullshit.

 

[eflatminor]

Man are you all over the place! Anyway, the rich already pay the majority of the taxes. Their money today is sitting on the sideline, not being invested for a variety of reasons. You think increases taxes on them will result in more job creation? Really?

The rich pay the majority of federal income taxes; they do not pay the majority of taxes. This is something so many of you fail to understand. You honestly believe the rich are being soaked when in fact, they are barely paying an equitable percentage based on their earnings, when all taxes are included. And yes, I believe they should be paying more. And yes, it is in their best interest to pay more. That doesn't mean we should tax them into oblivion, but they should pay substantially more.

Look at it this way; the person who makes barely enough to keep food on the table and a roof over his head really isn't gaining much from close to a trillion dollars in defense spending. However, a wealthy person who has his money tied up in companies throughout the world has much more to lose, so all that military spending is worth a lot more to the rich person. That's a very basic example, but it's true.

First, a person's total taxes depends heavily on where they live. No sales or income tax in Nevada makes a big difference from someone in New York. Still, we were talking about federal income tax rates and money that we hope would be used for job creating investments, which is now sitting on the sideline. I repeat, increasing income tax on wealthier people...will that help to create more jobs or create another barrier that results in even more capital not invested? Obviously, the answer is the latter.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, it's a spending problem we have, not a revenue problem! We cannot maintain our current level of spending much less the projected increases in spending and expect to bring that money in through tax revenue. There is no tax rate high enough to do that. Cut spending to live within our means and we can talk about taxing one group more than another.

 

[WatertheTree]

Man are you all over the place! Anyway, the rich already pay the majority of the taxes. Their money today is sitting on the sideline, not being invested for a variety of reasons. You think increases taxes on them will result in more job creation? Really?

The rich pay the majority of federal income taxes; they do not pay the majority of taxes. This is something so many of you fail to understand. You honestly believe the rich are being soaked when in fact, they are barely paying an equitable percentage based on their earnings, when all taxes are included. And yes, I believe they should be paying more. And yes, it is in their best interest to pay more. That doesn't mean we should tax them into oblivion, but they should pay substantially more.

Look at it this way; the person who makes barely enough to keep food on the table and a roof over his head really isn't gaining much from close to a trillion dollars in defense spending. However, a wealthy person who has his money tied up in companies throughout the world has much more to lose, so all that military spending is worth a lot more to the rich person. That's a very basic example, but it's true.

First, a person's total taxes depends heavily on where they live. No sales or income tax in Nevada makes a big difference from someone in New York. Still, we were talking about federal income tax rates and money that we hope would be used for job creating investments, which is now sitting on the sideline. I repeat, increasing income tax on wealthier people...will that help to create more jobs or create another barrier that results in even more capital not invested? Obviously, the answer is the latter.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, it's a spending problem we have, not a revenue problem! We cannot maintain our current level of spending much less the projected increases in spending and expect to bring that money in through tax revenue. There is no tax rate high enough to do that. Cut spending to live within our means and we can talk about taxing one group more than another.

If we raised taxes on the top 10% and then actually promoted upward mobility by lowering taxes on everyone else and then eliminating taxes for small business, and cutting taxes in half for medium sized business. What effect would that have on the economy?

Please do not start with assumptions that I want to increase government or maintian current spending levels, which is false.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Fact is that according to many on the right. Tax cuts do shit to create jobs. Once it's pointed out that the rich has had 10+ years of tax cuts and no jobs many say it's because of lack of certainty or some other unmeasurable excuse. So tax cuts alone do not work we have stroke their backs and tell them everything will be ok. Then they might possibly, probably consider creating jobs.

These tax cuts are nothing more than a giveaway based on hopes.

 

[The Rabbi]

Fact is that according to many on the right. Tax cuts do shit to create jobs. Once it's pointed out that the rich has had 10+ years of tax cuts and no jobs many say it's because of lack of certainty or some other unmeasurable excuse. So tax cuts alone do not work we have stroke their backs and tell them everything will be ok. Then they might possibly, probably consider creating jobs.

These tax cuts are nothing more than a giveaway based on hopes.

The Bush Administration experienced an average UE rate of well under 6%, sometimes just slightly over 4%. There was tremendous job creation through that period.
When Obama took office the rate was 7.4%. That was the lowest point of his career.

So you are simply lying.

 

[Bern80]

The common mantra amongst just about anyone that knows the economy is that Capatalism is good because it shoots productivity through the roof. This is true, allow people the chance to make there own fate and they are highly motivated to make something of themselves.

Also the common mantra amonst most neocons and people that are pushing for tax cuts for the rich is that it will create more jobs. The way to create more jobs is for rich people to get to work. To invest that money and expand there business and to hire people. They arent going to get any richer unless they work harder! They arent going to get richer unless they deserve it!

Instead of trying to give them everything they want, why dont we start taxing them harder, to give them an incentive to work?? This really isnt that radical of an idea, its something these same people have been doing to the working class of people. Paying them less so they work harder.

Can anyone explain to me why giving rich people everything they want, and allowing them to gain wealth and riches beyond measure, will create more jobs?? Especially considering that is counterproductive to the basic rules of capitalism??

Or is our economic model better represented by capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich?

Ummm math and basic human nature would be my answer. Why would I work more if the 'reward' is that more of what I earn is going to be taken away. At some point I'm going to decide the little extra money you're going to let me keep for the extra work I'm going to have to do to get it, simply isn't worth it.

Want proof. Look at historical tax revenue as a percent of GDP sometime. Loosely GDP can basically be considered the income of the country. Despite all the different changes to our tax code, the huge Reagan and Bush cuts, etc. Tax revenue as a percent of GDP has only fluctuated about 2-3 percentage points. It averages around 16-17% of GDP most of the time. That means no matter what government tries to do to the tax code they're always going to collect about the same amount relative to GDP. Why? Because peole react when their financial situation changes. When you start squeezing people, they react and modify their spendig accordingly. So okay, we can raise taxes on the rich, but to what end? Government isn't going to have any more money to work with. You just want to stick it to the rich i guess. But when there's no obvious benefit it makes you look jealous and petty.