Tax the Rich?

[Koios]

They do,[create jobs] with their consumption, if we're smart and reduce poverty with direct payments.

stupid stupid illiterate liberal!! We could print money by the trillions and drop it from helicopters so everyone could consume trillions and trillions more, but it would only harm and distort the economy with inflation. There would be depression not growth.

Economic growth from the stone age to here came from new inventions!! Please post that above your bed and think about it every night!! Again, stupid stupid illiterate liberal ego maniac just like Hitler Stalin Mao Pol Pot and Castro. Any feeling is great because you lack the IQ to have a thought!!

Not necessarily. Let's take a rural backwater in some poor Red State, and put money in the hands of them po folk: what happens? McDonald's opens a franchise, Wendy's follows, local banks lend for construction, so some more money flows in. Tons of hamburgers are sold. Why are they more espensive?

Explain the economic effects that would produce higher prices, and not lower due to expanding economies of scale and competition, thus displacing the corner cafe that charged $8.95 for a burger plate few could afford.

Dazzle me, Mr. Notstupid.

 

[Koios]

Nice little story. Now, would you like to address how many poor people start businesses and hire people? You know, job creators.

I haven't a clue. Do you? Certainly some, which is quite apparent here in the Seattle area, where many Southeast Asians came yearning to breath free, etc. and now have thriving businesses. Many Latinos, too, have risen from laborers to having thriving businesses. Also many Blacks, Whites and mixes of all of the above may have similar stories to tell. In fact, even in my own family we have a story, which began as a family scandal (an aunt married a handsome and charismatic ex-con, to the horror of many in my family). But he was and is a remarkable guy; and some 40+ years later, he and his children have a few thriving businesses and net worth in the millions. Also, he is one of the best, nicest and most-loved in our family.

But certain things had to exist to make it possible: for many, free community college and language training, plus preferrence in SBA loans. For my uncle, mentioned above, it was a wife with modest resources in a community of high wage earners, where doing moving jobs on weekends and evenings, then building a lawn care business with many employees and well as some car lots selling cars and trucks was made possible by the thiving economy.

Take the same person, and put them in a different environment, even here in the US, and same effort does not yield equal reward. Rural Mississippi, for example.

In short: environment + effort = reward. Effort alone is meaningless, without the environment to ply it in.

I do have a clue. In fact, you laid it out nicely. Many a good folk get an idea and start working for themselves. As they succeed and prosper, they hire other people to help with their expanded business. They hire other people because their is more demand for their good or service than they can handle alone and they have enough profit to pay someone else. So the answer is, poor people don't create jobs and hire people. Profitable people with more work than they can handle do. It is these people that Obama has determined have more than they need and are not paying their fair share.....even though they create jobs and drive the economy. A guy sleeping on a park bench has no jobs to offer anyone. People with money do.

Yes but only a clue. Now as Paul Harvey would have said, the rest of the story:

Poor create few jobs, since they create little business opportunity with their minimal spending. Only well-paid middle class workers create jobs, and spend sufficiently such that a poor person can start a small business and maybe grow it.

So when wage standards expand poverty, as they are currently, business opportunity diminishes.

So those who advocate that the poor get into business, when it is their poverty that limits the business opportunity for poor and rich alike, they merely expose their ignorance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No! They need it to grow the economy.

Or, maybe not:

Winners and

Looks like one more in a long line of bullshit promulgated by the GOP and their surrogates in the echo chamber has been exposed by the greed of the super rich.

Has anyone added up the hundreds of million of dollars these scofflaws have manipulated into their own pockets? Too unsure to invest in America are they? That talking point is one more pile of GOP bullshit.

Stupidest fucking post ever

It's stupid on so many levels too:

1. Order of Magnitude. We overspend by at least $1 Trillion annually, the idea that a few hundred million of dollars will make a difference is just, well, stupid.

2. Repetition of Failed Economic Ideas. The Redistributive model is failing today in Greece and Spain (25% unemployment) and is so awful genuine Communists in China, Russia, Vietnam and Cuba have abandoned it and have prospered as a result (Chavez in Venezuela is your only economic friend on the planet)

3. Busybody Award. What fucking business is it of yours how companies pay their shareholders?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

and put money in the hands of them po folk: what happens? .

stupid stupid illiterate liberal!! you cause inflation and depression!! Do you even know what inflation is and why Fed policy is to prevent it?? You are far too illiterate to have any idea how stupid you are!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

and put money in the hands of them po folk: what happens? .

stupid stupid illiterate liberal!! you cause inflation and depression!! Do you even know what inflation is and why Fed policy is to prevent it?? You are far too illiterate to have any idea how stupid you are!!

Even Pravda is calling them illiterate

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1,000,000,000,000 overspending

100,000,000 amount that has Wry's spewing nonsense

See the problem?

 

[kwc57]

i haven't a clue. Do you? Certainly some, which is quite apparent here in the seattle area, where many southeast asians came yearning to breath free, etc. And now have thriving businesses. Many latinos, too, have risen from laborers to having thriving businesses. Also many blacks, whites and mixes of all of the above may have similar stories to tell. In fact, even in my own family we have a story, which began as a family scandal (an aunt married a handsome and charismatic ex-con, to the horror of many in my family). But he was and is a remarkable guy; and some 40+ years later, he and his children have a few thriving businesses and net worth in the millions. Also, he is one of the best, nicest and most-loved in our family.

But certain things had to exist to make it possible: For many, free community college and language training, plus preferrence in sba loans. For my uncle, mentioned above, it was a wife with modest resources in a community of high wage earners, where doing moving jobs on weekends and evenings, then building a lawn care business with many employees and well as some car lots selling cars and trucks was made possible by the thiving economy.

Take the same person, and put them in a different environment, even here in the us, and same effort does not yield equal reward. Rural mississippi, for example.

In short: Environment + effort = reward. Effort alone is meaningless, without the environment to ply it in.

i do have a clue. In fact, you laid it out nicely. Many a good folk get an idea and start working for themselves. As they succeed and prosper, they hire other people to help with their expanded business. They hire other people because their is more demand for their good or service than they can handle alone and they have enough profit to pay someone else. So the answer is, poor people don't create jobs and hire people. Profitable people with more work than they can handle do. It is these people that obama has determined have more than they need and are not paying their fair share.....even though they create jobs and drive the economy. A guy sleeping on a park bench has no jobs to offer anyone. People with money do.

yes but only a clue. Now as paul harvey would have said, the rest of the story:

Poor create few jobs, since they create little business opportunity with their minimal spending. Only well-paid middle class workers create jobs, and spend sufficiently such that a poor person can start a small business and maybe grow it.

So when wage standards expand poverty, as they are currently, business opportunity diminishes.

So those who advocate that the poor get into business, when it is their poverty that limits the business opportunity for poor and rich alike, they merely expose their ignorance.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Poor create few jobs, since they create little business opportunity with their minimal spending.

too stupid!! spending does not create jobs or wealth, only inventing does!! Inventions got us from the stone age to here, not spending.

You could give everyone on earth a million dollars tomorrow so they could spend like crazy. It would just cause inflation and depression and not one new bit of economic growth.


See why we are 100% positve a liberal will be slow???

 

[Rshermr]

i do have a clue. In fact, you laid it out nicely. Many a good folk get an idea and start working for themselves. As they succeed and prosper, they hire other people to help with their expanded business. They hire other people because their is more demand for their good or service than they can handle alone and they have enough profit to pay someone else. So the answer is, poor people don't create jobs and hire people. Profitable people with more work than they can handle do. It is these people that obama has determined have more than they need and are not paying their fair share.....even though they create jobs and drive the economy. A guy sleeping on a park bench has no jobs to offer anyone. People with money do.

yes but only a clue. Now as paul harvey would have said, the rest of the story:

Poor create few jobs, since they create little business opportunity with their minimal spending. Only well-paid middle class workers create jobs, and spend sufficiently such that a poor person can start a small business and maybe grow it.

So when wage standards expand poverty, as they are currently, business opportunity diminishes.

So those who advocate that the poor get into business, when it is their poverty that limits the business opportunity for poor and rich alike, they merely expose their ignorance.

View attachment 23074

Well said.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

yes but only a clue. Now as paul harvey would have said, the rest of the story:

Poor create few jobs, since they create little business opportunity with their minimal spending. Only well-paid middle class workers create jobs, and spend sufficiently such that a poor person can start a small business and maybe grow it.

So when wage standards expand poverty, as they are currently, business opportunity diminishes.

So those who advocate that the poor get into business, when it is their poverty that limits the business opportunity for poor and rich alike, they merely expose their ignorance.

View attachment 23074

Well said.

well said?? He wants unlimited welfare and food stamps so the poor can spend and stimulate the economy!! If it was that easy all economic problems would have been solved by the money printing press 1000 years ago.

It reflects 100% illiteratacy

 

[kwc57]

View attachment 23074

Well said.

well said?? He wants unlimited welfare and food stamps so the poor can spend and stimulate the economy!! If it was that easy all economic problems would have been solved by the money printing press 1000 years ago.

It reflects 100% illiteratacy

He was commenting on my picture of Jesus in response to koko.

 

[Flopper]

Poor create few jobs, since they create little business opportunity with their minimal spending.

too stupid!! spending does not create jobs or wealth, only inventing does!! Inventions got us from the stone age to here, not spending.

You could give everyone on earth a million dollars tomorrow so they could spend like crazy. It would just cause inflation and depression and not one new bit of economic growth.


See why we are 100% positve a liberal will be slow???

If you put more money in the hands of the wealthy, they will invest. However, that does not mean that they will open new businesses on main street and build new factories in America. They will invest where they see the greatest return with the least risk. That may take the form of investment capital in underdeveloped countries, plant expansions in southeast asia or Europe, all of which greatly benefits those areas but have far less impact on the US economy. Investments in tax free municipals bonds and treasuries will certainly help government to grow but will do little toward creating jobs on main street. Of course there is always the possibly that more money in hands of the wealthy will just result in increases in cash reserves, purchases of gold and other hedges against economic contraction, as was the case a few years ago.




In short, there is no guarntee that any type of stimulus will have desired.

 

[Rshermr]

Well said.

well said?? He wants unlimited welfare and food stamps so the poor can spend and stimulate the economy!! If it was that easy all economic problems would have been solved by the money printing press 1000 years ago.

It reflects 100% illiteratacy

He was commenting on my picture of Jesus in response to koko.

Not to worry. It is just ed. He never says anything that makes sense to anyone except other con tools. Totally incapable of conversation. Particularly when he is off his meds. I just ignore him.

 

[Rshermr]

Poor create few jobs, since they create little business opportunity with their minimal spending.

too stupid!! spending does not create jobs or wealth, only inventing does!! Inventions got us from the stone age to here, not spending.

You could give everyone on earth a million dollars tomorrow so they could spend like crazy. It would just cause inflation and depression and not one new bit of economic growth.


See why we are 100% positve a liberal will be slow???

If you put more money in the hands of the wealthy, they will invest. However, that does not mean that they will open new businesses on main street and build new factories in America. They will invest where they see the greatest return with the least risk. That may take the form of investment capital in underdeveloped countries, plant expansions in southeast asia or Europe, all of which greatly benefits those areas but have far less impact on the US economy. Investments in tax free municipals bonds and treasuries will certainly help government to grow but will do little toward creating jobs on main street. Of course there is always the possibly that more money in hands of the wealthy will just result in increases in cash reserves, purchases of gold and other hedges against economic contraction, as was the case a few years ago.




In short, there is no guarntee that any type of stimulus will have desired.

Depends on why you believe companies hire. Most economists believe that companies hire in response to additional demand for their product or service. The idea that companies will hire because their tax load has decreased is intellectually untenable. Because you would be saying that I as a company CEO would think it a good idea to produce more of something that is not selling. So, wash that against history. When has lowering income taxes ever caused a decrease in unemployment when unemployment is already high?? I can find no time in this century. Essentially since income taxes have been a major source of government income.

In fact, in every case when I can find unemployment high, doing nothing has simply seen the UE rate get greater. Decreasing taxes by any appreciable amount has seen the UE rate increase. But tax increases has seen the UE rate decrease. Not much because of the income tax increase, but because of the stimulus which followed.
I have seen members post that I am just plain wrong. But I have seen no proof of that. Just opinions. And I can prove all that I just said. Using basic government numbers.

 

[Rshermr]

No! They need it to grow the economy.

Or, maybe not:

Winners and

Looks like one more in a long line of bullshit promulgated by the GOP and their surrogates in the echo chamber has been exposed by the greed of the super rich.

Has anyone added up the hundreds of million of dollars these scofflaws have manipulated into their own pockets? Too unsure to invest in America are they? That talking point is one more pile of GOP bullshit.

Stupidest fucking post ever

It's stupid on so many levels too:

1. Order of Magnitude. We overspend by at least $1 Trillion annually, the idea that a few hundred million of dollars will make a difference is just, well, stupid.

2. Repetition of Failed Economic Ideas. The Redistributive model is failing today in Greece and Spain (25% unemployment) and is so awful genuine Communists in China, Russia, Vietnam and Cuba have abandoned it and have prospered as a result (Chavez in Venezuela is your only economic friend on the planet)

3. Busybody Award. What fucking business is it of yours how companies pay their shareholders?

Can not be the stupidest. Because I just read yours, and you take the honor. Lets see, dipshit, what just came out of your tiny mind.

1.

Order of Magnitude. We overspend by at least $1 Trillion annually, the idea that a few hundred million of dollars will make a difference is just, well, stupid.

So, apparently you think you are an expert. You know, just quoting your opinion, which lines up well with standard con dogma. No reference, no link no proof of your opinion. And you know how much non con tools respect your opinion.

2. Repetition of Failed Economic Ideas. The Redistributive model is failing today in Greece and Spain (25% unemployment) and is so awful genuine Communists in China, Russia, Vietnam and Cuba have abandoned it and have prospered as a result (Chavez in Venezuela is your only economic friend on the planet)

We have had a re-distributive model since the 1980's, dipshit. The upper 1% have gotten more and more of the economic pie, While the middle class and below have gotten less. So, it appears you know nothing of the re-distributive model. It is the same model that you love. Just lower the tax increases of the wealthy, and see to it that the middle class is poorer and poorer.

3. Busybody Award. What fucking business is it of yours how companies pay their shareholders?

It is anyone's business if they have an interest. And it is NONE of your fucking business why they may be interested. Dipshit.
__________________

 

[Koios]

well said?? He wants unlimited welfare and food stamps so the poor can spend and stimulate the economy!! If it was that easy all economic problems would have been solved by the money printing press 1000 years ago.

It reflects 100% illiteratacy

He was commenting on my picture of Jesus in response to koko.

Not to worry. It is just ed. He never says anything that makes sense to anyone except other con tools. Totally incapable of conversation. Particularly when he is off his meds. I just ignore him.

Presicely. But thank babyjesus for giving us Ed. Always good for a laugh; plus the Village Idiot can point and say, "Boy is that guy a fucking tard."

It's all good.

 

[Norman]

too stupid!! spending does not create jobs or wealth, only inventing does!! Inventions got us from the stone age to here, not spending.

You could give everyone on earth a million dollars tomorrow so they could spend like crazy. It would just cause inflation and depression and not one new bit of economic growth.


See why we are 100% positve a liberal will be slow???

If you put more money in the hands of the wealthy, they will invest. However, that does not mean that they will open new businesses on main street and build new factories in America. They will invest where they see the greatest return with the least risk. That may take the form of investment capital in underdeveloped countries, plant expansions in southeast asia or Europe, all of which greatly benefits those areas but have far less impact on the US economy. Investments in tax free municipals bonds and treasuries will certainly help government to grow but will do little toward creating jobs on main street. Of course there is always the possibly that more money in hands of the wealthy will just result in increases in cash reserves, purchases of gold and other hedges against economic contraction, as was the case a few years ago.




In short, there is no guarntee that any type of stimulus will have desired.

Depends on why you believe companies hire. Most economists believe that companies hire in response to additional demand for their product or service. The idea that companies will hire because their tax load has decreased is intellectually untenable. Because you would be saying that I as a company CEO would think it a good idea to produce more of something that is not selling. So, wash that against history. When has lowering income taxes ever caused a decrease in unemployment when unemployment is already high?? I can find no time in this century. Essentially since income taxes have been a major source of government income.

In fact, in every case when I can find unemployment high, doing nothing has simply seen the UE rate get greater. Decreasing taxes by any appreciable amount has seen the UE rate increase. But tax increases has seen the UE rate decrease. Not much because of the income tax increase, but because of the stimulus which followed.
I have seen members post that I am just plain wrong. But I have seen no proof of that. Just opinions. And I can prove all that I just said. Using basic government numbers.

So I am wondering if I should employ someone... Let's look at two scenarios:

100% Tax rate - no way am I gonna hire someone, no matter what the demand.

0% Tax rate, I may hire someone.

Companies hire to increase profits, taxes increase the risk of investment and thus decrease employment. Demand, employment costs, taxes, regulations and costs all count when it comes to employment.

How about 50% Tax rate? Yeh, now government can increase demand by that 50% tax I gave them, and this helps me... how? Demand stimulus only works with sticky wages and as a stabilization policy, not as a general policy. Tax hikes of course are NOT demand stimulus but take away from demand so, you can not even make that point really. You would have to argue FOR tax cuts if you think stimulus is the way.

Personally I don't think stimulus (which I define as any deficit spending) is a wise option with the greece pre-crisis debt levels of 124% of gdp overall. Tax hikes and especially cuts are in order. The safety nets need a common sense reform as well.

 

[Rshermr]

If you put more money in the hands of the wealthy, they will invest. However, that does not mean that they will open new businesses on main street and build new factories in America. They will invest where they see the greatest return with the least risk. That may take the form of investment capital in underdeveloped countries, plant expansions in southeast asia or Europe, all of which greatly benefits those areas but have far less impact on the US economy. Investments in tax free municipals bonds and treasuries will certainly help government to grow but will do little toward creating jobs on main street. Of course there is always the possibly that more money in hands of the wealthy will just result in increases in cash reserves, purchases of gold and other hedges against economic contraction, as was the case a few years ago.




In short, there is no guarntee that any type of stimulus will have desired.

Depends on why you believe companies hire. Most economists believe that companies hire in response to additional demand for their product or service. The idea that companies will hire because their tax load has decreased is intellectually untenable. Because you would be saying that I as a company CEO would think it a good idea to produce more of something that is not selling. So, wash that against history. When has lowering income taxes ever caused a decrease in unemployment when unemployment is already high?? I can find no time in this century. Essentially since income taxes have been a major source of government income.

In fact, in every case when I can find unemployment high, doing nothing has simply seen the UE rate get greater. Decreasing taxes by any appreciable amount has seen the UE rate increase. But tax increases has seen the UE rate decrease. Not much because of the income tax increase, but because of the stimulus which followed.
I have seen members post that I am just plain wrong. But I have seen no proof of that. Just opinions. And I can prove all that I just said. Using basic government numbers.

So I am wondering if I should employ someone... Let's look at two scenarios:

100% Tax rate - no way am I gonna hire someone, no matter what the demand.

0% Tax rate, I may hire someone.

Companies hire to increase profits, taxes increase the risk of investment and thus decrease employment. Demand, employment costs, taxes, regulations and costs all count when it comes to employment.

How about 50% Tax rate? Yeh, now government can increase demand by that 50% tax I gave them, and this helps me... how? Demand stimulus only works with sticky wages and as a stabilization policy, not as a general policy. Tax hikes of course are NOT demand stimulus but take away from demand so, you can not even make that point really. You would have to argue FOR tax cuts if you think stimulus is the way.

Personally I don't think stimulus (which I define as any deficit spending) is a wise option with the greece pre-crisis debt levels of 124% of gdp overall. Tax hikes and especially cuts are in order. The safety nets need a common sense reform as well.

OK. I get your opinion. Though I have no idea why you are considering the 0% or 100% rate ideas. they are of no value, and do not represent real life options. Now, you say stimulus is not likely to work in our economy. Can you show a case where tax decreases have worked in a high unemployment economy????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Can you show a case where tax decreases have worked in a high unemployment economy????

too stupid but 1000% liberal!!

A tax decrease works by definition because it expands the private sector which is the only source on real jobs!!

Let's not forget that we got from the stone age to here because the private sector invented new stuff!! Tax away venture capital as libturds love to do and you get fewer shots on goal and so fewer new ventures like Apple Amazon Intel and Google!!

A child can understand just not a liberal

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Can you show a case where tax decreases have worked in a high unemployment economy????

too stupid but 1000% liberal!!

A tax decrease works by definition because it expands the private sector which is the only source on real jobs!!

Let's not forget that we got from the stone age to here because the private sector invented new stuff!! Tax away venture capital as libturds love to do and you get fewer shots on goal and so fewer new ventures like Apple Amazon Intel and Google!!

A child can understand just not a liberal

Don't you mean 10,000%? I mean, that IS a larger number and would be more powerful than 1000%.