Tea partiers not smart enough...

[asterism]

It certainly didn't from the 1920s to the 1980s.

Plenty of constructs known to some as "tax loopholes" have been closed. The mid 1980s saw one big one close, the ability for losses in one business to be used to offset gains in another business.

We're not just dealing with the idea of a top marginal rate of 39.6% in a vacuum compared to previous years, it's the total picture and a dynamic situation with importance on a 13% tax hike.

This is all academic at this point though, your side won and none of the worst case scenarios predicted by them if the government didn't step in came true. The government did step in and things are actually worse. You'll get to see firsthand how this tax increase is going to work out.

Aren't you confusing business/corporate tax rates with personal tax rates?

No.

In the end, all after tax profits end up as personal income for shareholders. With regards to innovation, most new ventures are started by businesses that operate without a taxable corporate entity.

 

[asterism]

This is all academic at this point though, your side won and none of the worst case scenarios predicted by them if the government didn't step in came true.

You don't remember Roemer talking about unemployment and other economic indicators? Here's what was predicted with the stimulus, without the stimulus, and what actually happened with the stimulus.

You don't remember hearing that the economy would suffer greatly if GM didn't get the bailout and was forced into going bankrupt? What actually happened was GM still went bankrupt even with the bailout.

 

[Big Fitz]

Does a top marginal tax rate of 39.6% eradicate innovation?

Certainly stunted it's growth compared to how good it could have been. Otherwise the tax cuts JFK did would not have been so effective that we could afford the Vietnam War and Great Society for so long. That's where the squandered cash went. Down those ratholes.

 

[boedicca]

Does a top marginal tax rate of 39.6% eradicate innovation?

It certainly didn't from the 1920s to the 1980s.

Plenty of constructs known to some as "tax loopholes" have been closed. The mid 1980s saw one big one close, the ability for losses in one business to be used to offset gains in another business.

We're not just dealing with the idea of a top marginal rate of 39.6% in a vacuum compared to previous years, it's the total picture and a dynamic situation with importance on a 13% tax hike.

This is all academic at this point though, your side won and none of the worst case scenarios predicted by them if the government didn't step in came true. The government did step in and things are actually worse. You'll get to see firsthand how this tax increase is going to work out.

It's not just a 39.6% tax rate. Many states have income taxes near 10%. Then add the 3.8% Medicare surcharge. Add these together, and the marginal tax rate is well over 50%. At that point, the reward-risk tension for investing in a small business is seriously strained - hence the nearly complete lack of new job creation in the small business sector and continuing high unemployment of Obamanomics.

 

[asterism]

It certainly didn't from the 1920s to the 1980s.

Plenty of constructs known to some as "tax loopholes" have been closed. The mid 1980s saw one big one close, the ability for losses in one business to be used to offset gains in another business.

We're not just dealing with the idea of a top marginal rate of 39.6% in a vacuum compared to previous years, it's the total picture and a dynamic situation with importance on a 13% tax hike.

This is all academic at this point though, your side won and none of the worst case scenarios predicted by them if the government didn't step in came true. The government did step in and things are actually worse. You'll get to see firsthand how this tax increase is going to work out.

It's not just a 39.6% tax rate. Many states have income taxes near 10%. Then add the 3.8% Medicare surcharge. Add these together, and the marginal tax rate is well over 50%. At that point, the reward-risk tension for investing in a small business is seriously strained - hence the nearly complete lack of new job creation in the small business sector and continuing high unemployment of Obamanomics.

Yup.

Small business contribution to job and economic growth is always decreased when the government steps in and picks favorites. GM got $50 Billion to survive and produce the Volt. Tesla, the pioneers of viable electric cars was one of many who were penalized to make that happen.

That does bring up an interesting point:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ernment-incentives-to-buy-the-chevy-volt.html

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd have to know what type of engineers we're talking about to give a list of those whose employment is created by the business activities thereof.

Somebody's got to build what engineers design.

Quite true, but to be any more specific than that about job titles would require me to know the type of engineer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Republicans have spent like drunken fools when given the opportunity. They are no better than the Democrats. They just spend the money differently.

Profits are up on Wall Street and corporate America is hiring again. Unfortunately much of their hiring is abroad as is their investments. The Right argues we should not increase taxes on the wealthy, but should cut their taxes to increase investments. But if those investments continue to build new plants in China and provide jobs for millions of Chinese, just how does that help the American worker?

Perhaps it's not the government's place to "help the American worker," since that really hasn't ended well. The USA is still the nexus of innovation, so get out there an innovate. Leave the solved problems that have turned into commodity labor to emerging economies. Find a need and fill it.

If the goal in having low taxes for the wealthy is not to help the American worker by creating jobs in the US, then why should we have low taxes for those who are most able pay them.

Because it's morally right to stop stealing from others to support YOUR lazy ass. Just because they CAN afford it doesn't mean they have an obligation to.

 

[asterism]

Perhaps it's not the government's place to "help the American worker," since that really hasn't ended well. The USA is still the nexus of innovation, so get out there an innovate. Leave the solved problems that have turned into commodity labor to emerging economies. Find a need and fill it.

If the goal in having low taxes for the wealthy is not to help the American worker by creating jobs in the US, then why should we have low taxes for those who are most able pay them.

Because it's morally right to stop stealing from others to support YOUR lazy ass. Just because they CAN afford it doesn't mean they have an obligation to.

Let's keep subjective opinions on morality out of this. Economics tells us to look at options from a fiscal perspective. "They can afford to pay" only lasts so long if the act of manipulating things so that "they" pay causes them to be in a situation where they actually can't pay.

If we're all "middle class," what is the tax rate on the middle class according to today's spending? Can the current middle class afford it?

 

[Flopper]

It certainly didn't from the 1920s to the 1980s.

Plenty of constructs known to some as "tax loopholes" have been closed. The mid 1980s saw one big one close, the ability for losses in one business to be used to offset gains in another business.

We're not just dealing with the idea of a top marginal rate of 39.6% in a vacuum compared to previous years, it's the total picture and a dynamic situation with importance on a 13% tax hike.

This is all academic at this point though, your side won and none of the worst case scenarios predicted by them if the government didn't step in came true. The government did step in and things are actually worse. You'll get to see firsthand how this tax increase is going to work out.

It's not just a 39.6% tax rate. Many states have income taxes near 10%. Then add the 3.8% Medicare surcharge. Add these together, and the marginal tax rate is well over 50%. At that point, the reward-risk tension for investing in a small business is seriously strained - hence the nearly complete lack of new job creation in the small business sector and continuing high unemployment of Obamanomics.

Considering the current state of the economy, I suspect that most people making over $200,000 would invest very little in small businesses. I would say most of their investment money ends up either in treasuries, corporate bonds, tax exempt bonds, or large multinationals corporation via outright purchase of stock or mutual funds. None of which does much to create jobs in the US.

 

[asterism]

Plenty of constructs known to some as "tax loopholes" have been closed. The mid 1980s saw one big one close, the ability for losses in one business to be used to offset gains in another business.

We're not just dealing with the idea of a top marginal rate of 39.6% in a vacuum compared to previous years, it's the total picture and a dynamic situation with importance on a 13% tax hike.

This is all academic at this point though, your side won and none of the worst case scenarios predicted by them if the government didn't step in came true. The government did step in and things are actually worse. You'll get to see firsthand how this tax increase is going to work out.

It's not just a 39.6% tax rate. Many states have income taxes near 10%. Then add the 3.8% Medicare surcharge. Add these together, and the marginal tax rate is well over 50%. At that point, the reward-risk tension for investing in a small business is seriously strained - hence the nearly complete lack of new job creation in the small business sector and continuing high unemployment of Obamanomics.

Considering the current state of the economy, I suspect that most people making over $200,000 would invest very little in small businesses.

Ignorance of who earns over $200,000 per year right now is what fuels this mindset. Here's a hint, it's mostly owners of small businesses pouring cash into their operations just to ride out the storm.

I would say most of their investment money ends up either in treasuries, corporate bonds, tax exempt bonds, or large multinationals corporation via outright purchase of stock or mutual funds.

More ignorance. Do your homework and go find a restaurant. Sit down and talk with the owner.

None of which does much to create jobs in the US.

You don't think those investments create jobs in the US? Where did Google's funding come from? Where does a gas station owner put his savings? Where does a pension invest?

Think this one through a bit.

 

[Flopper]

If the goal in having low taxes for the wealthy is not to help the American worker by creating jobs in the US, then why should we have low taxes for those who are most able pay them.

Because it's morally right to stop stealing from others to support YOUR lazy ass. Just because they CAN afford it doesn't mean they have an obligation to.

Let's keep subjective opinions on morality out of this. Economics tells us to look at options from a fiscal perspective. "They can afford to pay" only lasts so long if the act of manipulating things so that "they" pay causes them to be in a situation where they actually can't pay.

If we're all "middle class," what is the tax rate on the middle class according to today's spending? Can the current middle class afford it?

No, we aren't all middle class. Models vary but most definitions of middle class tops out at $100,000 a year. An income over $200,000 is definitely not middle class.

American middle class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is an absurd idea that if we can just get taxes low enough for the wealthy, they will become the engine of job creation in America. This is based on the idea that if you give a tax break to the poor they will spend it and benefits to the economy are short lived. But if you give a tax break to the rich, they will invest it and thus create jobs. It sounds good however, all investments do not lead to job creation. People invest money where they will get the most gain in relation to the risk. That place today is not small businesses on Main St. USA. Investments abroad provide better rates of return. Treasury Bonds provide the most safety. Municipal Bonds provide move tax free income. Of course there is the large multinational corporation that generate lots of jobs, just not in US.

Low taxes for the rich is no guarantee of job creation in the US.

 

[daveman]

I'd have to know what type of engineers we're talking about to give a list of those whose employment is created by the business activities thereof.

Somebody's got to build what engineers design.

Quite true, but to be any more specific than that about job titles would require me to know the type of engineer.

Indeed.

 

[boedicca]

Because it's morally right to stop stealing from others to support YOUR lazy ass. Just because they CAN afford it doesn't mean they have an obligation to.

Let's keep subjective opinions on morality out of this. Economics tells us to look at options from a fiscal perspective. "They can afford to pay" only lasts so long if the act of manipulating things so that "they" pay causes them to be in a situation where they actually can't pay.

If we're all "middle class," what is the tax rate on the middle class according to today's spending? Can the current middle class afford it?

No, we aren't all middle class. Models vary but most definitions of middle class tops out at $100,000 a year. An income over $200,000 is definitely not middle class.

American middle class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is an absurd idea that if we can just get taxes low enough for the wealthy, they will become the engine of job creation in America. This is based on the idea that if you give a tax break to the poor they will spend it and benefits to the economy are short lived. But if you give a tax break to the rich, they will invest it and thus create jobs. It sounds good however, all investments do not lead to job creation. People invest money where they will get the most gain in relation to the risk. That place today is not small businesses on Main St. USA. Investments abroad provide better rates of return. Treasury Bonds provide the most safety. Municipal Bonds provide move tax free income. Of course there is the large multinational corporation that generate lots of jobs, just not in US.

Low taxes for the rich is no guarantee of job creation in the US.

Thank you for proving that you succumb to the Progressive Class War.

A two income family earning $200K in San Jose is middle class. They live in a 3 or 4 bedroom, 2 bath tract home and likely send their kids to public schools. They are much closer to the working class who earn $100K (especially if they are in the midwest) than they are to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

Why do the Progressives deem people who work for a living and earn a higher than average income The Rich? Because cumulatively, they have far more income than the tiny handful of the truly wealthy at the top of the income scale - and they are too busy supporting their families and lack the individual power and connections to have much influence on the political process.

That was the theory. But as the Tea Party Movement is proving - people who value Individual Liberty, Responsibility, and Fiscal Conservatism have more in common with each other than the separateness the Progressives promote with an artificial dividing line of income.

Bet that Scares the Heebeejeebus out of you.

 

[asterism]

Because it's morally right to stop stealing from others to support YOUR lazy ass. Just because they CAN afford it doesn't mean they have an obligation to.

Let's keep subjective opinions on morality out of this. Economics tells us to look at options from a fiscal perspective. "They can afford to pay" only lasts so long if the act of manipulating things so that "they" pay causes them to be in a situation where they actually can't pay.

If we're all "middle class," what is the tax rate on the middle class according to today's spending? Can the current middle class afford it?

No, we aren't all middle class.

Thank you Captain Obvious, you seem to have missed the "if" in my comment.

Models vary but most definitions of middle class tops out at $100,000 a year. An income over $200,000 is definitely not middle class.

You seem to have missed my point. If we were all middle class, what is the tax rate on that middle class according to today's spending. Can the current middle class afford it?

American middle class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is an absurd idea that if we can just get taxes low enough for the wealthy, they will become the engine of job creation in America.

That is a false premise because the engine of job creation in America has always been the "wealthy" (by your definition of those being above the middle class). It takes money to invest money in a new venture.

This is based on the idea that if you give a tax break to the poor they will spend it and benefits to the economy are short lived.

No, it's not. Please do not try to explain to me and others what my views are. It's faulty and not productive.

But if you give a tax break to the rich, they will invest it and thus create jobs. It sounds good however, all investments do not lead to job creation.

While all investments do not lead to job creation, all job creation is a result of investments.

People invest money where they will get the most gain in relation to the risk.

True.

That place today is not small businesses on Main St. USA.

False.

Investments abroad provide better rates of return.

True, but at what risk?

Treasury Bonds provide the most safety. Municipal Bonds provide move tax free income. Of course there is the large multinational corporation that generate lots of jobs, just not in US.

Low taxes for the rich is no guarantee of job creation in the US.[/B]

High taxes for "the rich" as defined by you as those making more than $200,000 per year is a guarantee of a decreased incentive to create jobs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the goal in having low taxes for the wealthy is not to help the American worker by creating jobs in the US, then why should we have low taxes for those who are most able pay them.

Because it's morally right to stop stealing from others to support YOUR lazy ass. Just because they CAN afford it doesn't mean they have an obligation to.

Let's keep subjective opinions on morality out of this. Economics tells us to look at options from a fiscal perspective. "They can afford to pay" only lasts so long if the act of manipulating things so that "they" pay causes them to be in a situation where they actually can't pay.

If we're all "middle class," what is the tax rate on the middle class according to today's spending? Can the current middle class afford it?

Let's don't. Where the hell do you get off trying to impose YOUR boundaries on how decisions can and can't be made onto others? If I want to make economic decisions based on "I have no right to other people's money, and only an immoral dirtbag steals from others" rather than "You have it and I don't, so I'm gonna take yours", who the fuck are you to tell me that my standards are not the correct ones and that I have to use yours?

 

[daveman]

Because it's morally right to stop stealing from others to support YOUR lazy ass. Just because they CAN afford it doesn't mean they have an obligation to.

Let's keep subjective opinions on morality out of this. Economics tells us to look at options from a fiscal perspective. "They can afford to pay" only lasts so long if the act of manipulating things so that "they" pay causes them to be in a situation where they actually can't pay.

If we're all "middle class," what is the tax rate on the middle class according to today's spending? Can the current middle class afford it?

Let's don't. Where the hell do you get off trying to impose YOUR boundaries on how decisions can and can't be made onto others? If I want to make economic decisions based on "I have no right to other people's money, and only an immoral dirtbag steals from others" rather than "You have it and I don't, so I'm gonna take yours", who the fuck are you to tell me that my standards are not the correct ones and that I have to use yours?

How else is he going to justify his theft?

 

[asterism]

Because it's morally right to stop stealing from others to support YOUR lazy ass. Just because they CAN afford it doesn't mean they have an obligation to.

Let's keep subjective opinions on morality out of this. Economics tells us to look at options from a fiscal perspective. "They can afford to pay" only lasts so long if the act of manipulating things so that "they" pay causes them to be in a situation where they actually can't pay.

If we're all "middle class," what is the tax rate on the middle class according to today's spending? Can the current middle class afford it?

Let's don't. Where the hell do you get off trying to impose YOUR boundaries on how decisions can and can't be made onto others? If I want to make economic decisions based on "I have no right to other people's money, and only an immoral dirtbag steals from others" rather than "You have it and I don't, so I'm gonna take yours", who the fuck are you to tell me that my standards are not the correct ones and that I have to use yours?

Wow!

Hyperbole much? Say what you want, nobody is stopping you. I'll refrain from giving my input to you from now on. Good luck.

 

[HUGGY]

Tea partiers not smart enough...


My guess is that that condition is manditory for membership. Probably an ironclad rule. No exceptions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's keep subjective opinions on morality out of this. Economics tells us to look at options from a fiscal perspective. "They can afford to pay" only lasts so long if the act of manipulating things so that "they" pay causes them to be in a situation where they actually can't pay.

If we're all "middle class," what is the tax rate on the middle class according to today's spending? Can the current middle class afford it?

Let's don't. Where the hell do you get off trying to impose YOUR boundaries on how decisions can and can't be made onto others? If I want to make economic decisions based on "I have no right to other people's money, and only an immoral dirtbag steals from others" rather than "You have it and I don't, so I'm gonna take yours", who the fuck are you to tell me that my standards are not the correct ones and that I have to use yours?

Wow!

Hyperbole much? Say what you want, nobody is stopping you. I'll refrain from giving my input to you from now on. Good luck.

If your input involves "let's define the debate THIS way", feel free to refrain from giving it, and spare me the butt-chapped sniveling. Butch up, buttercup, or go join the knitting club.

 

[AllieBaba]

The thing is, morality DOES play into. I was talking with my sister the other day, and she said child psychologists had come to the conclusion that for decades parents were concerned with whether or not their children were happy, when really they should be concerned with whether or not they were GOOD.

Morality has a huge place in politics, in economics, and in every day life. Pushing it the side has resulted in disaster.