Time to crack down on them rich people

[spectrumc01]

If the rich pay the majority of taxes where does 26% of my weekly pay check go?

What you make a year is pennies compared to the millions the truly earthy make.

True my "Broke" and their "Broke" are totally different. My broke has problems affording the basics, Their broke has problems affording their second or third vacations.

 

[Patrick2]

They can lend to state and local governments and draw tax free income which does little or nothing to create jobs, or invest in treasury bonds and help grow the federal government,

That is either something that produces what libs call a legitimate "social good", or it represents profligate government spending, in which case the culprit is the government, not rich people. The cure to that as I'm sure you know is not to loot rich people so they don't have money to buy the bonds, but rather curtail government borrowing.



Hedge funds don't cause economic problems, they are merely a market trading mechanism, and incidentally LOST a lot of money in the recent downturn.



When do they buy gold? When somebody ELSE has ALREADY screwed up the economy. Their gold purchases are an effect, not a cause, of a bad economy.

Just like businesses, the wealthy have to be believe investing in the American economy is the best bang for buck, otherwise the money goes elsewhere.

That's exactly what they SHOULD do. If they don't, the ROOT cause is with somebody else.

Whether you curtail government spending or not, there will always be government financing. Unless we start paying off the national debt which will probably never happen, we will continue to need to refinance the debt. Treasury bonds and tax-free municipal bonds have and probably always will be a favorite investment of the wealthy. Neither are big job creators.

Not so fast. Suppose bonds are used to build public infrastructure such as highways and water and power plants. Then companies may be more likely to locate there, bringing jobs.

I didn’t say hedge funds caused the problem. They just allow the wealthy to make money as the economy contracts.

They may make it. or they may lose it.

No, I’m not arguing that purchasing gold causes economy problems. I’m just saying buying gold and precious metals do not help expand the economy and create jobs. I think we were discussing how the wealthy uses wealth to create jobs and grow the economy. Buying gold is certainly not one of them.

When someone royally screws the hell out of the economy, as like now, all bets are off. The wealth producers have to protect their assets - then they will still have it to create jobs in the future. Further, there are all kinds of complex secondary effects of loot the rich taxation. Suppose a rich entrepreneur gets taxed at 70% or 90%, will he say "ah hell, with my entrepreneurship - it's not worth it anymore." What affect will that have on new jobs?

 

[BoycottTheday]

When any govt trys to take over 19% of GDP, people change their behavior.

They stop producing, they hide their wealth, what you people need to do is give people the incentives to work hard and make allot of money.

This class warfare y'all got going on is economic suicide.

 

[rightwinger]

When any govt trys to take over 19% of GDP, people change their behavior.

They stop producing, they hide their wealth, what you people need to do is give people the incentives to work hard and make allot of money.

This class warfare y'all got going on is economic suicide.

The American worker is more productive than any worker on earth.....and receives less for it.

 

[BoycottTheday]

aMerica is broke, in more ways than one.

 

[ShackledNation]

So if I am on a deserted island and I demand a burger, it will magically appear?

If you are on a deserted island and you demand a burger it would mean you are delirious.

But if there are others on your island, and if one of them has a cow, and another can bake a bun, provided you can pay enough for a burger to justify killing the cow, and presuming those others are interested in having some of your money, rest assured your demand would be met.

But without your demand, which includes your ability to pay, there would be no movement.

And those who think demanding something will make what they demand in our current economy are equally delerious. The cow and the baker on the island have skills and resources called capital. Assuming they are not doing something else, that capital is free to be used to make what people demand. If there is no demand for something, then it shouldn't be made. That is not to say there will not be demand for it in the future, in which case it may be wise to invest money to create something.

As you showed, without capital goods demand for consumer goods cannot be met. In a recession, capital is being reallocated. Stimulating demand in certain areas will only lead to misallocations that will fall apart later (housing).

You may also rest assured that if there were sufficient demand (which includes ability to pay) for flying cars they would be available.

As it is a fellow in Norway or Sweden (I saw it on Discovery Channel) has built a sleek little car with folding wings and tail and a propeller that does take off and fly. How much are you willing to pay him for it?

With more capital, such inventions would be cheaper, thus able to be demanded.

The point that escapes your attention is demand for the materials needed to produce burgers.

Not at all. Of course demand is important. But demand will never create consumer goods if capital goods needed to make them are nonexistent. Even when criticizing my island example, you had to insert the capital goods of cow, buns, and the skills to make buns and burgers. Had those capital goods not existed, the consumer good of burger would not exist either. Demand helps to direct production using the given capital . Demand does not create capital.

Back to the island. You have the cow. You have a man who knows how to kill/milk a cow. You have a baker who has the supplies to make buns and the ability to make them. With these resources, 10 burgers can be made, or 50 glasses of milk can be poured, but not both. If people demand burgers, they will get burgers, if they demand milk, they will get milk. If they demand both, too bad. The capital structure of that economy simply will not support it.

FDR's New Deal proved your theory is wrong.

You mean the New Deal that prolonged the Great Depression for over a decade?

FDR imposed a progressive tax on the rich with a maximum rate of 91 percent!

And look how that turned out. The economy performed terribly because capital resources were scarce.

The resulting revenue became the capital with which he financed the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) and other federal make-work programs which provided useful employment for millions of Americans made destitute by the Great Depression. This had the effect of reviving the economy and giving rise to many thriving new industries needed to supply the demands of millions of newly employed workers.

Government revenue is not capital. When I am referring to capital, I am referring to goods and resources used in production, like factories, machines, tools, knowledge, etc. It is illogical to think that taking money out of the economy through taxation and then putting less of it back (you have to pay the bureaucrats) through government spending will grow the economy. And it didn't, which is why the Great Depression lasted so long. The Depression of 1921 lasted only 1 year because the government did nothing.

FDR's use of taxes as capital, priming the pump as it were, initiated the most prosperous and productive decades in our history, the late 40s to the early 80s, the era when the American Middle Class came into being.

You don't understand what capital is. And you are assuming idle resources need to be stimulated. You have to look at why idle resources are idle in the first place, and the reason they are idle is because they were misused as a result of prior government intervention. The economy's capital structure was thrown into an unsustainable condition during the boom years, and it takes time for the mess to be sorted out. When the government runs up a deficit to fund "stimulus" projects, all that really means is that it is forcing taxpayers to pay for projects that they wouldn't buy with their own money.

What has to happen is that workers and other resources that had been misallocated into housing construction and Wall Street investment banks, need to be moved into other sectors. This was and is a fantastically complex reshuffling, because even something as simple as producing a pencil requires the contributions of thousands of workers all over the world. The period of "idle unemployment" serves a real function in a market economy. People try to find jobs in new sectors where demand actually exists, and business owners try to find out what people really want and how to best invest their resources so they dont lose big again. Government intervention only prolongs, confuses, and prevents this process. It can even cause people to enter right back into the same industries they left (housing) thus setting them up for a collapse again in the future.

Then came Ronald Reagan and supply-side economics. And here we are.

Oh lord. Ronald Reagan and his predecessors ended up pursuing essentially Keynesian economic policy. Reagan increased spending, raised the debt, raised taxes, and increased government regulation. It is a complete myth that he was a champion of free markets. Nor am I advocating supply side economics. I advocate Austrian economics.

 

[Patrick2]

JFK made the famous statement ...

A rising tide lifts all boats

Since Reagan, the economic picture is...

A rising tide only lifts the yachts

Unchecked leftwing economics will sink ALL the boats.

 

[ShackledNation]

There are few things the rich can do with acquired capital:
invest it or lend it. Both create jobs for people who don't know they even exist, but benefit from their actions.

They can lend to state and local governments and draw tax free income which does little or nothing to create jobs, or invest in treasury bonds and help grow the federal government, or they can invest in hedge funds and profit off our economic problems, or they can buy gold or precious metals which does nothing for the economy, or invest in collectibles to spruce the mansion, or invest abroad and provide capital for our competitors. Putting more money in the hands of the wealthy is no guarantee that it will end up expanding the US economy. Just like businesses, the wealthy have to be believe investing in the American economy is the best bang for buck, otherwise the money goes elsewhere.

You are completely forgetting the seller of the gold. He now has more money to invest and spend somewhere else. How does that not help the economy? You act as if when buying gold the money went into a black hole. The same is true of sellers of collectibles.

As for investing abroad, there is something called the balance of payments. On the one hand we have the current account, which is the relation of exports and imports. Currently that account is in a deficit, commonly called the trade deficit.

We then have the capital account, which is the relation of investment to and from the US. We currently have a capital account surplus, meaning people invest more in the US than we invest out. The two accounts negatively correlate. A capital account surplus will result in a trade deficit, and vice versa. As Americans invest more abroad, we also end up importing less/exporting more. In recent years, we have been investing more in other countries than before. Our trade deficit is also declining as a result. The reason is simple. If we invest dollars in foreign countries, those countries can only use those dollars to buy products sold in dollars. Ultimately, those products will be from the United States. Foreign investment is not a zero-sum game.

 

[rightwinger]

JFK made the famous statement ...

A rising tide lifts all boats

Since Reagan, the economic picture is...

A rising tide only lifts the yachts

Unchecked leftwing economics will sink ALL the boats.

Then why has the standard of living since Reagan for working Americans decreased while the wealthy have seen a boom in personal wealth?

 

[Richard-H]

If wealth were dependant of peoples true productive value, most 'wealthy' people would be dirt poor. Most working people would be retiring at 40.

Our economic order is still based on an owner/slave system. Ownership makes people wealthy, not hard work or knowledge.

The wealthy either inherited or are master thieves.

 

[ShackledNation]

If wealth were dependant of peoples true productive value, most 'wealthy' people would be dirt poor. Most working people would be retiring at 40.

Our economic order is still based on an owner/slave system. Ownership makes people wealthy, not hard work or knowledge.

The wealthy either inherited or are master thieves.

You think it is easy to own and run a major company? To give millions of people products they want? To hire millions of workers? You think that is easy and invaluable? I love my ipod, and Steve Jobs deserves to be rich for running such a successful company.

If you consider getting paid to work slavery, I suggest you read a history book about the American South. The free market is not a zero sum game.

 

[Patrick2]

If wealth were dependant of peoples true productive value, most 'wealthy' people would be dirt poor. Most working people would be retiring at 40.

Our economic order is still based on an owner/slave system. Ownership makes people wealthy, not hard work or knowledge.

The wealthy either inherited or are master thieves.

Vintage commie agitprop, circa 1930.

 

[Patrick2]

JFK made the famous statement ...

A rising tide lifts all boats

Since Reagan, the economic picture is...

A rising tide only lifts the yachts

Unchecked leftwing economics will sink ALL the boats.

Then why has the standard of living since Reagan for working Americans decreased while the wealthy have seen a boom in personal wealth?

Because the leftwingers crashed the economy. Companies became lean and mean in response to the democrat recession, so stock prices are up, increasing wealth for people who own equities, while increasing interest costs and creating homelessness and joblessness for others. I've long recognized the leftwing feeds on itself - it's own policies produce more welfare clients, hence more political clients for themselves. Once they get their hands on political power, it becomes a death spiral down.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If the rich pay the majority of taxes where does 26% of my weekly pay check go?

26 percent of YOUR income goes towards funding the government via the taxes you pay.

28 percent of the military's paychecks go towards the same thing.

Only 18 to 20 percent of the wealthy's go towards paying taxes, because all their money is made with capital gains (which are taxed at about half of what the rest of us pay).

Yeah.......the rich are getting richer, and the middle and lower classes are paying for it.

 

[Flopper]

That is either something that produces what libs call a legitimate "social good", or it represents profligate government spending, in which case the culprit is the government, not rich people. The cure to that as I'm sure you know is not to loot rich people so they don't have money to buy the bonds, but rather curtail government borrowing.



Hedge funds don't cause economic problems, they are merely a market trading mechanism, and incidentally LOST a lot of money in the recent downturn.



When do they buy gold? When somebody ELSE has ALREADY screwed up the economy. Their gold purchases are an effect, not a cause, of a bad economy.



That's exactly what they SHOULD do. If they don't, the ROOT cause is with somebody else.

Whether you curtail government spending or not, there will always be government financing. Unless we start paying off the national debt which will probably never happen, we will continue to need to refinance the debt. Treasury bonds and tax-free municipal bonds have and probably always will be a favorite investment of the wealthy. Neither are big job creators.

Not so fast. Suppose bonds are used to build public infrastructure such as highways and water and power plants. Then companies may be more likely to locate there, bringing jobs.

I didn’t say hedge funds caused the problem. They just allow the wealthy to make money as the economy contracts.

They may make it. or they may lose it.

No, I’m not arguing that purchasing gold causes economy problems. I’m just saying buying gold and precious metals do not help expand the economy and create jobs. I think we were discussing how the wealthy uses wealth to create jobs and grow the economy. Buying gold is certainly not one of them.

When someone royally screws the hell out of the economy, as like now, all bets are off. The wealth producers have to protect their assets - then they will still have it to create jobs in the future. Further, there are all kinds of complex secondary effects of loot the rich taxation. Suppose a rich entrepreneur gets taxed at 70% or 90%, will he say "ah hell, with my entrepreneurship - it's not worth it anymore." What affect will that have on new jobs?

The royal screwing of the economy started a long time ago when Bush led us into two wars that has cost us 4 trillion dollars without levying a dime of taxes to pay for them. It continued with the Medicare Drug program that cost us over 50 billion a year with no revenue to pay for it. Then there were the Bush tax cuts that have cost us 2.5 trillion dollars or about 700 billion a year, more twice the cost the Obama Healthcare law.

No one is suggesting we go to a 90% tax rate. Ronald Reagan has told the story over and over of his early days in Hollywood when tax rates were as high as 90%, and he would loaf on the beaches rather than pay 90% to the government. He was so effective; he convinced his follows that any tax increase no matter how small would send workers off to La La land rather pay any addition tax.

The only tax increase that has been discussed seriously was a 3% tax increase on those that are in top 1% who are taking home 25% of all income in the country. Since 1980, 80% of the total increase in income in the country has gone to this group. A 3% tax increase is not going to send these people off to the poor house. But have no fear there will be no tax increase. Their share of pie will continue to increase while those at the other end of the scale suffer from government cut backs.


Our Banana Republic - NYTimes.com

 

[jillian]

Well, let's see, wasn't it Obama that said back in 2009 that raising taxes in a poor economy was a bad idea?

Wasn't it Obama that pushed for and got the reduced payroll taxes? Why? According to him, to stimulate the economy. And isn't he pushing to extend that?

So why is it that now Obama and the Dems want to raise taxes on the very people that provide capital to start new businesses and expand existing ones? Does that not strike you as a bit hypocritical?

The truth is that Obama is playing populistic politics, playing the class warfare card. I understand, it's all he's got left, but by his own words he's deliberately trying to harm the country's economy. What a bunch of BS, he will veto a short term extension of the debt ceiling? Gotta have the ceiling extended through the next election? What could be more politically motivated than that?

want some cheese with that wine?

the bush tax cut gift to the rich was never supposed to be permanent.

when something is on sale, and the price goes back to normal at the end of the sales period, that is not an increase in price. it is an end to the reduced price.

why the rightwingnuts think they're entitled to continue something that was supposed to be temporary is beyond me.

and i'm really not interested in the rightwing "job creator" BS... how's that worked so far?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well, let's see, wasn't it Obama that said back in 2009 that raising taxes in a poor economy was a bad idea?

Wasn't it Obama that pushed for and got the reduced payroll taxes? Why? According to him, to stimulate the economy. And isn't he pushing to extend that?

So why is it that now Obama and the Dems want to raise taxes on the very people that provide capital to start new businesses and expand existing ones? Does that not strike you as a bit hypocritical?

The truth is that Obama is playing populistic politics, playing the class warfare card. I understand, it's all he's got left, but by his own words he's deliberately trying to harm the country's economy. What a bunch of BS, he will veto a short term extension of the debt ceiling? Gotta have the ceiling extended through the next election? What could be more politically motivated than that?

want some cheese with that wine?

the bush tax cut gift to the rich was never supposed to be permanent.

when something is on sale, and the price goes back to normal at the end of the sales period, that is not an increase in price. it is an end to the reduced price.

why the rightwingnuts think they're entitled to continue something that was supposed to be temporary is beyond me.

and i'm really not interested in the rightwing "job creator" BS... how's that worked so far?

Which is the reason why the tax cuts were given a 10 year expiration date, because if it didn't work by then, it wouldn't work.

My question is, with the failure that the tax cuts for the wealthy have shown to be, why the fuck does the GOP keep wanting to extend them?

 

[Flopper]

You are completely forgetting the seller of the gold. He now has more money to invest and spend somewhere else. How does that not help the economy? You act as if when buying gold the money went into a black hole. The same is true of sellers of collectibles.

I think we were discussing activities that would grow the economy and jobs. Activities such opening a manufacturing plant, loaning money to a business to expand, or creating a new product all lead to job growth and economic expansion. Buying gold or collectibles is just an exchange of assets not likely to lead to any job growth.

The reason is simple. If we invest dollars in foreign countries, those countries can only use those dollars to buy products sold in dollars. Ultimately, those products will be from the United States. Foreign investment is not a zero-sum game.

This statement doesn't make any sense to me. If I send a million dollars to India to build a manufacturing plant. The dollars are exchanged for rupees at an Indian bank. The Indian bank sells the dollars to a US bank for rupees. The dollars are then used in US. There were no US products bought with those dollars.

 

[Zander]

A California based company recently moved it's entire manufacturing and support operation offshore. They took a tax write off for the cost of shutting down the US plant and laying off over a hundred workers. Then they took another tax write off for establishing a new plant and hiring workers overseas. They took a tax write off for the cost of the design and development of new equipment to be manufactured overseas. The equipment is being sold to a shell company in a tax haven country, so no taxes at all are being paid on the sale.

I commend those that are smart enough to profit from these tax loopholes and condemn our congress for allowing them to exist. I'm not opposed to rewarding American businesses for investing in America but it's absolutely criminal for our congress to reward businesses for shipping jobs and manufacturing overseas.

The company did not move from California because California has too little regulation. I moved because there was too much regulation, and too many taxes. Also, what company, when, what tax write offs?

The best and brightness are going to take advantage of American tax laws which encourage economic development abroad. If you can ship work overseas and save labor cost plus getting a tax break from Uncle Sam, you would be fool not to do so.

You still did not answer the question. What company? What tax write off? When?? Where?? Details!!!

Hyperbole ???

 

[Patrick2]

Whether you curtail government spending or not, there will always be government financing. Unless we start paying off the national debt which will probably never happen, we will continue to need to refinance the debt. Treasury bonds and tax-free municipal bonds have and probably always will be a favorite investment of the wealthy. Neither are big job creators.

Not so fast. Suppose bonds are used to build public infrastructure such as highways and water and power plants. Then companies may be more likely to locate there, bringing jobs.



They may make it. or they may lose it.

No, I’m not arguing that purchasing gold causes economy problems. I’m just saying buying gold and precious metals do not help expand the economy and create jobs. I think we were discussing how the wealthy uses wealth to create jobs and grow the economy. Buying gold is certainly not one of them.

When someone royally screws the hell out of the economy, as like now, all bets are off. The wealth producers have to protect their assets - then they will still have it to create jobs in the future. Further, there are all kinds of complex secondary effects of loot the rich taxation. Suppose a rich entrepreneur gets taxed at 70% or 90%, will he say "ah hell, with my entrepreneurship - it's not worth it anymore." What affect will that have on new jobs?

The royal screwing of the economy started a long time ago when Bush led us into two wars that has cost us 4 trillion dollars without levying a dime of taxes to pay for them. It continued with the Medicare Drug program that cost us over 50 billion a year with no revenue to pay for it. Then there were the Bush tax cuts that have cost us 2.5 trillion dollars or about 700 billion a year, more twice the cost the Obama Healthcare law.

And now rich people should pay for what you call Bush's screwups? Incidentally, the democrats certainly weren't opposed to the geezer meds. They ended up voting against the GOP bill because it was the GOP bill, not because they have a love affair with holding down the debt.

The only tax increase that has been discussed seriously was a 3% tax increase on those that are in top 1% who are taking home 25% of all income in the country. Since 1980, 80% of the total increase in income in the country has gone to this group. A 3% tax increase is not going to send these people off to the poor house.

So rational tax policy starts and ends with a consideration of whether the payees will thereby be sent to the poorhouse?