Two Questions for our Liberal friends

[crpravens]

1. How will higher taxes increase employment rates...

2. Why should I care if high income earners get more dollars back than lower income earners from tax cuts...

 

[ClosedCaption]

1. It won't and lower taxes doesn't do it either. Lower taxes only puts more money in your pockets, it doesn't create jobs.

2. You don't have to care about the deficit or more money in your pocket but I do.

 

[WillowTree]

1. It won't and lower taxes doesn't do it either. Lower taxes only puts more money in your pockets, it doesn't create jobs.

2. You don't have to care about the deficit or more money in your pocket but I do.

Cool beans, if we are not worrying about more money in the pockets we don't have to worry about unemployment checks. So no need for pockets or for jobs. Problem solved.

 

[Sallow]

1. Taxes are what pays for roads, bridges, police, fireman, mail, schools, clean water, electricity, new technology, new drugs, safe drugs, safe food, court houses, the military, veterans benefits and a whole lot of other things we take for granted. In other words, "Taxes is the price we pay to live in a civil society".

2. A progressive tax basically removes the needs to audit to crap out of everyone of those CEOs who have no trouble voting themselves multimillion dollar bonuses while cutting benefits (which have to be picked up by the gov) and jobs.

 

[rightwinger]

1. Cutting taxes without a corresponding cut in spending adds to the deficit. Borrowing money (adding to national debt) to pay for arbitrary tax cuts is not good fiscal policy

2. I care because in my lifetime I have seen a shift of wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest Americans. I can see the difference between my fathers generation and mine in terms of what is affordable on a single middle class salary. I see the middle class making do with less while the wealthy claim a higher percentage of available wealth. I think this is one reason not to continue tax breaks for those who do not need them

 

[theDoctorisIn]

1. How will higher taxes increase employment rates...

They won't. Who is claiming that they will?
They won't hurt employment rates either.

2. Why should I care if high income earners get more dollars back than lower income earners from tax cuts...

The tax system is already incredibly regressive. The richest people in America pay less of a percentage of their income in tax than I do. You want to make it more so?

 

[edthecynic]

1. How will higher taxes increase employment rates...

2. Why should I care if high income earners get more dollars back than lower income earners from tax cuts...

The truly wealthy pay no taxes already, so why is there unemployment???

 

[shintao]

1. How will higher taxes increase employment rates...

It would provide more education, training, apprentiships,, relocation & placements opportunities.

2. Why should I care if high income earners get more dollars back than lower income earners from tax cuts...

The only reason I see is more people will have more money to spend, and more likely to spend it than the affluenent. Question should be, why have taxcuts to begin with? Only take what they need and then leave you alone.

 

[JFK_USA]

1. How will higher taxes increase employment rates...

2. Why should I care if high income earners get more dollars back than lower income earners from tax cuts...

1. Higher and lower taxes don't affect the rich's reasons to invest. Thats essentially the thought process of trickle down economies. Rich get more money back and they invest into companies who use that money to create jobs. The problem with that now is while the Dow and the markets are doing much better, no jobs are being created. So we have one part that is going as planned, the rich are investing. But the top 2% will always invest regardless if they pay 39% of their marginal tax rate or 69%.

Also think of this. A small business owner can practically write off everything but clothing for his taxes as the cost of doing business. Now if uniforms are included in that is a different topic for a different day. These CEOs and Business owners already write off food, shelter, vehicles, and other things off of their taxes. These businesses provide houses for their other executives so they can write it off on their taxes to pay the smallest amount possible. The average American citizen can't do that and pays a higher percentage of their income to taxes.

2. Its not about cuts, obviously the fairest way is the people who pay the most get the most in return. The problem is their were no cuts in spending. Which causes deficits in the long run. You can't keep cutting revenue into your business and not decrease costs. The Republicans and Democrats should cut spending BUT

Spending and Taxes are the biggest political conundrum. No one likes paying taxes. When I worked at White Castle, people bitched about the taxes. But when you hear that a school has to cut their budgets and lay off teachers, people get upset about it. People want to pay less taxes, but as soon as a politician mentions what they want to cut. People throw a fit and complain you can't cut that. Cut something else.

I live in Missouri, our roads sucks. We need to fix them, but we can't because our revenues are down. I went to Mizzou, but each year they had to raise tuition because what they got from the state kept decreasing. So poorer students can't get an education because even state universities can't have an education at an affordable price.


At the end of the day, the people who have the means to pay more in taxes need to pay more in taxes. They aren't creating jobs and their tax rates right now are lower since Reagan was president. I mean if they aren't going to create jobs, you don't need the money.

 

[WillowTree]

How is this, let's tax the shit out of the rich and corporations working out in Californication? doyathink? Asswipes.

 

[rightwinger]

How is this, let's tax the shit out of the rich and corporations working out in Californication? doyathink? Asswipes.

Willow

Thanks once again for adding your child-like observations to this thread

 

[The Rabbi]

1. It won't and lower taxes doesn't do it either. Lower taxes only puts more money in your pockets, it doesn't create jobs.

So lower taxes or higher taxes do not affect rates of investment?

Where do they teach this stuff????

 

[ClosedCaption]

1. It won't and lower taxes doesn't do it either. Lower taxes only puts more money in your pockets, it doesn't create jobs.

So lower taxes or higher taxes do not affect rates of investment?

Where do they teach this stuff????

You really will have a problem no matter what I say...you'll just hear what you want but look above you and see if you see the word "investment". Thanks

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. How will higher taxes increase employment rates...

2. Why should I care if high income earners get more dollars back than lower income earners from tax cuts...

1. Why are you asking that question? Who's claiming that letting some of the tax cuts expire is designed to create jobs?

 

[shintao]

1. It won't and lower taxes doesn't do it either. Lower taxes only puts more money in your pockets, it doesn't create jobs.

So lower taxes or higher taxes do not affect rates of investment?

Where do they teach this stuff????

Glad you asked. Cheney U,.......‘Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” Dick Cheney told Paul O’Neill during a Cabinet meeting.

 

[Londoner]

FDR raised taxes on the rich in order to create a universe of middle class support programs. This had the effect of strengthening consumer demand. Indeed, during the postwar years, consumption was driven by people with solid jobs and financial security.

By 1973 America was no longer sole manufacturer to the world -- Europe and Asia had re-industrialized; capital could find wonderful returns and cheaper labor elsewhere, so it began its long flight to Germany, China, Japan, and India. Add an oil shock + some stagflation, and you have the political conditions for Ronald Reagan, who blamed all of America's ills on the mechanisms FDR established to stabilize financial markets and boost middle class demand. Gotta get rid of everything from Glass-Stegall to public universities and affordable health care. The market will take care of everything.

The right proceeded to favor the interests of capital over the interests of labor and the middle class. Of course, Reagan claimed there was no conflict between labor and capital, and that solid jobs + benefits would trickle down, but this was voodoo; indeed, most of the jobs trickled over seas, and most middle class benefits have been shrinking steadily since 1980, while the profits narrowly accumulated on top (aka upward wealth transfer), leaving nothing to drive middle class consumption. [America cannot survive without middle class consumption, but capital does not want to pay for an expensive, pampered, entitlement fed middle class. It would much rather create a 3rd world labor market here]

So, to compensate for the failed trickle down promise, what did we do? How did we cover up for the failure of Reaganomics?

Answer: Credit instruments. Instead of solid jobs & affordable education & retirement benefits & health care, we gave the middle class Master Cards, Visas, and subprimes. We needed to drive middle class consumption with something -- indeed, the economy dies when people don't consume. And let's not talk about how the historic wealth coming into the country now stayed on top, where some of it was recycled into the political and media machines for the purpose of maintaining the status quo. Let's ignore how much money has been invested into rigging the game. Let's also ignore the fact that the money on top doesn't find it's way into the real economy, rather, it goes into speculative Wall Street Ponzi schemes, which is the inevitable result of having too much capital concentrated in too few hands, chasing too few investments. America has a structural distribution problem which is peppered over by bumper stickers about freedom.

You might ask: while the wealthy were destroying the economy with hedge funds and derivatives (aka "sound investments"), what happened to our 30 year credit orgy used to sustain the middle class?

Answer: We broke the bank.

Only one certainty emerges. In a world where capital is mobile -- and can thereby fly to the cheapest labor markets and exploding global economies -- the old Reagan model, i.e., lower taxes translates into American jobs, is at best a dangerous simplification, at worse a blatant lie. The Right has been stuck in the same fiscal mantra for 30 years. At the very least they need to add some nuance. As for the Left, they sold out to Wall Street shortly after the Right. AS a result, the middle class is dead: the game is over, the money is gone, the courts have been rigged, the laws have been destroyed, the regulators captured, and the country looted beyond repair. Capital has nothing left to win. It must now busy itself with protecting its dynasty from the serfs, who must be endlessly distracted with a dizzying array of evil doers. Sadly, the poor folks screaming that they want their country back still don't know who took it. They blame government, as if such a thing even exists. Everyone knows government is a bogus holding of corporate America, used to incur debt and absorb losses.

America R.I.P. 1776-1980

 

[jeffrockit]

1. How will higher taxes increase employment rates...

They won't. Who is claiming that they will?
They won't hurt employment rates either.

2. Why should I care if high income earners get more dollars back than lower income earners from tax cuts...

The tax system is already incredibly regressive. The richest people in America pay less of a percentage of their income in tax than I do. You want to make it more so?

That is completely false. Already the anticipation of higher taxes has hurt hiring. While there are other factors, this one is very much valid.
Want proof:
"Businesses have a legitimate worry about health care costs, rising taxes, and other artifacts of Obama's legislation."
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Small Businesses are Not Hiring - Why Should They?

"Obama wants to raise income tax rates on individuals making more than $200,000 and joint filers making $250,000 and up. That would affect 3% of all taxpayers who report business profits (known as "net positive business income") on their individual tax returns, according to estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax gurus on Capitol Hill.

All told, we're talking about approximately 750,000 individuals."
"Next year, an estimated 50% of all business income reported on individual returns will be generated by that small minority of taxpayers who file at the top two rates, the JCT estimates."
Bush tax cuts: Parsing the debate about small business - Sep. 20, 2010

Common sense dictates that if businesses see their tax rate increasing, they will cut back in different areas. One being payroll. What the wealth envy crowd fails to understand is, in this administration 250K is not that much money. In Chicago an administrator for the police dept and his school teacher wife together will make 250K. Not exactly what most would call "rich". The expiration of the Bush era tax cuts will affect these people. Small business will react with more layoffs, hiring freezes, equipment buying freezes.
So really, those that think they are "sticking it to the rich" are only hurting themselves and others that are high middle class.

From CNBC (not exactly right wing) reporting on what economist are stating:
"Ending Bush Tax Cuts Will Hurt Economy: Goldman Analyst"
News Headlines

Unfortunately the "wealth envy" mantra works on voters who are too stupid to realize it will ultimately affect them too.

 

[edthecynic]

1. How will higher taxes increase employment rates...

They won't. Who is claiming that they will?
They won't hurt employment rates either.

2. Why should I care if high income earners get more dollars back than lower income earners from tax cuts...

The tax system is already incredibly regressive. The richest people in America pay less of a percentage of their income in tax than I do. You want to make it more so?

That is completely false. Already the anticipation of higher taxes has hurt hiring. While there are other factors, this one is very much valid.

That's completely invalid.

The only thing that is being anticipated is the GOP making gains in the upcoming election, and THAT is what is killing hiring.

 

[California Girl]

1. How will higher taxes increase employment rates...

2. Why should I care if high income earners get more dollars back than lower income earners from tax cuts...

1. Higher and lower taxes don't affect the rich's reasons to invest. Thats essentially the thought process of trickle down economies. Rich get more money back and they invest into companies who use that money to create jobs. The problem with that now is while the Dow and the markets are doing much better, no jobs are being created. So we have one part that is going as planned, the rich are investing. But the top 2% will always invest regardless if they pay 39% of their marginal tax rate or 69%.

Also think of this. A small business owner can practically write off everything but clothing for his taxes as the cost of doing business. Now if uniforms are included in that is a different topic for a different day. These CEOs and Business owners already write off food, shelter, vehicles, and other things off of their taxes. These businesses provide houses for their other executives so they can write it off on their taxes to pay the smallest amount possible. The average American citizen can't do that and pays a higher percentage of their income to taxes.

2. Its not about cuts, obviously the fairest way is the people who pay the most get the most in return. The problem is their were no cuts in spending. Which causes deficits in the long run. You can't keep cutting revenue into your business and not decrease costs. The Republicans and Democrats should cut spending BUT

Spending and Taxes are the biggest political conundrum. No one likes paying taxes. When I worked at White Castle, people bitched about the taxes. But when you hear that a school has to cut their budgets and lay off teachers, people get upset about it. People want to pay less taxes, but as soon as a politician mentions what they want to cut. People throw a fit and complain you can't cut that. Cut something else.

I live in Missouri, our roads sucks. We need to fix them, but we can't because our revenues are down. I went to Mizzou, but each year they had to raise tuition because what they got from the state kept decreasing. So poorer students can't get an education because even state universities can't have an education at an affordable price.


At the end of the day, the people who have the means to pay more in taxes need to pay more in taxes. They aren't creating jobs and their tax rates right now are lower since Reagan was president. I mean if they aren't going to create jobs, you don't need the money.

The only reason that business is not creating jobs is because there is no confidence in the economy. That is the fault of our government.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

1. How will higher taxes increase employment rates...

2. Why should I care if high income earners get more dollars back than lower income earners from tax cuts...

BEEN THERE!!!!​

Taxes, and the 1993 Lesson in Econ. 101​

"When conservatives argue that raising taxes on rich people is bad for the economy or that it costs jobs, don’t make the usual responses that the country needs the money, the rich can afford it, and it won’t hurt them as much.

Republicans like Bill Archer, Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, Trent Lott, Tom Kasich, and the general run of right-wing spin-doctors love to attack reasons like these. It gives them an opening to criticize higher taxes on the rich as a matter of fairness, since the wealthy already pay so much more tax than poor people do. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds."