OK, Can anyone explain to me

[rightwinger]

I thought Rightwinger had it correct, the lib/dems believe that if you take money from a rich guy and give it to 10 poor guys they'll all spend it on something and so demand goes up and the economy improves and more jobs are created. There's only one small problem with that idea though - it has never worked at any time or anywhere in the world. You simply cannot tax and spend your way to prosperity.

yup...

And you can't cut taxes to prosperity either

 

[P F Tinmore]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPngqDZpVcw]YouTube - Cynthia McKinney Economic planks - Green Party Presidential candidate[/ame]

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I thought Rightwinger had it correct, the lib/dems believe that if you take money from a rich guy and give it to 10 poor guys they'll all spend it on something and so demand goes up and the economy improves and more jobs are created. There's only one small problem with that idea though - it has never worked at any time or anywhere in the world. You simply cannot tax and spend your way to prosperity.

Sure it has. The New Deal.

 

[Mr Liberty]

Easy

Something called "Trickle up" economics

The more money you put in the hands of consumers, the more money can be spent on cars, restaurants, home improvements, vacations.....

More money going into these areas mean more JOBS

Ronald Reagan would love it!

And when that "more money" you put in the hands of the consumers dries up?
What do you do...give them more?
Isnt that why we have a 14 trillion dollar deficit?

No...we have a $14 trillion deficit because we irresponsibly cut taxes without a corresponding cut in spending

Having a receding economy has a lot to do with it.

 

[Wiseacre]

I thought Rightwinger had it correct, the lib/dems believe that if you take money from a rich guy and give it to 10 poor guys they'll all spend it on something and so demand goes up and the economy improves and more jobs are created. There's only one small problem with that idea though - it has never worked at any time or anywhere in the world. You simply cannot tax and spend your way to prosperity.

yup...

And you can't cut taxes to prosperity either

Well now, that's an interesting argument. I think if we lowered the corporate tax rate and the capital gains tax rate down to say 10% the economy would pick up dramatically and we'd have a lot less unemployed. We only get a couple hundred billion in revenue anyway from corp taxes, even less from capital gains, so why not take the hit to get things rolling. I think we'd get more back in the long run.

 

[percysunshine]

OK, Can anyone explain to me

"How the government could take more wealth from the citizens and create more jobs by doing that?"




Timothy 'Turbotax' Geithner could explain it to you...but then he would have to kill you.

 

[Wiseacre]

I thought Rightwinger had it correct, the lib/dems believe that if you take money from a rich guy and give it to 10 poor guys they'll all spend it on something and so demand goes up and the economy improves and more jobs are created. There's only one small problem with that idea though - it has never worked at any time or anywhere in the world. You simply cannot tax and spend your way to prosperity.

Sure it has. The New Deal.

Believe you're wrong there, when FDR raised taxes in 1938 he damn near restarted the depression. It was WWII that brought us out of the depression.

 

[JRK]

How the government could take more wealth from the citizens and create more jobs by doing that?
I keep reading that trickle down economics do not work and that tax cuts do not work

I have provided 2 threads that prove by the numbers otherwise and in rebuttle I get they dont, but no reason why

An I get all of these good things that occurred when Clinton was the president as though the tax rate had nothing to do with it from Reagan

I am serious. how can taking more wealth from the middle class create more jobs?

The government is "taking" less money in taxes than it has since the 50s. (Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP). And the economy is hurting because of it.

Its been hurting for 3 years
sense Regan we had one hell of a run
The housing crises was not caused by tax policy except for the ability to buy with Bring home greater than it was

 

[JRK]

Easy

Something called "Trickle up" economics

The more money you put in the hands of consumers, the more money can be spent on cars, restaurants, home improvements, vacations.....

More money going into these areas mean more JOBS

Ronald Reagan would love it!

And when that "more money" you put in the hands of the consumers dries up?
What do you do...give them more?
Isnt that why we have a 14 trillion dollar deficit?

No...we have a $14 trillion deficit because we irresponsibly cut taxes without a corresponding cut in spending

You keep saying this defict is due to tax cuts
You keep stating that no cuts have been made
from who?
Obama?
Bush?

How much debt did 9-11 add?
You think Bush and the rest of us would like to cut that?
Are we running deficit free without 9-11 until Obama gets in there?

 

[KissMy]

Government taxing & spending does not create jobs.

Unemployment and Stimulus

Clearly, the chart shows that more government spending does not create jobs. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. More government spending is correlated with higher levels of unemployment. In 1965, federal government spending was 17.2% of GDP and the unemployment rate was 4%. By 1982, spending had increased to 23.1% of GDP and unemployment had climbed to almost 11%.

Government spending then fell from its early-1980s peak back to a new low of 18.4% of GDP in 2000, and the unemployment rate fell back to a low of 3.8% in 2000. Lately, due mostly to the profligate spending of the Bush Administration, government spending has increased to 20.7% of GDP. And guess what, the unemployment rate is up, not down. In fact, for the first time in over 25 years, the unemployment rate is higher today than it was at its peak during the last recession.

And this is a very interesting development. During the quarter-century after 1982, when government spending was shrinking as a share of GDP and tax rates were cut, the unemployment rate experienced lower peaks and lower troughs during each business cycle. This was the opposite of the 1960s and 1970s, when government was growing and tax rates were rising. Then, each peak and each trough in the unemployment rate was higher in each successive business cycle.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

I am serious. how can taking more wealth from the middle class create more jobs?

I don't know what government has in mind for creating jobs, which is one concern. But I do know that raising taxes on the super-rich will help to pay down the debt, which is another very important concern. Still another concern is getting to work on our infrastructure before the bridges start falling down.

Doing that will necessarily create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the manner of the CCC, which was one of the ways FDR pulled us out of the depth of the Great Depression. (My father and one uncle benefited from that program.) So that's one possible way additional tax revenues can be used to create more jobs.

 

[MaggieMae]

How the government could take more wealth from the citizens and create more jobs by doing that?
I keep reading that trickle down economics do not work and that tax cuts do not work

I have provided 2 threads that prove by the numbers otherwise and in rebuttle I get they dont, but no reason why

An I get all of these good things that occurred when Clinton was the president as though the tax rate had nothing to do with it from Reagan

I am serious. how can taking more wealth from the middle class create more jobs?

Trickle down only works when those that have the wealth invest in AMERICAN businesses, instead of investing in foreign ventures.

 

[MaggieMae]

How the government could take more wealth from the citizens and create more jobs by doing that?
I keep reading that trickle down economics do not work and that tax cuts do not work

I have provided 2 threads that prove by the numbers otherwise and in rebuttle I get they dont, but no reason why

An I get all of these good things that occurred when Clinton was the president as though the tax rate had nothing to do with it from Reagan

I am serious. how can taking more wealth from the middle class create more jobs?

The government is "taking" less money in taxes than it has since the 50s. (Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP). And the economy is hurting because of it.

Oh nooooooooo!!! You're messing up the mantra!!

"We don't have a revenue problem,
We have a spending problem."

Repeat
Rinse
Recycle
Reuse

News flash, Republicons: WE HAVE BOTH!

 

[MaggieMae]

How the government could take more wealth from the citizens and create more jobs by doing that?
I keep reading that trickle down economics do not work and that tax cuts do not work

I have provided 2 threads that prove by the numbers otherwise and in rebuttle I get they dont, but no reason why

An I get all of these good things that occurred when Clinton was the president as though the tax rate had nothing to do with it from Reagan

I am serious. how can taking more wealth from the middle class create more jobs?

The government is "taking" less money in taxes than it has since the 50s. (Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP). And the economy is hurting because of it.

That's because of 20%+ under and unemployment - and anemic GDP growth which is not creating jobs.

Contrary to Madame Pelosi's claim, Unemployment Checks do not stimulate the economy.

So they don't use unemployment money for food, gas, sundries, rent? They just put it in savings accounts drawing 1% interest? Imagine that...

 

[MaggieMae]

How the government could take more wealth from the citizens and create more jobs by doing that?
I keep reading that trickle down economics do not work and that tax cuts do not work

I have provided 2 threads that prove by the numbers otherwise and in rebuttle I get they dont, but no reason why

An I get all of these good things that occurred when Clinton was the president as though the tax rate had nothing to do with it from Reagan

I am serious. how can taking more wealth from the middle class create more jobs?

Let's remember that 'the government,' at this time...and not for long, one hopes, is controlled by the Party of Dependency.

A quick calculation would reveal that approximately half of those working today are in public employment.

The First Couple have, in fact, suggested that this is of a higher calling than private employment, or entrepreneurship.

Consider how we encourage folks to go into public employment:

1. The average federal employee earned $81,258 per year in 2009. The average private-sector worker earned $50,462. When benefits are added, the private-industry worker gets $10,500, while the federal employee gets $42,000- or more! Federal workers earning double their private counterparts - USATODAY.com

a. The disparity has grown from 66% in 2000, to 101% in 2009. Federal Employees Continue to Prosper | Cato @ Liberty

b. When you compare job-to-job, which is difficult as job titles are hard to compare, total compensation for federal employees is 50% higher than private sector counterparts. Even considering skill, education, and seniority, it’s still a large disparity. USAToday, op.cit.

c. “An apples-to-apples comparison shows that the federal pay system gives many federal workers significantly more compensation than they would get in the private sector. The total premium costs taxpayers $40 billion (according to Richwine and Biggs) or $47 billion (Sherk) per year above market rates.” Federal Pay Still Inflated After Accounting for Skills | The Heritage Foundation
[see also http://universityandstate.wordpress...of-us-federal-government-civilian-employees/]

2. In addition to the lack of fairness, consider the effect on society if we incentivize government work as opposed to private work, and business creation…and the effect on innovation and productivity.

Why are there fewer jobs available in the private sector should be the question.

 

[P F Tinmore]

OK, Can anyone explain to me

"How the government could take more wealth from the citizens and create more jobs by doing that?"




Timothy 'Turbotax' Geithner could explain it to you...but then he would have to kill you.

Taxes per se are not bad. How do you get your products to market? The government takes money from the people, hires people, and builds roads and bridges. You can get your products to market and there will be people with money to buy your products.

Tax money that is invested to help the economy can be good. Of course taking the money and pissing it away hurts the economy.

 

[MaggieMae]

How the government could take more wealth from the citizens and create more jobs by doing that?
I keep reading that trickle down economics do not work and that tax cuts do not work

I have provided 2 threads that prove by the numbers otherwise and in rebuttle I get they dont, but no reason why

An I get all of these good things that occurred when Clinton was the president as though the tax rate had nothing to do with it from Reagan

I am serious. how can taking more wealth from the middle class create more jobs?

Easy

Something called "Trickle up" economics

The more money you put in the hands of consumers, the more money can be spent on cars, restaurants, home improvements, vacations.....

More money going into these areas mean more JOBS

Ronald Reagan would love it!

And when that "more money" you put in the hands of the consumers dries up?
What do you do...give them more?
Isnt that why we have a 14 trillion dollar deficit?

Huh? The credit bubble burst because after people had spent all their cash, they turned to credit cards to pay for necessities, no longer just luxuries. The deficit has nothing to do with the spending behavior of people. Except in extreme cases, no one gets "cash" from the government when their own money runs out.

So-called "welfare" is part of discretionary spending and is a small part of that part of the budget, contributing little to the buildup of the $14 trillion deficit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How the government could take more wealth from the citizens and create more jobs by doing that?
I keep reading that trickle down economics do not work and that tax cuts do not work

I have provided 2 threads that prove by the numbers otherwise and in rebuttle I get they dont, but no reason why

An I get all of these good things that occurred when Clinton was the president as though the tax rate had nothing to do with it from Reagan

I am serious. how can taking more wealth from the middle class create more jobs?

You never proved that tax cuts create jobs.

 

[MaggieMae]

And when that "more money" you put in the hands of the consumers dries up?
What do you do...give them more?
Isnt that why we have a 14 trillion dollar deficit?

No...we have a $14 trillion deficit because we irresponsibly cut taxes without a corresponding cut in spending

same difference....we continued to put money in the hands of people even though we didnt have the money to do it.

... and corporate welfare (subsidies), and unfunded entitlement programs and unfunded educational programs, and billions in no-questions-asked earmarks, and wars, and weapons we don't need, and a president who never vetoed a single spending bill.

 

[MaggieMae]

I thought Rightwinger had it correct, the lib/dems believe that if you take money from a rich guy and give it to 10 poor guys they'll all spend it on something and so demand goes up and the economy improves and more jobs are created. There's only one small problem with that idea though - it has never worked at any time or anywhere in the world. You simply cannot tax and spend your way to prosperity.

yup...

And you can't cut taxes to prosperity either

Well now, that's an interesting argument. I think if we lowered the corporate tax rate and the capital gains tax rate down to say 10% the economy would pick up dramatically and we'd have a lot less unemployed. We only get a couple hundred billion in revenue anyway from corp taxes, even less from capital gains, so why not take the hit to get things rolling. I think we'd get more back in the long run.

Hedge fund managers make billions and avoid paying personal income tax because of the flux in their earnings. They only pay tax on capital gains, which allows them to keep most of those earnings. And you want to lower the capital gains tax even more?