OK, Can anyone explain to me

[NYcarbineer]

An economy needs a flow of money. If that money collects in any one place it pinches off that flow of money. Giving tax breaks on money already sitting around doing nothing will only mean more money sitting sitting doing nothing while the rest of the economy has less money to operate.

The wealth I was allowed to keep after GWB tax breaks in 2003 did not sit around
its up to about 35,000 now and I make less than 100,000, actually taxable less than 75,000

You were only allowed to keep that money because GWB decided not to pay the bills.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

That is the "unified" budget created by LBJ. Social security is not a budget item. It is supposed to be a separate flow of money in and out. It was unified to make unpopular spending on the military seem small compared to services for the people.

 

[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

Then why do you support Obama?
He has by far the most
and no GWB has little to do with Obamas debt

you cannot go from 07 levels (150 billion short) to 09 levels, drop 1 war and increase the deficit 1.5 trillion and blame it on Bush
Do not even try

 

[rightwinger]

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?

As this graph clearly shows...as you remove wealth from an indexed multiple correlated income group and reestablish in a convex multi-conscripted continuum the resulting flux ensures a positive cortex with 90% certainty

 

[Wiseacre]

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?

LOL, it just kills you when somebody makes a lot of money doesn't it? Will you forget the freakin' hedge funds for a minute and concentrate on the macro economy? Do you understand what you get when you lower the taxes on businesses and capital gains? You get more investments, and that means more jobs. And that means a more robust economy and that means more revenue due to a wider tax base. It also means less welfare payments going out, IOW a twofer.

 

[JRK]

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?

LOL, it just kills you when somebody makes a lot of money doesn't it? Will you forget the freakin' hedge funds for a minute and concentrate on the macro economy? Do you understand what you get when you lower the taxes on businesses and capital gains? You get more investments, and that means more jobs. And that means a more robust economy and that means more revenue due to a wider tax base. It also means less welfare payments going out, IOW a twofer.

It simple
Does one think you allowing to keep more of your wealth or
The govt. keeping more of your your wealth is the job creator?
Obama doing a better job with my wealth than I can to help the economy?
thats what the liberal and the main stream media has convinced enough people to elect Obama, at least 1 time
Now thats scary

 

[Wiseacre]

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?

LOL, it just kills you when somebody makes a lot of money doesn't it? Will you forget the freakin' hedge funds for a minute and concentrate on the macro economy? Do you understand what you get when you lower the taxes on businesses and capital gains? You get more investments, and that means more jobs. And that means a more robust economy and that means more revenue due to a wider tax base. It also means less welfare payments going out, IOW a twofer.

It simple
Does one think you allowing to keep more of your wealth or
The govt. keeping more of your your wealth is the job creator?
Obama doing a better job with my wealth than I can to help the economy?
thats what the liberal and the main stream media has convinced enough people to elect Obama, at least 1 time
Now thats scary

What's really scary is if enough people are convinced to re-elect him. Don't say it can't happen.

 

[JRK]

LOL, it just kills you when somebody makes a lot of money doesn't it? Will you forget the freakin' hedge funds for a minute and concentrate on the macro economy? Do you understand what you get when you lower the taxes on businesses and capital gains? You get more investments, and that means more jobs. And that means a more robust economy and that means more revenue due to a wider tax base. It also means less welfare payments going out, IOW a twofer.

It simple
Does one think you allowing to keep more of your wealth or
The govt. keeping more of your your wealth is the job creator?
Obama doing a better job with my wealth than I can to help the economy?
thats what the liberal and the main stream media has convinced enough people to elect Obama, at least 1 time
Now thats scary

What's really scary is if enough people are convinced to re-elect him. Don't say it can't happen.

After his first election anything is possible
This country deserves better
its people do

 

[P F Tinmore]

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?

As this graph clearly shows...as you remove wealth from an indexed multiple correlated income group and reestablish in a convex multi-conscripted continuum the resulting flux ensures a positive cortex with 90% certainty

Thanks, that clears everything up.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Several presidential candidates in the last election wanted to close all foreign military bases and bring all the troops home. All the money the government and the troops spend overseas would be spent here creating many jobs and improving our economy.

It would be a multi-billion stimulus that would cost nothing.

 

[hortysir]

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

You're arguing both sides, RW.
What's your solution?
A little of both? Cut spending AND raise taxes?
I'd be cool with that if it could be done without all the class warfare. Raise everyone's proportionately.
Nobody gets out of it and nobody gets gouged.
Fair?

 

[MikeK]

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?

LOL, it just kills you when somebody makes a lot of money doesn't it? Will you forget the freakin' hedge funds for a minute and concentrate on the macro economy? Do you understand what you get when you lower the taxes on businesses and capital gains? You get more investments, and that means more jobs. And that means a more robust economy and that means more revenue due to a wider tax base. It also means less welfare payments going out, IOW a twofer.

Not so. You are parroting neo-conservative propaganda. The following listing of progressive tax rates refer to the most productive and prosperous period in our recent history, which were the years between the 50s and the 80s, which is when Ronald Reagan began to covertly disassemble the middle class.

The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

And although the current maximum rate is 35% the average rate of actual yield is 15% or less. In fact, GE paid no tax last year -- zero. EXXON paid almost none, as did most other major earning corporations.

 

[JRK]

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?

LOL, it just kills you when somebody makes a lot of money doesn't it? Will you forget the freakin' hedge funds for a minute and concentrate on the macro economy? Do you understand what you get when you lower the taxes on businesses and capital gains? You get more investments, and that means more jobs. And that means a more robust economy and that means more revenue due to a wider tax base. It also means less welfare payments going out, IOW a twofer.

Not so. You are parroting neo-conservative propaganda. The following listing of progressive tax rates refer to the most productive and prosperous period in our recent history, which were the years between the 50s and the 80s, which is when Ronald Reagan began to covertly disassemble the middle class.

The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

And although the current maximum rate is 35% the average rate of actual yield is 15% or less. In fact, GE paid no tax last year -- zero. EXXON paid almost none, as did most other major earning corporations.

Propaganda?
what have I posted that was "propaganda"
Let me ask you a simple question, who pays the taxes for a corporation?
the CEO pays income taxes
the labor pays income taxes
what person pays the corporations taxes?
You want to talk about propaganda