[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. The world economy can no longer be looked at as though money in our system stays there. It leaves and boosts the economy elsewhere.

even it stayed here it would only create inflation, artificial demand, and distortions or bubbles; so now you see that the liberal's easy money debtor friendly inflation doesn't work anywhere!!

 

[Foxfyre]

There is an increasing trend for employees to stay put...and especially to not take the risk to start a business. Who does this benefit...big government cronies who now have a buyers' market for labor.

Among a whole lot of nonsense Ilia has been spouting--I'm trying to ignore most of it and not take the bait to derail the thread worse than has already happened--he/she is right about one thing. American business is sitting on trillions of dollars of capital at this time. But not for the reasons he/she would have us believe.

The 'fair share' issue is precisely why they are sitting on it. Those who have capital parked overseas are not going to bring that money home when the huge threat of the 'rich paying their fair share' is likely to confiscate a huge percentage of it. And folks aren't about to risk the capital they have when the President continues to beat the drum of the 'rich paying more' as well as the uncertainties in the tax code due to massive programs like Obamacare et al.

So small business chooses to stay small instead of expanding and risking those higher taxes. And that results in fewer jobs and opportunity for others. Big business does just fine by focusing all its less profitable operations here and focusing on making big profits overseas where the tax structure and business environment is more friendly. That too makes for fewer jobs and less opportunity for all here at home.

You cannot punish the rich for their success without hurting the poor.

That is only half the picture though. The other half ilia has somewhat correct, business is not going to invest in the face of reduced demand. What they have wrong though is the idea that the government can print of some cash and then create artificial demand without consequences. Not only is that simply not going to work but it no longer fits into the economy where inflating the cost of goods through printing presses, higher taxes and forced higher wages chases that demand to other products produced in cheaper nations. The world economy can no longer be looked at as though money in our system stays there. It leaves and boosts the economy elsewhere.

The whole concept of Keynesian economics is government spending that provides a little jump start--not enough to break the bank--very short term and with the treasury repaid quickly. But the idea is to infuse just enugh money into the economy to encourage economic activity. Building a new court house results in somethng tangible and useful, but it also provides work for a contractor who in turn subcontracts work and buys supplies and materials from other businesses who in turn buy from others, etc.

But a stable sustainable economy works as it always has. Business doing business buys products and services from other businesses as well as providing wages and other forms of income for labor who also then have money to use for products and services. Some of the money is saved, some invested, some spent directly. But in the magic of a free market system it works across a city, a state, a nation, and most of the free world. Gradually, according to supply and demand, more people will be needed to supply labor who in turn need someplace to live, food, clothing, etc. that prompts more businesses to move in to meet the new demand.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But the idea is to infuse just enugh money into the economy to encourage economic activity.

dear, you have to put your thinking cap on and reach for the idea of "malinvestment or bubble investment" When government spends it misallocates money, people, and resources. The housing bubble is the perfect example writ large. When the government stops you have too many bridge builders or carpenters, a then a recession while the free market puts things back in their free market sustainable place.

Make sense??

 

[PMZ]

The concept of Keynesian economics is that when consumers lose confidence in business, they stop consuming and that leads to layoffs and shutdowns and more loss in confidence. The only stabilizing force available is the government who can borrow, support consumer spending and keep businesses afloat until consumer confidence returns.

The Great Recession was the perfect storm of banking collapse from the crash of the housing boom, caused by too many high risk mortgages granted and then sold. Plus the collapse of the auto industry. Plus the results of millions of American jobs given away to cheap foreign labor so that executives could pocket what they should have spent on American productivity.

What could possibly support consumer confidence in that melange of business failure? Only the government through extended unemployment benefits. Which, despite the Republican cries for austerity, which would have certainly brought on greater recession as in Europe, we're granted.

In 2001 the CBO said that if Bush had continued Clintonomics, our entire national debt could be paid off by 2006. Instead we are now looking at $17,000,000,000,000 in debt as the consequences of Republican policies during the Bush Administration.

What saved the country from a much greater impact?

Keynesian economics. The investment by government into the economy.

 

[PMZ]

But the idea is to infuse just enugh money into the economy to encourage economic activity.

dear, you have to put your thinking cap on and reach for the idea of "malinvestment or bubble investment" When government spends it misallocates money, people, and resources. The housing bubble is the perfect example writ large. When the government stops you have too many bridge builders or carpenters, a then a recession while the free market puts things back in their free market sustainable place.

Make sense??

The housing bubble had little to do with government. It's ultimate beginning was the invention and popularization of mortgage backed derivatives. An invention that relieved banks initiating mortgages from due diligence. It simply became too easy to make trillions by initiating highly risky mortgages on the basis of promising people easy money from overextending themselves, packaging the mortgages in derivatives which obscured the risk, and selling them to unsuspecting investors around the world.

Easy money + greed = booms which always collapse into busts.

The housing boom and bust + the Detroit auto busts + the holy wars + the Bush wealth redistribution tax cuts on wealth + The cost of stabilizing the economy to shorten recovery time, took us from the promise of zero debt to the reality of $17,000,000,000,000 in debt.

Those facts define the reality of the demise of the Republican Party and their total reliance now on lies as the only pathway to redemption. But it has and will continue to fail. Not enough suckers in America.

 

[ilia25]

There is an increasing trend for employees to stay put...and especially to not take the risk to start a business. Who does this benefit...big government cronies who now have a buyers' market for labor.

Among a whole lot of nonsense Ilia has been spouting--I'm trying to ignore most of it and not take the bait to derail the thread worse than has already happened--he/she is right about one thing. American business is sitting on trillions of dollars of capital at this time. But not for the reasons he/she would have us believe.

Basically you are saying that companies being reluctant to spend money on expanding production has absolutely nothing to do with the biggest drop in consumer demand since 30s? That it is a pure coincidence that drop in the business investment happened right after the drop in the consumer spending?

Honestly, do you really believe so?

The 'fair share' issue is precisely why they are sitting on it.

Sure, simply electing a Democratic President is enough to scare the business and put the economy into a severe recession. Why, it happened all the time! Take Clinton -- everyone expected he would rise taxes, and sure thing he did!

Except why it that tax hike was followed by the unprecedented economic expansion?

The whole concept of Keynesian economics is government spending that provides a little jump start

Right -- except you were saying that such policies prolong recessions. You might want to make sure that you are on the same page with your second personality.

Business doing business buys products and services from other businesses as well as providing wages and other forms of income for labor who also then have money to use for products and services. Some of the money is saved, some invested, some spent directly. But in the magic of a free market system it works across a city, a state, a nation, and most of the free world. Gradually, according to supply and demand, more people will be needed to supply labor who in turn need someplace to live, food, clothing, etc. that prompts more businesses to move in to meet the new demand.

Great, you understand the virtuous cycle. But you can't you get that you can go down the same spiral as well -- down, not up. When a sudden drop in consumer demand leads to layoffs and further drop in consumer demand. And it happens with no help from the government, a failure purely on the part of free-market.

 

[ilia25]

Well, these 'idiots' you have referred are probably doing real research, while you are using... Wikipedia and Motherjones? What's wrong? Krugman's blog doesn't have data going back as far as 2002?

Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States

Top 1% Bottom: 99%

1922: 63.3%. . . .36.7%
1929: 55.8% . . . .44.2%
1933: 66.7%. . . . 33.3%
1939: 63.6%. . . . 36.4%
1945: 70.2%. . . . 29.8%
1949: 72.9%. . . . 27.1%
1953: 68.8%. . . . 31.2%
1962: 68.2%. . . . 31.8%
1965: 65.6%. . . . 34.4%
1969: 68.9%. . . . 31.1%
1972: 70.9%. . . . 29.1%
1976: 80.1%. . . . 19.9%
1979: 79.5%. . . . 20.5%
1981: 75.2%. . . . 24.8%
1983: 69.1%. . . . 30.9%
1986: 68.1%. . . . 31.9%
1989: 64.3% . . . .35.7%
1992: 62.8%. . . . 37.2%
1995: 61.5%. . . . 38.5%
1998: 61.9%. . . . 38.1%
2001: 66.6%. . . . 33.4%
2004: 65.7%. . . . 34.3%
2007: 65.4%. . . . 34.6%
2010: 64.6%. . . . 35.4%

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

It amazes me how you people fail to read your own sources:

Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007).

There is no way in the world the growing income inequality would not result in more unequal wealth distribution.

It amazes me how you fail at reading... How does that refute anything that I have said? What you have quoted is where all the new financial wealth was distributed. That still changes anything, in fact, very little. Income quintlies grow and shrink overtime, but the gap between the 99% and Top 1% has barely changed.

For pete's sake, why don't you read your own numbers? Top 1% share doubled between 1976 and 1998. I that what you describe as "barely changed"?

And yes, it takes time for the income inequality to affect the distribution of wealth. But it will happen eventually and inevitably.

People move up and down income brackets everyday. Statistical categories are doesn't matter very much. Who comprises those categories at that particular time matters more. But you really don't understand how that works, which is why income inequality is generally misunderstood by most.

Sure, everyone in America starts working for a minimal wage and ends up in the top 1% a few decade later. Or maybe not.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.

holy shit, I agree with you on something!

 

[ilia25]

Not only is that simply not going to work but it no longer fits into the economy where inflating the cost of goods through printing presses, higher taxes and forced higher wages

Get this -- inflation happens only when people's wages start raising. And wages only start raising after the unemployment drops below its natural rate -- in other words, after the economy has recovered from depression.

So you can't say that stimulus does not work because it causes inflation. Because inflation means that stimulus was successful.

 

[editec]

FWIW inflation is seldom caused by rising wages.

More typically wages rise after prices inflate.

 

[Foxfyre]

But the idea is to infuse just enugh money into the economy to encourage economic activity.

dear, you have to put your thinking cap on and reach for the idea of "malinvestment or bubble investment" When government spends it misallocates money, people, and resources. The housing bubble is the perfect example writ large. When the government stops you have too many bridge builders or carpenters, a then a recession while the free market puts things back in their free market sustainable place.

Make sense??

But read my definition of Keynesian economics which is actually John Maynard Keynes theory in its simplest terms. Keynes' concept has been bastardized and completed distorted in the modern American liberal's belief that government can spend us into prosperity. Keynes' would never have suggested anything like that.

Using my example of that courthouse to give a little jump start to the local economy, that was his concept. Because they could count on getting paid, it would inspire confidence allowing the contractor to risk his capital to build it knowing he would get paid and that would regenerate economic activity in the private sector. It would be a responsible use of government stimulus assuming that the community needed that courthouse. And Keynes looked to necessary infrastructure for the short term government spending rather than massive social spending that has little chance to provide any significant return. And his concept did not include entitlements.

The housing bubble was generated by government encouraging, in fact almost requiring, irresponsible spending and investment and refusal to deal with the warning signs when they first appeared. Keynes would never have encouraged government to encourage irresponsible investment nor would he have approved the government taking on debt at levels that could not be quickly repaid to the treasury.

Keynes was not a fan of how FDR applied his theories and cautioned FDR not to endanger confidence through too much aggressive government. And before he died in 1945, Keynes was pretty discouraged with a government-driven rather than private-sector driven economy. He said something to the effect that economics had gone 'silly and sour."

 

[RKMBrown]

But the idea is to infuse just enugh money into the economy to encourage economic activity.

dear, you have to put your thinking cap on and reach for the idea of "malinvestment or bubble investment" When government spends it misallocates money, people, and resources. The housing bubble is the perfect example writ large. When the government stops you have too many bridge builders or carpenters, a then a recession while the free market puts things back in their free market sustainable place.

Make sense??

The housing bubble had little to do with government. It's ultimate beginning was the invention and popularization of mortgage backed derivatives. An invention that relieved banks initiating mortgages from due diligence. It simply became too easy to make trillions by initiating highly risky mortgages on the basis of promising people easy money from overextending themselves, packaging the mortgages in derivatives which obscured the risk, and selling them to unsuspecting investors around the world.

Easy money + greed = booms which always collapse into busts.

The housing boom and bust + the Detroit auto busts + the holy wars + the Bush wealth redistribution tax cuts on wealth + The cost of stabilizing the economy to shorten recovery time, took us from the promise of zero debt to the reality of $17,000,000,000,000 in debt.

Those facts define the reality of the demise of the Republican Party and their total reliance now on lies as the only pathway to redemption. But it has and will continue to fail. Not enough suckers in America.

PMZ you are a partisan hack. The housing bubble was created by the Clinton administration and regulated by the democrats to benefit their voting block. It was the democrat voting block that had no income to pay for their loans that caused the bubble to pop. It was the democrat lawmakers who forced the banks to provide the loans with no backing and it was the democrats who's friends in finance benefited in the theft. Bush? Yeah he's a christian, warhawk, socialist always was and always will be.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Perhaps... but still, laying off millions of workers while offshoring their jobs and also while increasing executive pay by the exact amount saved by offshoring?

I understand that the Union trains you to chant simple slogans, but slogans are no substitute for thought.

Yeah, it's not hard to understand why the folks would not appreciate the value of the Executives' windfall bonus check apparently earned by his act of moving their job to our communist enemies.

What the **** are you yapping about? Do you even grasp what the subject is?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You have problem with reading comprehension. This is not my attitude and a never said anything like this. The goal is to make the poor having more.

Yawn,,,

Thatcher failed. Yes, the poor saw their income rising. But they were rising slower than the overall economy because bigger share of newly created wealth went to the rich.

You leftists are like petulant children.

"NO FAIR - HE GOT MORE - WAHHHHH"

But stupid, you got more as well.

"NO FAIR - HE GOT MORE MORE THAN I GOT - WAHHHHH"

Obsmunists are some stupid motherfuckers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There are dust-bunnies that have a higher IQ than you do.

And yet, he still has a higher IQ than you...

Funny dat.

 

[Foxfyre]

dear, you have to put your thinking cap on and reach for the idea of "malinvestment or bubble investment" When government spends it misallocates money, people, and resources. The housing bubble is the perfect example writ large. When the government stops you have too many bridge builders or carpenters, a then a recession while the free market puts things back in their free market sustainable place.

Make sense??

The housing bubble had little to do with government. It's ultimate beginning was the invention and popularization of mortgage backed derivatives. An invention that relieved banks initiating mortgages from due diligence. It simply became too easy to make trillions by initiating highly risky mortgages on the basis of promising people easy money from overextending themselves, packaging the mortgages in derivatives which obscured the risk, and selling them to unsuspecting investors around the world.

Easy money + greed = booms which always collapse into busts.

The housing boom and bust + the Detroit auto busts + the holy wars + the Bush wealth redistribution tax cuts on wealth + The cost of stabilizing the economy to shorten recovery time, took us from the promise of zero debt to the reality of $17,000,000,000,000 in debt.

Those facts define the reality of the demise of the Republican Party and their total reliance now on lies as the only pathway to redemption. But it has and will continue to fail. Not enough suckers in America.

PMZ you are a partisan hack. The housing bubble was created by the Clinton administration and regulated by the democrats to benefit their voting block. It was the democrat voting block that had no income to pay for their loans that caused the bubble to pop. It was the democrat lawmakers who forced the banks to provide the loans with no backing and it was the democrats who's friends in finance benefited in the theft. Bush? Yeah he's a christian, warhawk, socialist always was and always will be.

It actually started with the Carter Administration, was not resisted in the Reagan Administration, became more intentionally aggressive and started spiraling out of control in the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration does not have clean hands either.

To his credit, President Bush was aware that the situation had become dangerous and I believe it was 17 different times he asked Congress to deal with it to head off a possible crash. (I say possible because they did not foresee the devastation in store for us when the whole house of cards collapsed.) But the Congress, most especially when it was back under control of the Democrats in January 2007, blew off the President's concerns. And we had the spectacle of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd again and again reassuring everybody that Fannie and Freddie were not in any kind of trouble and everything was just fine.

Youtube Barney Frank on Fannie Mae - Bing Videos

The 'fair share' any of us would pay would be a hell of a lot less if we had a competent, responsive, and restrained government.
The 'fair share' we

 

[Uncensored2008]

Republicans are notorious for withholding hand ups.

Obamunists are notorious for ordering "HANDS UP."

 

[RKMBrown]

The housing bubble had little to do with government. It's ultimate beginning was the invention and popularization of mortgage backed derivatives. An invention that relieved banks initiating mortgages from due diligence. It simply became too easy to make trillions by initiating highly risky mortgages on the basis of promising people easy money from overextending themselves, packaging the mortgages in derivatives which obscured the risk, and selling them to unsuspecting investors around the world.

Easy money + greed = booms which always collapse into busts.

The housing boom and bust + the Detroit auto busts + the holy wars + the Bush wealth redistribution tax cuts on wealth + The cost of stabilizing the economy to shorten recovery time, took us from the promise of zero debt to the reality of $17,000,000,000,000 in debt.

Those facts define the reality of the demise of the Republican Party and their total reliance now on lies as the only pathway to redemption. But it has and will continue to fail. Not enough suckers in America.

PMZ you are a partisan hack. The housing bubble was created by the Clinton administration and regulated by the democrats to benefit their voting block. It was the democrat voting block that had no income to pay for their loans that caused the bubble to pop. It was the democrat lawmakers who forced the banks to provide the loans with no backing and it was the democrats who's friends in finance benefited in the theft. Bush? Yeah he's a christian, warhawk, socialist always was and always will be.

It actually started with the Carter Administration, was not resisted in the Reagan Administration, became more intentionally aggressive and started spiraling out of control in the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration does not have clean hands either.

To his credit, President Bush was aware that the situation had become dangerous and I believe it was 17 different times he asked Congress to deal with it to head off a possible crash. (I say possible because they did not foresee the devastation in store for us when the whole house of cards collapsed.) But the Congress, most especially when it was back under control of the Democrats in January 2007, blew off the President's concerns. And we had the spectacle of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd again and again reassuring everybody that Fannie and Freddie were not in any kind of trouble and everything was just fine.

Youtube Barney Frank on Fannie Mae - Bing Videos

The 'fair share' any of us would pay would be a hell of a lot less if we had a competent, responsive, and restrained government.
The 'fair share' we

I yield the floor..

 

[ilia25]

But the idea is to infuse just enugh money into the economy to encourage economic activity.

dear, you have to put your thinking cap on and reach for the idea of "malinvestment or bubble investment" When government spends it misallocates money, people, and resources. The housing bubble is the perfect example writ large. When the government stops you have too many bridge builders or carpenters, a then a recession while the free market puts things back in their free market sustainable place.

Make sense??

But read my definition of Keynesian economics which is actually John Maynard Keynes theory in its simplest terms. Keynes' concept has been bastardized and completed distorted in the modern American liberal's belief that government can spend us into prosperity.

Can you name someone believing that "that government can spend us into prosperity"? I, for one, always maintained that the government should only try to stimulate an economy while it is in depression. Once the unemployment drops to its natural level -- and you can see that when you see rising inflation -- then there is no point in any further stimulus. 'Cause it would only lead to more inflation.

 

[ilia25]

FWIW inflation is seldom caused by rising wages.

More typically wages rise after prices inflate.

The cost of any good is the sum of wages paid to create it. That is why inflation is ALWAYS caused by rising wages.