Progressives Explain the Economy #1: How High taxes create jobs

[CrusaderFrank]

The "American" Left has been humped and dumped by almost every other Communist leaning country.

China, Russia, Vietnam and even Cuba has deserted these clueless losers

 

[gallantwarrior]

Higher Taxes => Higher Revenue => Repair, Restore, Create infrastructure => Jobs => Private Business Makes Use of Infrastructure => Goods faster to Market => Safe and Trusted Markets => More Private Revenue

Need more?

Which goods are you referring to? We don't need much more infrastructure than the airports where all those airplanes packed with goods from overseas land to unload. Oh, I guess streets and bridges for the trucking services that can still afford the fuel prices AND make a profit. Oh, my bad, trucking firms don't need evil profits. I guess anything above cost will be paid back to government to maintain those airports.

Oops, I forgot to mention the Mexican trucking firms which wil be making profits to take home because they do not have to pay for all the stupid government regulations, they'll definitely need roads and bridges to truck goos up here. ****, the Feds will probably give them a break on fuel taxes.

 

[gallantwarrior]

What actually happens is:

Higher taxes => more spending on entitlements, payoffs, wasted programs in crony's districts=>lack of good working infastructure is kept unfunded so as to be used again fas an excuse to increase taxes more=>jobs go over seas to escape taxes=> jobs lost => more entitlements

need more?

Maybe you should do that over in crayon so the Libs will be able to maintain their attention span long enough to read to the end.

 

[Rshermr]

The "American" Left has been humped and dumped by almost every other Communist leaning country.

China, Russia, Vietnam and even Cuba has deserted these clueless losers

And the conservative right, like crusader, actually believes the drivel that they post. Because they are able to believe what they want to believe. Your post, crusader, is typical. Totally and completely devoid of any truth. But hate and lies allow you to not have to consider the actual facts. Convenient, eh, crusader. Pathetic, but convenient.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

^ This dude is a master at typing a whole bunch and not managing to convey a single point. Just ad hominem and fucktardery. Nice work, bud.

 

[Rshermr]

Higher Taxes => Higher Revenue => Repair, Restore, Create infrastructure => Jobs => Private Business Makes Use of Infrastructure => Goods faster to Market => Safe and Trusted Markets => More Private Revenue

Need more?

Higher taxes does not bring in much revenue.
France raised their's and look what happened. The wealthy moved away.
They did this the last time they elected a socialist and they did the same thing back then too.
France's proposed tax hikes spark 'exodus' of wealthy - Telegraph

It will happen here too.
Anytime you lower tax rates and red tape, it brings in more wealthy people and your receive more revenue.
Why you should pack your bags and move to Singapore - Business Insider

So, peach, as an economic guru, perhaps you can explain the following:
1. The great republican depression of 1929 saw unemployment rise from 4% to over 25% while the repubs watched. But unemployment went down with new taxes and stimulus spending.
2. Reagan lowered tax rates greatly in 1981, but by 1982 unemployment climed to the highest it has ever been since the great depression.
3. After the unemployment rate climbed to new highs in 1982, Reagan raised taxes 11 times and unemployment decreased substantially.
4. Clinton raised tax rates at the beginning of his presidency and we had the first surplus and the strongest economy in decades.
5. Bush W decreased taxes as soon as he could, in a good economy, and we had the worst crash in years.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Only if you are really, really stupid. No one suggested 100% tax rates. Not 50%. Just 39%. And only at the highest marginal rates. You know, like when Clinton was pres. If you check, the economy improved, the unemployment rate went to about 4%, the economy soared, and we had a deficit. I know this is kind of difficult for a con to argue with. You normally just believe what you are told, but try actually thinking. Though I suspect that is asking too much.

So a 39% rate drives economic growth but a 50% does not?

Can you elaborate? How did Clinton's 39% rate lower unemployment to 4%?

So Crusader says:

So a 39% rate drives economic growth but a 50% does not?

Ah, but I did not say that raising taxes would help the economy. Raising taxes is a tool. So, if you raise taxes and toss the money into a trust, and do nothing with it, then there would be little to no stimulus. But, here is the problem for you, CF. You are trying to simplify the problem. The problem is not tax rates but demand.
And that means that you need to do something with the additional revenue that would result.
Something stimulative of demand. So would 50% be better? Maybe, maybe not. But you see, CF, no one is suggesting 50% except you. Which is why I used 39%. For obvious reasons to most.

Can you elaborate? How did Clinton's 39% rate lower unemployment to 4%?

It did not. As I said, it was what was done with the revenue. It increased demand because it was used for stimulative spending. And if you know just a little about economics, you would understand why that increased employment.

Here's a really new and novel idea, any increase in revenue should be used to pay off our debts. Pay what we owe before we start stimulating things.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Only if you are really, really stupid. No one suggested 100% tax rates. Not 50%. Just 39%. And only at the highest marginal rates. You know, like when Clinton was pres. If you check, the economy improved, the unemployment rate went to about 4%, the economy soared, and we had a deficit. I know this is kind of difficult for a con to argue with. You normally just believe what you are told, but try actually thinking. Though I suspect that is asking too much.

So a 39% rate drives economic growth but a 50% does not?

Can you elaborate? How did Clinton's 39% rate lower unemployment to 4%?

So Crusader says:

So a 39% rate drives economic growth but a 50% does not?

Ah, but I did not say that raising taxes would help the economy. Raising taxes is a tool. So, if you raise taxes and toss the money into a trust, and do nothing with it, then there would be little to no stimulus. But, here is the problem for you, CF. You are trying to simplify the problem. The problem is not tax rates but demand. And that means that you need to do something with the additional revenue that would result. Something stimulative of demand. So would 50% be better? Maybe, maybe not. But you see, CF, no one is suggesting 50% except you. Which is why I used 39%. For obvious reasons to most.

Can you elaborate? How did Clinton's 39% rate lower unemployment to 4%?

It did not. As I said, it was what was done with the revenue. It increased demand because it was used for stimulative spending. And if you know just a little about economics, you would understand why that increased employment.

And then turned around and led to the NASDAQ bubble burst, where the "stimulative spending" went. Leading toa loss in wealth, employment, revenue and business investment. Nice work, mr. Economic understanding.

What a reject.

 

[Oddball]

Higher Taxes => Higher Revenue => Repair, Restore, Create infrastructure => Jobs => Private Business Makes Use of Infrastructure => Goods faster to Market => Safe and Trusted Markets => More Private Revenue

Need more?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3AKoL0vEs]The Broken Window Fallacy - YouTube[/ame]

Just because it bears repeating.

 

[Rshermr]

How can we explain something no one ever said, idiot? Do you dine on "stupid"? Get so tired of your ilk making up nonsense and then demanding it be "defended" by those who never said it. You need to be committed, seriously. Before you hurt yourself.

You don't seem to be able to explain much of anything you believe in, yet you think I'm the crazy one.

Well I think I have the Heritage Foundation economic model down pat. First, the New Keynesians (and the old Keynesians too!) have it all wrong and the problem with the economy is not stimulus. As a corollary, if stimulus will not grow the economy, then destimulus like tax increases can't hurt it either. What matters is "confidence". When the confidencefairies and bond vigilantes believe the deficit is being reduced, the magic asterisks in Ryan's budget come into play and the newly energized animal spirits of the monied class will invest, production and jobs will skyrocket, never mind there is no one to sell to.

Personally I think this is all poppycock, but it is the only logical conclusion based on right-wing pseudo-economics. But who ever claimed that right-wing economics was either consistent or logical?

Yup, the right wing, the cons, have lots of complaints and fully believe in some version of supply side economics. But in general, it is anything that makes the really wealthy far right movers and shakers that make them believe. If it is good for the Koch brothers, it is good for the cons. So, you see this blather posted time after time. Bring up a subject and you know what position they will take. If it is good for the Koch's, then they are for it. If it is good for the middle class, then they have no interest.

So you get these stupid, irrational, unsupportable posts over and over again, while they slap each other on the back and congratulate each other for drivel. Amazing. But never an ability to have a rational discussion based on impartial evidence.

Sad but true.

 

[Rshermr]

So a 39% rate drives economic growth but a 50% does not?

Can you elaborate? How did Clinton's 39% rate lower unemployment to 4%?

So Crusader says:

Ah, but I did not say that raising taxes would help the economy. Raising taxes is a tool. So, if you raise taxes and toss the money into a trust, and do nothing with it, then there would be little to no stimulus. But, here is the problem for you, CF. You are trying to simplify the problem. The problem is not tax rates but demand. And that means that you need to do something with the additional revenue that would result. Something stimulative of demand. So would 50% be better? Maybe, maybe not. But you see, CF, no one is suggesting 50% except you. Which is why I used 39%. For obvious reasons to most.

Can you elaborate? How did Clinton's 39% rate lower unemployment to 4%?

It did not. As I said, it was what was done with the revenue. It increased demand because it was used for stimulative spending. And if you know just a little about economics, you would understand why that increased employment.

And then turned around and led to the NASDAQ bubble burst, where the "stimulative spending" went. Leading toa loss in wealth, employment, revenue and business investment. Nice work, mr. Economic understanding.

What a reject.

And step provides his economic analysis again. Drivel, but it is what step believes. Because he wants to believe. Because, you see, step is a con tool. And stupid and con tool is redundant.

 

[Rshermr]

^ This dude is a master at typing a whole bunch and not managing to convey a single point. Just ad hominem and fucktardery. Nice work, bud.

Uh, if you look at what you just posted you would see that you are what you just accused me of being. Nice work, bud.

 

[peach174]

Higher Taxes => Higher Revenue => Repair, Restore, Create infrastructure => Jobs => Private Business Makes Use of Infrastructure => Goods faster to Market => Safe and Trusted Markets => More Private Revenue

Need more?

Higher taxes does not bring in much revenue.
France raised their's and look what happened. The wealthy moved away.
They did this the last time they elected a socialist and they did the same thing back then too.
France's proposed tax hikes spark 'exodus' of wealthy - Telegraph

It will happen here too.
Anytime you lower tax rates and red tape, it brings in more wealthy people and your receive more revenue.
Why you should pack your bags and move to Singapore - Business Insider

So, peach, as an economic guru, perhaps you can explain the following:
1. The great republican depression of 1929 saw unemployment rise from 4% to over 25% while the repubs watched. But unemployment went down with new taxes and stimulus spending.
2. Reagan lowered tax rates greatly in 1981, but by 1982 unemployment claimed to the highest it has ever been since the great depression.
3. After the unemployment rate climbed to new highs in 1982, Reagan raised taxes 11 times and unemployment decreased substantially.
4. Clinton raised tax rates at the beginning of his presidency and we had the first surplus and the strongest economy in decades.
5. Bush W decreased taxes as soon as he could, in a good economy, and we had the worst crash in years.

I am no economic guru , I just stated Facts at what happens when other countries have done the same things.
I do know my U. S. History.
What you are blaming the Republicans for in 1929,happened because a progressive Democrat President Woodrow Wilson who pushed for a Federal Reserve Bank. That bank then gave out too much credit to the people and that is some of several things that happened during the depression 1929.
If you look at what President Coolidge did, we had many poor rise up to the middle class.

Reagan -Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.

The bills didn't raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through "base broadening" -- that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes.
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010
This is what Repubs want to do now and the Dems are totally against this. Why? Because it worked under Regan.

Again you blame Repubs for the housing crash when it was Dem policies that created the housing bubble. Dems blocked all regulation when it was revealed that Freddy Mac was doing illegal hedge funds.

Who was elected after the first two years under Clinton? Repubs.

 

[eflatminor]

Higher Taxes => Higher Revenue => Repair, Restore, Create infrastructure => Jobs => Private Business Makes Use of Infrastructure => Goods faster to Market => Safe and Trusted Markets => More Private Revenue

Need more?

Higher taxes does not bring in much revenue.
France raised their's and look what happened. The wealthy moved away.
They did this the last time they elected a socialist and they did the same thing back then too.
France's proposed tax hikes spark 'exodus' of wealthy - Telegraph

It will happen here too.
Anytime you lower tax rates and red tape, it brings in more wealthy people and your receive more revenue.
Why you should pack your bags and move to Singapore - Business Insider

So, peach, as an economic guru, perhaps you can explain the following:
1. The great republican depression of 1929 saw unemployment rise from 4% to over 25% while the repubs watched. But unemployment went down with new taxes and stimulus spending.

Yea...unemployment rates during the great depression were something we should try to emulate.

2. Reagan lowered tax rates greatly in 1981, but by 1982 unemployment climed to the highest it has ever been since the great depression.

What's that old line about statistics and liars? Reagan did cut taxes in August of '81. Of course, in 1982, he was snookered into increasing taxes, which took away some of the corporate tax incentives that were part of the '81 bill. He was silly enough to fall for the promise of 3 to 1 spending cuts "later" for a tax increase now. The spending cuts never came...shocker, I know.

Back to the taxes. Those '81 cuts were designed to be phased in slowly. Most of the tax cuts would not hit until 1983. Guess what happened in 1983? The economy expanded 3.5% and in 1984, it expanded 6.8%!

In 1986, we passed another tax reform act, which broadened the base and flattened the rates down to 15 and 28%. The economy continued to grow, with only a minor recession in 1990. In fact, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared the period 1982-1999 "the longest sustained period of prosperity in the 20th century".

Now what were you saying about unemployment following the Reagan tax cuts?

3. After the unemployment rate climbed to new highs in 1982, Reagan raised taxes 11 times and unemployment decreased substantially.

Bullshit. There were some tax increases but overall, taxes decreased dramatically. It's not the NUMBER of times the taxes changed, it's their the fact that overall, they decreased...dramatically so.

4. Clinton raised tax rates at the beginning of his presidency and we had the first surplus and the strongest economy in decades.

We also had the tech boom. You also fail to mention that Clinton's near 40% tax rate in 1993 was still a far cry from the 70% top rate that existed before Reagan. Further, you overlook that the economy grew at 4.5% in the twelve months before Clinton was elected. After their tax hike, in 93, the economy actually slipped to 2-3% growth in '93 and '94. Oops...

The idea behind Clinton's tax hike was to lower interest rates. Yet, after the tax hike, interest rates actually rose 2 points. Oops again...

The economy took off after '94, when Clinton enacted one bullish policy after another (good for him!). He promoted free trade, tight-fisted budgets, and welfare reform. And oh yea, he also REDUCED TAXES! Yes, Clinton cut capital gains tax rates. Capital investment boomed and tax revenues skyrocketed.

5. Bush W decreased taxes as soon as he could, in a good economy, and we had the worst crash in years.

GW's first tax cuts were in 2001, and they did put more money in consumer's pockets. The economy however, was still hurting from the tech bubble burst and oh yea, 9/11. Bush need to spur investment, so the dividend rate was cut to 15% as was the cap gains rate. He also decreased personal tax rates and on corporate investments. This occurred in May of 2003, after which the economy instantly boomed and the tax revenues INCREASED. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four year increase in US history. The economy continued to grow until the housing bubble burst. This had NOTHING to do with tax rates and everything to do with cronyism...dirty bankers and corrupt, meddling central planners.

You see, when you understand the actual facts, the details of what really happened, your talking points become useless half truths and distortions of reality.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The "American" Left has been humped and dumped by almost every other Communist leaning country.

China, Russia, Vietnam and even Cuba has deserted these clueless losers

And the conservative right, like crusader, actually believes the drivel that they post. Because they are able to believe what they want to believe. Your post, crusader, is typical. Totally and completely devoid of any truth. But hate and lies allow you to not have to consider the actual facts. Convenient, eh, crusader. Pathetic, but convenient.

Explain what raising taxes accomplishes

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Higher Taxes => Higher Revenue => Repair, Restore, Create infrastructure => Jobs => Private Business Makes Use of Infrastructure => Goods faster to Market => Safe and Trusted Markets => More Private Revenue

Need more?

Higher taxes does not bring in much revenue.
France raised their's and look what happened. The wealthy moved away.
They did this the last time they elected a socialist and they did the same thing back then too.
France's proposed tax hikes spark 'exodus' of wealthy - Telegraph

It will happen here too.
Anytime you lower tax rates and red tape, it brings in more wealthy people and your receive more revenue.
Why you should pack your bags and move to Singapore - Business Insider

So, peach, as an economic guru, perhaps you can explain the following:
1. The great republican depression of 1929 saw unemployment rise from 4% to over 25% while the repubs watched. But unemployment went down with new taxes and stimulus spending.
2. Reagan lowered tax rates greatly in 1981, but by 1982 unemployment climed to the highest it has ever been since the great depression.
3. After the unemployment rate climbed to new highs in 1982, Reagan raised taxes 11 times and unemployment decreased substantially.
4. Clinton raised tax rates at the beginning of his presidency and we had the first surplus and the strongest economy in decades.
5. Bush W decreased taxes as soon as he could, in a good economy, and we had the worst crash in years.

Actually in 1929, FDR watched. Hoover asked, begged FDR to help but FDR just sailed on vacation. The transition did not occur until March in those days and ruthless Progressive FDR couldn't be bothered with helping.

 

[Dot Com]

looks like Rshermr is spanking every rw'r in Franks thread

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Only if you're a ******* retard.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats are convinced that a truly vibrant economy, the economic perfection is taxes at 100%. High taxes didn't end the depression. High taxes is how the Oklahoma farmers lost their farms. What ended the depression was WWII.

 

[peach174]

looks like Rshermr is spanking every rw'r in Franks thread

I don't see how you think that.
The rw's are spanking Rshermr with facts