Republicans: why raising taxes on the wealthy is good for the economy

[LordBrownTrout]

The high income earners pay over 100% of income taxes in this country. The bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income tax at all. Who is the moocher here?

Hey rabbit, I am one of those "high earners" that pays taxes. You are one of those that get the EIC or worse, you earn no payroll to tax at all.

I sure as hell don't need an asshole like you worrying about my taxes. Maybe you could try and get a job and contribute to the country. Buy paying SOME taxes.

I didn't know wal mart greeters were up in the top bracket.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

And you calling out people like me for "worshiping" the rich is comical, considering your daily posts that are nothing but the written equivalent of you getting on your knees and slurping off big government any chance you get.

Hey fuckhead. You the dick sucker of the ultra wealthy and you know it.

But tell you what. Find a post where I say that I personally am receiving some sort of government benefit that YOU don't receive?

When you can't do that, please take my advice sincerely and go fuck yourself.

Awww, Zeke has a sadz.

The real point is that all these big old taxes on the rich mostly go to making government bigger, giving more worthless drones (usually friends of the wealthy) cushy government jobs,and not reducing YOUR taxes ONE FUCKING CENT. The government hands out a little chicken feed to the poor to keep their votes firmly statist, and in the end, the money still isn't enough, and they have to COME AFTER OUR MONEY, because that's where most of it is.

And you are too fucking dense to see that, because all you have on your one track mind, is FUCK THE RICH.

Zeke has to be led around by the nose. He's not too bright.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

While I think our growing inequality is the reason for our slow economy, I'm not sure higher taxes on the rich are the way to fix that. What we need is a tax system that benefits businesses that pay living wages and employ here in the states. If a company pays little and/or imports everything they pay high taxes. If a company gives good wages and employs here in the states they get big tax breaks. Or maybe we do have to raise the minimum wage. I don't however think giving more money to the government is the way to do it.

Income Inequality is a non factor. In economic boom times and bust times alike, income inequality is a complaint/rallying cry from the Left. Artificial and arbitrary policies in and around income in the name of equality accomplishes nothing except to destroy a Middle Class and be cement a true 1 percent elite ruling class. I might be able to take the Left seriously when they call for more taxes if they came to the table with plans to cut waste and bloat. Instead, they come like drunken sailors whose credit card has been maxed out asking for more handouts and debt. They also refer to a "cut" when they ask for an increase but only receive a portion of the increase they requested; an increase nonetheless logical minds.

 

[sealybobo]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

Righties will not agree but you are 100% correct.

FDR said and did this after ww2 and conservatives will not admit it worked. It did. The rich are sitting on too much money.

 

[sealybobo]

The high income earners pay over 100% of income taxes in this country. The bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income tax at all. Who is the moocher here?

Hey rabbit, I am one of those "high earners" that pays taxes. You are one of those that get the EIC or worse, you earn no payroll to tax at all.

I sure as hell don't need an asshole like you worrying about my taxes. Maybe you could try and get a job and contribute to the country. Buy paying SOME taxes.

We as a country will eventually realize they need to pay more. Not you cause you know you ain't rich.

Stop crying what's fair. What works is what you should be asking. Now call me a class warfare socialist.

 

[Wyatt earp]

And you calling out people like me for "worshiping" the rich is comical, considering your daily posts that are nothing but the written equivalent of you getting on your knees and slurping off big government any chance you get.

Hey fuckhead. You the dick sucker of the ultra wealthy and you know it.

But tell you what. Find a post where I say that I personally am receiving some sort of government benefit that YOU don't receive?

When you can't do that, please take my advice sincerely and go fuck yourself.

Awww, Zeke has a sadz.

The real point is that all these big old taxes on the rich mostly go to making government bigger, giving more worthless drones (usually friends of the wealthy) cushy government jobs,and not reducing YOUR taxes ONE FUCKING CENT. The government hands out a little chicken feed to the poor to keep their votes firmly statist, and in the end, the money still isn't enough, and they have to COME AFTER OUR MONEY, because that's where most of it is.

And you are too fucking dense to see that, because all you have on your one track mind, is FUCK THE RICH.

Zeke has to be led around by the nose. He's not too bright.

They amuse me,zeke ,mat and billy there so god damn jealous and fucking dumb on here its funny

 

[Brain357]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

While I think our growing inequality is the reason for our slow economy, I'm not sure higher taxes on the rich are the way to fix that. What we need is a tax system that benefits businesses that pay living wages and employ here in the states. If a company pays little and/or imports everything they pay high taxes. If a company gives good wages and employs here in the states they get big tax breaks. Or maybe we do have to raise the minimum wage. I don't however think giving more money to the government is the way to do it.

Income Inequality is a non factor. In economic boom times and bust times alike, income inequality is a complaint/rallying cry from the Left. Artificial and arbitrary policies in and around income in the name of equality accomplishes nothing except to destroy a Middle Class and be cement a true 1 percent elite ruling class. I might be able to take the Left seriously when they call for more taxes if they came to the table with plans to cut waste and bloat. Instead, they come like drunken sailors whose credit card has been maxed out asking for more handouts and debt. They also refer to a "cut" when they ask for an increase but only receive a portion of the increase they requested; an increase nonetheless logical minds.

While I disagree with liberal ideas on how to fix the problem, it is really common sense that more inequality slows the economy.

Suppose you own a restaurant. The rich guy only eats 3 meals a day regardless of how much money he has. So you need lots of people who can afford to go out to eat. As inequality grows fewer can afford to go out and business slows.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

Righties will not agree but you are 100% correct.

FDR said and did this after ww2 and conservatives will not admit it worked. It did. The rich are sitting on too much money.

It worked was because we had no god damn competition idiot

 

[Brain357]

Income inequality hurts economic growth researchers say - The Washington Post

 

[LeftofLeft]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

While I think our growing inequality is the reason for our slow economy, I'm not sure higher taxes on the rich are the way to fix that. What we need is a tax system that benefits businesses that pay living wages and employ here in the states. If a company pays little and/or imports everything they pay high taxes. If a company gives good wages and employs here in the states they get big tax breaks. Or maybe we do have to raise the minimum wage. I don't however think giving more money to the government is the way to do it.

Income Inequality is a non factor. In economic boom times and bust times alike, income inequality is a complaint/rallying cry from the Left. Artificial and arbitrary policies in and around income in the name of equality accomplishes nothing except to destroy a Middle Class and be cement a true 1 percent elite ruling class. I might be able to take the Left seriously when they call for more taxes if they came to the table with plans to cut waste and bloat. Instead, they come like drunken sailors whose credit card has been maxed out asking for more handouts and debt. They also refer to a "cut" when they ask for an increase but only receive a portion of the increase they requested; an increase nonetheless logical minds.

While I disagree with liberal ideas on how to fix the problem, it is really common sense that more inequality slows the economy.

Suppose you own a restaurant. The rich guy only eats 3 meals a day regardless of how much money he has. So you need lots of people who can afford to go out to eat. As inequality grows fewer can afford to go out and business slows.

Then I believe we need to focus in more people earning higher wages. This can only be accomplished when businesses are competing for workforce. There is no single action or magic bullet. It is a combination of factors. If businesses are held to corporate tax rates consistent with the rest of the world, less regulation, and more limited liability, these factors make human workforce investment more likely. Businesses keep their cash on the sidelines and sit on their profits if they have a fear that more government regulation and higher taxes are coming. People see it is corporate greed as the reason for them sitting on their profits and keeping cash on the sidelines. Well, "So-called greed" is also a factor as to why they higher more people. Expansion/growth is fueled by an incentive to make more profit. An analysis has been conducted that the cost (risk) is worth it vs. sitting stagnant.

 

[Brain357]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

While I think our growing inequality is the reason for our slow economy, I'm not sure higher taxes on the rich are the way to fix that. What we need is a tax system that benefits businesses that pay living wages and employ here in the states. If a company pays little and/or imports everything they pay high taxes. If a company gives good wages and employs here in the states they get big tax breaks. Or maybe we do have to raise the minimum wage. I don't however think giving more money to the government is the way to do it.

Income Inequality is a non factor. In economic boom times and bust times alike, income inequality is a complaint/rallying cry from the Left. Artificial and arbitrary policies in and around income in the name of equality accomplishes nothing except to destroy a Middle Class and be cement a true 1 percent elite ruling class. I might be able to take the Left seriously when they call for more taxes if they came to the table with plans to cut waste and bloat. Instead, they come like drunken sailors whose credit card has been maxed out asking for more handouts and debt. They also refer to a "cut" when they ask for an increase but only receive a portion of the increase they requested; an increase nonetheless logical minds.

While I disagree with liberal ideas on how to fix the problem, it is really common sense that more inequality slows the economy.

Suppose you own a restaurant. The rich guy only eats 3 meals a day regardless of how much money he has. So you need lots of people who can afford to go out to eat. As inequality grows fewer can afford to go out and business slows.

Then I believe we need to focus in more people earning higher wages. This can only be accomplished when businesses are competing for workforce. There is no single action or magic bullet. It is a combination of factors. If businesses are held to corporate tax rates consistent with the rest of the world, less regulation, and more limited liability, these factors make human workforce investment more likely. Businesses keep their cash on the sidelines and sit on their profits if they have a fear that more government regulation and higher taxes are coming. People see it is corporate greed as the reason for them sitting on their profits and keeping cash on the sidelines. Well, "So-called greed" is also a factor as to why they higher more people. Expansion/growth is fueled by an incentive to make more profit. An analysis has been conducted that the cost (risk) is worth it vs. sitting stagnant.

I think you have to go a little further and tie tax breaks to paying more and employing here in the states. Give the company the option of paying little or no taxes, but pay employees a living wage. Or pay little to employees and pay more in taxes. Companies like Walmart pay employees so little they also collect welfare. This would give them an incentive to pay more and take people off welfare. Just giving tax breaks without tying it to something has historically just lined the pockets of the rich.

 

[Roadrunner]

So the 50% of the people that pay no federal income taxes are mooches?

You got it backwards dude. The 50% you claim pays no taxes are poor.

The very rich that pay significant taxes are greedy. And if they had their way, would mooch even more whenever they can. For instance, the ultra rich have convinced not very smart people like you, bear, rabbit and whatever other animal we have on here, that the rich are looking out for you. And if that could only keep most of their millions or billions of dollars, that their wealth would trickle down on your head like warm piss and make you feel so good.

Hope that helps with your confusion. But it's all bullshit. You should be an advocate for what you are; a middle class person with no chance to make it to the "ultra wealthy" class that you worship so regularly.

They get services they don't pay for. They get subsidized by people like me and people who make more than me. And any time people talk about taxing the super rich, somehow my taxes go up as well.

The simple fact is you can't base a tax system on just going after the "1%" because there simply isn't enough income to make a huge difference.

Unless you talk about taxing wealth, and that is basically confiscation.

And you calling out people like me for "worshiping" the rich is comical, considering your daily posts that are nothing but the written equivalent of you getting on your knees and slurping off big government any chance you get.

Do you use mouthwash when you are done?

Can he buy mouthwash with food stamps?

 

[martybegan]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

While I think our growing inequality is the reason for our slow economy, I'm not sure higher taxes on the rich are the way to fix that. What we need is a tax system that benefits businesses that pay living wages and employ here in the states. If a company pays little and/or imports everything they pay high taxes. If a company gives good wages and employs here in the states they get big tax breaks. Or maybe we do have to raise the minimum wage. I don't however think giving more money to the government is the way to do it.

Income Inequality is a non factor. In economic boom times and bust times alike, income inequality is a complaint/rallying cry from the Left. Artificial and arbitrary policies in and around income in the name of equality accomplishes nothing except to destroy a Middle Class and be cement a true 1 percent elite ruling class. I might be able to take the Left seriously when they call for more taxes if they came to the table with plans to cut waste and bloat. Instead, they come like drunken sailors whose credit card has been maxed out asking for more handouts and debt. They also refer to a "cut" when they ask for an increase but only receive a portion of the increase they requested; an increase nonetheless logical minds.

While I disagree with liberal ideas on how to fix the problem, it is really common sense that more inequality slows the economy.

Suppose you own a restaurant. The rich guy only eats 3 meals a day regardless of how much money he has. So you need lots of people who can afford to go out to eat. As inequality grows fewer can afford to go out and business slows.

Then I believe we need to focus in more people earning higher wages. This can only be accomplished when businesses are competing for workforce. There is no single action or magic bullet. It is a combination of factors. If businesses are held to corporate tax rates consistent with the rest of the world, less regulation, and more limited liability, these factors make human workforce investment more likely. Businesses keep their cash on the sidelines and sit on their profits if they have a fear that more government regulation and higher taxes are coming. People see it is corporate greed as the reason for them sitting on their profits and keeping cash on the sidelines. Well, "So-called greed" is also a factor as to why they higher more people. Expansion/growth is fueled by an incentive to make more profit. An analysis has been conducted that the cost (risk) is worth it vs. sitting stagnant.

I think you have to go a little further and tie tax breaks to paying more and employing here in the states. Give the company the option of paying little or no taxes, but pay employees a living wage. Or pay little to employees and pay more in taxes. Companies like Walmart pay employees so little they also collect welfare. This would give them an incentive to pay more and take people off welfare. Just giving tax breaks without tying it to something has historically just lined the pockets of the rich.

The people getting paid that little would probably not have a job out there for them WITHOUT Wal-mart. Those jobs are not meant to support a family, but as a stepping stone to a job that CAN support one. If the best you can do is an entry level job at Wal Mart or McDonalds for your entire career, and you are not mentally challenged, then you made some seriously poor life choices along the way.

 

[Roadrunner]

While I think our growing inequality is the reason for our slow economy, I'm not sure higher taxes on the rich are the way to fix that. What we need is a tax system that benefits businesses that pay living wages and employ here in the states. If a company pays little and/or imports everything they pay high taxes. If a company gives good wages and employs here in the states they get big tax breaks. Or maybe we do have to raise the minimum wage. I don't however think giving more money to the government is the way to do it.

Income Inequality is a non factor. In economic boom times and bust times alike, income inequality is a complaint/rallying cry from the Left. Artificial and arbitrary policies in and around income in the name of equality accomplishes nothing except to destroy a Middle Class and be cement a true 1 percent elite ruling class. I might be able to take the Left seriously when they call for more taxes if they came to the table with plans to cut waste and bloat. Instead, they come like drunken sailors whose credit card has been maxed out asking for more handouts and debt. They also refer to a "cut" when they ask for an increase but only receive a portion of the increase they requested; an increase nonetheless logical minds.

While I disagree with liberal ideas on how to fix the problem, it is really common sense that more inequality slows the economy.

Suppose you own a restaurant. The rich guy only eats 3 meals a day regardless of how much money he has. So you need lots of people who can afford to go out to eat. As inequality grows fewer can afford to go out and business slows.

Then I believe we need to focus in more people earning higher wages. This can only be accomplished when businesses are competing for workforce. There is no single action or magic bullet. It is a combination of factors. If businesses are held to corporate tax rates consistent with the rest of the world, less regulation, and more limited liability, these factors make human workforce investment more likely. Businesses keep their cash on the sidelines and sit on their profits if they have a fear that more government regulation and higher taxes are coming. People see it is corporate greed as the reason for them sitting on their profits and keeping cash on the sidelines. Well, "So-called greed" is also a factor as to why they higher more people. Expansion/growth is fueled by an incentive to make more profit. An analysis has been conducted that the cost (risk) is worth it vs. sitting stagnant.

I think you have to go a little further and tie tax breaks to paying more and employing here in the states. Give the company the option of paying little or no taxes, but pay employees a living wage. Or pay little to employees and pay more in taxes. Companies like Walmart pay employees so little they also collect welfare. This would give them an incentive to pay more and take people off welfare. Just giving tax breaks without tying it to something has historically just lined the pockets of the rich.

The people getting paid that little would probably not have a job out there for them WITHOUT Wal-mart. Those jobs are not meant to support a family, but as a stepping stone to a job that CAN support one. If the best you can do is an entry level job at Wal Mart or McDonalds for your entire career, and you are not mentally challenged, then you made some seriously poor life choices along the way.

People stuck in entry level minimum wage jobs should not be having children.

 

[martybegan]

Income Inequality is a non factor. In economic boom times and bust times alike, income inequality is a complaint/rallying cry from the Left. Artificial and arbitrary policies in and around income in the name of equality accomplishes nothing except to destroy a Middle Class and be cement a true 1 percent elite ruling class. I might be able to take the Left seriously when they call for more taxes if they came to the table with plans to cut waste and bloat. Instead, they come like drunken sailors whose credit card has been maxed out asking for more handouts and debt. They also refer to a "cut" when they ask for an increase but only receive a portion of the increase they requested; an increase nonetheless logical minds.

While I disagree with liberal ideas on how to fix the problem, it is really common sense that more inequality slows the economy.

Suppose you own a restaurant. The rich guy only eats 3 meals a day regardless of how much money he has. So you need lots of people who can afford to go out to eat. As inequality grows fewer can afford to go out and business slows.

Then I believe we need to focus in more people earning higher wages. This can only be accomplished when businesses are competing for workforce. There is no single action or magic bullet. It is a combination of factors. If businesses are held to corporate tax rates consistent with the rest of the world, less regulation, and more limited liability, these factors make human workforce investment more likely. Businesses keep their cash on the sidelines and sit on their profits if they have a fear that more government regulation and higher taxes are coming. People see it is corporate greed as the reason for them sitting on their profits and keeping cash on the sidelines. Well, "So-called greed" is also a factor as to why they higher more people. Expansion/growth is fueled by an incentive to make more profit. An analysis has been conducted that the cost (risk) is worth it vs. sitting stagnant.

I think you have to go a little further and tie tax breaks to paying more and employing here in the states. Give the company the option of paying little or no taxes, but pay employees a living wage. Or pay little to employees and pay more in taxes. Companies like Walmart pay employees so little they also collect welfare. This would give them an incentive to pay more and take people off welfare. Just giving tax breaks without tying it to something has historically just lined the pockets of the rich.

The people getting paid that little would probably not have a job out there for them WITHOUT Wal-mart. Those jobs are not meant to support a family, but as a stepping stone to a job that CAN support one. If the best you can do is an entry level job at Wal Mart or McDonalds for your entire career, and you are not mentally challenged, then you made some seriously poor life choices along the way.

People stuck in entry level minimum wage jobs should not be having children.

True, but our biggest problem is, more often than not, people stuck in entry level jobs have already HAD children.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives think the Government IS the economy.

You can't debate with people off in the trillions column

 

[zeke]

The real point is that all these big old taxes on the rich mostly go to making government bigger, giving more worthless drones (usually friends of the wealthy) cushy government jobs,and not reducing YOUR taxes ONE FUCKING CENT. The government hands out a little chicken feed to the poor to keep their votes firmly statist, and in the end, the money still isn't enough, and they have to COME AFTER OUR MONEY, because that's where most of it is.

And you are too fucking dense to see that, because all you have on your one track mind, is FUCK THE RICH.

Your post is nonsense. As usual.

So if we don't tax the rich more, us in the middle class will see our taxes go up. That's what you said.

But if we tax the rich more, the middle class will still see their taxes increased. That's what you implied.
So therefore we shouldn't tax the rich any more. Weird.

But tell me something you might be able to answer; why do you care that someone earning 50 million a year, why would you care if their income tax rates went up? What's it to you? And to be clear, I don't give a fuck it the ultra wealthy pay 50% tax rates.

If I had seen the gains in net worth and income that the ultra wealthy have seen, I would EXPECT that my taxes would go up. And yours to IF you had the kind of gains the ultra wealthy have had.

 

[Brain357]

While I think our growing inequality is the reason for our slow economy, I'm not sure higher taxes on the rich are the way to fix that. What we need is a tax system that benefits businesses that pay living wages and employ here in the states. If a company pays little and/or imports everything they pay high taxes. If a company gives good wages and employs here in the states they get big tax breaks. Or maybe we do have to raise the minimum wage. I don't however think giving more money to the government is the way to do it.

Income Inequality is a non factor. In economic boom times and bust times alike, income inequality is a complaint/rallying cry from the Left. Artificial and arbitrary policies in and around income in the name of equality accomplishes nothing except to destroy a Middle Class and be cement a true 1 percent elite ruling class. I might be able to take the Left seriously when they call for more taxes if they came to the table with plans to cut waste and bloat. Instead, they come like drunken sailors whose credit card has been maxed out asking for more handouts and debt. They also refer to a "cut" when they ask for an increase but only receive a portion of the increase they requested; an increase nonetheless logical minds.

While I disagree with liberal ideas on how to fix the problem, it is really common sense that more inequality slows the economy.

Suppose you own a restaurant. The rich guy only eats 3 meals a day regardless of how much money he has. So you need lots of people who can afford to go out to eat. As inequality grows fewer can afford to go out and business slows.

Then I believe we need to focus in more people earning higher wages. This can only be accomplished when businesses are competing for workforce. There is no single action or magic bullet. It is a combination of factors. If businesses are held to corporate tax rates consistent with the rest of the world, less regulation, and more limited liability, these factors make human workforce investment more likely. Businesses keep their cash on the sidelines and sit on their profits if they have a fear that more government regulation and higher taxes are coming. People see it is corporate greed as the reason for them sitting on their profits and keeping cash on the sidelines. Well, "So-called greed" is also a factor as to why they higher more people. Expansion/growth is fueled by an incentive to make more profit. An analysis has been conducted that the cost (risk) is worth it vs. sitting stagnant.

I think you have to go a little further and tie tax breaks to paying more and employing here in the states. Give the company the option of paying little or no taxes, but pay employees a living wage. Or pay little to employees and pay more in taxes. Companies like Walmart pay employees so little they also collect welfare. This would give them an incentive to pay more and take people off welfare. Just giving tax breaks without tying it to something has historically just lined the pockets of the rich.

The people getting paid that little would probably not have a job out there for them WITHOUT Wal-mart. Those jobs are not meant to support a family, but as a stepping stone to a job that CAN support one. If the best you can do is an entry level job at Wal Mart or McDonalds for your entire career, and you are not mentally challenged, then you made some seriously poor life choices along the way.

Given they are the largest employer in the country we have a serious problem then. You prefer these people be supported by the government than their employer? This is one reason spending is too high and government grows. Walmart should really pay more as their employees are also customers so sales would go up. The Waltons make billions each year, they should really pay enough employees aren't on welfare. It would be good for the country.

 

[Roadrunner]

Progressives think the Government IS the economy.

You can't debate with people off in the trillions column

How anyone can think any taxes should be lowered when we are $20 trillion in debt boggles my mind.

 

[Brain357]

Progressives think the Government IS the economy.

You can't debate with people off in the trillions column

How anyone can think any taxes should be lowered when we are $20 trillion in debt boggles my mind.

Suggesting new spending is also boggling.