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

[zeke]

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

What a great idea. Can you Republicans get a law passed to that effect?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Because I am not a covetous greedy fucktard like you are. A robber has more honor than you because at least they have the balls to go up to a person when they try to take their money away from them.

We have enough money right now to fund government if we limited it to what it was intended to do.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Simply because we can use the money to build infrastructure, fund our science programs and support the best r&d! Plus, we can pay our police better The right wants something for nothing, while kissing the 1% ass.

Shut up....You keep signing the same tune.
You are booed off the stage.
Not one of you can show any evidence where a society has been able to tax itself into prosperity.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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."

"GOP says"...Nice try.....

 

[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.

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.

Then suggest it to them. Don't use government to force them to do it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Simply because we can use the money to build infrastructure, fund our science programs and support the best r&d! Plus, we can pay our police better The right wants something for nothing, while kissing the 1% ass.

The right is so blinded by keeping as much of their income as they can they fail to see the importance of revenue. They don't even realize it makes them mooches for not wanting to cough up money to pay for public schools, infrastructure, and our badass military.

No...Government gets trillions each year in revenue. Those idiots just don't know the meaning of fiscal responsibility.
Neither do you.

 

[zeke]

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

Every right winger on here (except you) claims that our taxes are too high. In some cases, like for corporations, or the ultra wealthy, they advocate lowering or eliminating taxes.

 

[thereisnospoon]

God damn Matthew and billy out together couldn't figure out how to change a lightbulb

They'd petition the government to charge others to pay someone to do it for them....Because "it's not fair that some are incapable of changing a lightbulb".

 

[Brain357]

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.

Then suggest it to them. Don't use government to force them to do it.

That's why i would give them the choice. Pay employees well and pay low taxes. Pay employees poorly and pay high taxes. Would be their option.

 

[Brain357]

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

Every right winger on here (except you) claims that our taxes are too high. In some cases, like for corporations, or the ultra wealthy, they advocate lowering or eliminating taxes.

Yet some corporations pay 0 taxes.

 

[The Rabbi]

The US and Russia are now the only conservative countries left in the world and their economies are the ones which are struggling. The oligarchs are fine, the rest, not so much.

And yet the Rabbit and others continue to cling to failed Republican economic policies.

Canada now has the fastest growing middle class in the world and yet our taxes are so much higher than yours.

Your stupidity and ignorance are legendary on this forum.
The US and Russia are not the only conservative countries. Theirs are not the only ones struggling either. In fact the socialist countries of the EU are struggling worse, while the freer countries in Asia are doing fine.
Canada has been doing well due to the oil boom. They also have a conservative government. We'll see what happens going forward.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Then suggest it to them. Don't use government to force them to do it.

That's why i would give them the choice. Pay employees well and pay low taxes. Pay employees poorly and pay high taxes. Would be their option.

To start, but progressives would then need more money for something else, and would re-raise the taxes on the businesses without lifting the requirement for the living wage.

It's simple. We just don't trust you people to do the right thing.

 

[martybegan]

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

Every right winger on here (except you) claims that our taxes are too high. In some cases, like for corporations, or the ultra wealthy, they advocate lowering or eliminating taxes.

Yet some corporations pay 0 taxes.

0 taxes total? Is there some way they get out of payroll taxes that I don't know about?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Wow. Just wow. And to think I waste time debating with turds like this.

 

[Misty]

The problem is they keep raising the poverty line while lower the bar for what is considered rich and it's dipping very close to the middle class.

The government just want money and power and you idiots defend it.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Then suggest it to them. Don't use government to force them to do it.

That's why i would give them the choice. Pay employees well and pay low taxes. Pay employees poorly and pay high taxes. Would be their option.

To start, but progressives would then need more money for something else, and would re-raise the taxes on the businesses without lifting the requirement for the living wage.

It's simple. We just don't trust you people to do the right thing.

Well we are leaving the Waltons to decide now and while they make billions, employees are on welfare. Greed wins. What I suggest would give them incentive to do the right thing. Clearly they won't do that on their own.

 

[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.

Suggesting new spending is also boggling.

I agree 100%.

Any new spending should be a) justified, and b) funded by cutting existing spending.

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

Then suggest it to them. Don't use government to force them to do it.

That's why i would give them the choice. Pay employees well and pay low taxes. Pay employees poorly and pay high taxes. Would be their option.

To start, but progressives would then need more money for something else, and would re-raise the taxes on the businesses without lifting the requirement for the living wage.

It's simple. We just don't trust you people to do the right thing.

Well we are leaving the Waltons to decide now and while they make billions, employees are on welfare. Greed wins. What I suggest would give them incentive to do the right thing. Clearly they won't do that on their own.

Look at the idiots working at wal mart.

Most should be, and are, happy just to have a job at all.

Those that complain and bitch are easily replaced by someone eager to have a job.

An entry level worker at walmart can advance too.

Most people at walmart that have been there any length of time are NOT making minimum wage anyway.

The problem in this country is the poor quality of the entry level worker, not what walmart pays.

Most walmart hires can't even keep the job long enough to get the first or second raise.

I wonder, just what the fuck is a "fair wage" for semi-literate unskilled labor?

 

[Roadrunner]

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

What a great idea. Can you Republicans get a law passed to that effect?

Sounds more like a job for the Sanger wing of the Dems.

I wish SOMEBODY would pay people for voluntary sterilization.

Sounds like a great project for the Bill Gates foundation.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Then suggest it to them. Don't use government to force them to do it.

That's why i would give them the choice. Pay employees well and pay low taxes. Pay employees poorly and pay high taxes. Would be their option.

To start, but progressives would then need more money for something else, and would re-raise the taxes on the businesses without lifting the requirement for the living wage.

It's simple. We just don't trust you people to do the right thing.

Well we are leaving the Waltons to decide now and while they make billions, employees are on welfare. Greed wins. What I suggest would give them incentive to do the right thing. Clearly they won't do that on their own.

Look at the idiots working at wal mart.

Most should be, and are, happy just to have a job at all.

Those that complain and bitch are easily replaced by someone eager to have a job.

An entry level worker at walmart can advance too.

Most people at walmart that have been there any length of time are NOT making minimum wage anyway.

The problem in this country is the poor quality of the entry level worker, not what walmart pays.

Most walmart hires can't even keep the job long enough to get the first or second raise.

I wonder, just what the fuck is a "fair wage" for semi-literate unskilled labor?

Enough they are not collecting welfare. Keep in mind the Waltons don't make billions each year without them.