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

[Katzndogz]

The minute the claim that high taxes after WWII were good for the economy you know that it's all bullshit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

What if lower taxes generates economic growth?

Again, US Government =/= US economy

 

[martybegan]

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.

They have a business that provides products to people at reasonable prices, and employs people at the low to end range of the spectrum.

That isn't enough for you?

 

[martybegan]

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.

What if lower taxes generates economic growth?

Again, US Government =/= US economy

Government is overhead, something progs never seem to realize.

 

[bripat9643]

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."

Do liberals ever get tired of posting their favorite post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy?

 

[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.

What if lower taxes generates economic growth?

Again, US Government =/= US economy

Have lower to zero taxes on 47% lead to growth of anything other than welfare and unemployment?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

90% of the revenue goes to provide sustenance for ticks on the ass of society.

 

[Oldstyle]

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."

The stupidity demonstrated by posts like these astounds me! Question...do ANY of the economic conditions that existed post WWII or during the Dot Com Boom exist now? If not...(and it's obvious that they don't!)...then why would you base economic policy on things that are totally different from what we now face?

 

[Oldstyle]

It would be like a 60 year old woman expecting to be able to pick up "hotties" at the local night club because she did so, so easily 40 years ago! She isn't the same person and we don't have the same economic conditions as after WWII or during the Dot Com Boom.

 

[The Rabbi]

It would be like a 60 year old woman expecting to be able to pick up "hotties" at the local night club because she did so, so easily 40 years ago! She isn't the same person and we don't have the same economic conditions as after WWII or during the Dot Com Boom.

Libs cant think beyond simple data point comparisons. So a 90% rate in the early 1960s equaled high growth. So a 90% rate today would too. Never mind nothing else is remotely comparable.
Yet as many times as this is pointed out (average once a month or more on this site) they continue to repeat it, despite the evidence.

 

[JoeNormal]

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."

Do liberals ever get tired of posting their favorite post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy?

It's not a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. It's a refutation of the right wing fallacy that lowering taxes always generates economic growth.

 

[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.

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

Good to know.

In a sense, yes. They use a disproportionate amount of services. A high percentage of the non payers are on some kind of public assistance. Many of those are gaming the system.
For example. I drive by the social services building and see cars in the lot that I cannot afford. That tells me there is a RAT....

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

So who are you to demand other pay more? If you are unimpressed by revenue flow to the federal govt, write a check.
Don't project your guilt on others.

 

[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.

They have a business that provides products to people at reasonable prices, and employs people at the low to end range of the spectrum.

That isn't enough for you?

They are making billions while increasing government dependence. I think that is a problem. I guess you like big government.

 

[martybegan]

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.

They have a business that provides products to people at reasonable prices, and employs people at the low to end range of the spectrum.

That isn't enough for you?

They are making billions while increasing government dependence. I think that is a problem. I guess you like big government.

You see creating dependence. I see people who would be on government assistance ANYWAY being given a chance to prove their work skills and get a better job that gets them off assistance entirely.

 

[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."

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.

Less crushing government mandates on business and lower taxes would help create jobs in that business would expand and new ones would be opened.
For example, New York is doing that. They are offering businesses that relocate or open in NY ten years of tax free operations.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

That's just stupid....You just lost the argument.

 

[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."

Do liberals ever get tired of posting their favorite post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy?

It's not a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. It's a refutation of the right wing fallacy that lowering taxes always generates economic growth.

Red herring fallacy. No one claims lowering any tax will always produce growth.
Libs are stupid.

 

[Brain357]

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.

They have a business that provides products to people at reasonable prices, and employs people at the low to end range of the spectrum.

That isn't enough for you?

They are making billions while increasing government dependence. I think that is a problem. I guess you like big government.

You see creating dependence. I see people who would be on government assistance ANYWAY being given a chance to prove their work skills and get a better job that gets them off assistance entirely.

While the Waltons make billions off their labor? How generous of you. The government should not subsidize their labor.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Much of Canada's wealth is tied to ONE industry....Petroleum. The other is real estate.
Two things...The Canadian govt never monitized its debt. The other is the Canadian govt did not interfere with housing and real estate.