Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!

[The T]

boeddica, how does taxing more of a corporation's profits kill jobs?

You know that it is a tax on profits, that means that all the operating expenses and all labor already hired and any and all other costs have been all been paid for, even things like depreciation which then allows reserves to be built up from profits to replace assets when fully depreciated. You see, there is no reason to fire anybody, your profits are proof that you have more than enough to pay all your labor.

The only reason to fire anybody in the face of profits is if you are an inefficient company and have too much labor on staff. But, if you are not inefficient and you fire some one even after making a profit, then you will not have enough labor to accomplish all the work necessary to stay efficient - you will be understaffed and then your profits will suffer. Cost accounting, basic economics, and business finance 101.

Now explain to me, to us how taxes on corporate profits destroys jobs(?)

Here's how, and it's really quite simple:

The LESS CASH company's have on their balance sheets, the less they invest.

The MORE MONEY government spends, the lower the growth of the economy.

The LOWER THE GROWTH OF THE ECONOMY, companies have less reason to invest.

So, high taxes do two bad things (among other bad things): lower GDP growth and lower investment capital necessary for job creation.

The End.

But that's Capitalist propaganda...

 

[The T]

kaz, say something substantive, support your contentions, especially the last one:

"Sure, take their money, lose your job, we'll all be poor but have the same amount."

People with money create jobs, not people who don't. I'm not going to prove the field of economics, take a class. If I say something that's opinion I'll be glad to support it.

Yep. When was the last time a poor person hired someone or maintaind a payroll?

 

[MikeK]

If we really want to make the people who are responsible for the crushing debt the country has accumulated then let's confiscate every dime from every politician that has served in any elected state or federal office in the last 3 decades.

What you're talking about is a confiscatory purge and I'm in favor of that. But it must be based on evidence derived by audit and other evidence of corruption, because there are some ethical politicians who are not for sale.

Extending beyond the politician category, restore all of the regulations put in place by the FDR's New Deal but which have been removed (de-regulated) by Reagan, Bush-1, Clinton and Bush-2. Then, retroactive to 1981, audit all assets in excess of twenty million dollars and confiscate any income derived as the result of the deregulations. The result would enable rapid elimination of the deficit and facilitate commencement of infrastructure repair and renovation, which in turn would create new industries and millions of jobs.

 

[RachelMadcow]

Obama gave tax cuts to Billionaires.

Democrats Illegally bombed Libya without Congressional Approval



Democrat policies blow in the wind


Gitmo is open, The Patriot Act has been Continued, Illegal Wiretaps continue and all wars have been escalated



Immature Democrat voters are stoned gullible useless entitled parasites

 

[georgephillip]

If we really want to make the people who are responsible for the crushing debt the country has accumulated then let's confiscate every dime from every politician that has served in any elected state or federal office in the last 3 decades.

More that a few elected politicians, Republican AND Democrat, deserve to draw their last breath in prison -- after losing their last dime in legal fees and fines.

As preposterous as that sounds, it's doable once a majority of voters stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican at the polls.

Had Ralph Nader moved into the White House in 2009 many of those savvy businessmen Obama admires would already have had their day day in court.

It could just as easily happen to big names on both "sides" of the DC establishment.

 

[boedicca]

Oh Goodie. That's just what the country needs...Ralph Nader in drag doing a Mme. Defarge imitation.

 

[georgephillip]

So when you go to bankruptcy court, I'm sure the judge will be glad to hear your excuse that if your employer just paid you 17.7% more then you could spend what you do and be just fine, so it's really your employer's fault. I'd go with that, if I were you.

If I were you, I'd go back to school.

Maybe you would discover why corporations should pay a tax rate of 5% compared to the 35% rate paid by mortal citizens?

Maybe you should go back to school and learn arithmetic. In your example, mortal citizens are paying 5 + 35 = 40% rate.


Because as you said, $1.3 is "deficit" when the issue is spending, which is far, far higher

Maybe it's the schoolteachers?

Could be them. Your ignorance is a pretty good testament they're not educating very well

Or the billionaires??

Sure, take their money, lose your job, we'll all be poor but have the same amount. The liberal dream fulfilled

What's your educated opinion of the claim that over the last three decades the richest 1% of Americans has increased its share of national income by almost 10 percentage points?

"This comes to $1.5 trillion a year (current budget deficit $1.3 trillion), or as the deficit hawks are fond of saying, $90 trillion over the next 75 years.

"To put this in context, the size of this upward redistribution to the richest 1 percent over the last three decades is roughly large enough to double the income of all the households in the bottom half of the income distribution.

"The upward redistribution amounts to an average of more than 1.2 million dollars a year for each of the families in the richest 1 percent of the population."

The Deficit Hawks Target Nurses and Firefighters

 

[georgephillip]

Oh Goodie. That's just what the country needs...Ralph Nader in drag doing a Mme. Defarge imitation.

Do you prefer another Republican/Democrat doing Wall Street Kabuki?

If so, which one?

 

[boedicca]

Oh Goodie. That's just what the country needs...Ralph Nader in drag doing a Mme. Defarge imitation.

Do you prefer another Republican/Democrat doing Wall Street Kabuki?

If so, which one?

You think those two are the only valid choices?

 

[The T]

Oh Goodie. That's just what the country needs...Ralph Nader in drag doing a Mme. Defarge imitation.

Do you prefer another Republican/Democrat doing Wall Street Kabuki?

If so, which one?

You think those two are the only valid choices?

Partisanship baby! Don't wreck his dream!

 

[kaz]

People with money create jobs, not people who don't. I'm not going to prove the field of economics, take a class. If I say something that's opinion I'll be glad to support it.

People with money create jobs. So do people who have no money but who get loans from banks. And the people who take the jobs are the ones whose time and labor creates the money that creates more jobs. So let's not ignore that part of the equation.

And then they have money and you rape them...

 

[kaz]

What's your educated opinion of the claim that over the last three decades the richest 1% of Americans has increased its share of national income by almost 10 percentage points?

"This comes to $1.5 trillion a year (current budget deficit $1.3 trillion), or as the deficit hawks are fond of saying, $90 trillion over the next 75 years.

"To put this in context, the size of this upward redistribution to the richest 1 percent over the last three decades is roughly large enough to double the income of all the households in the bottom half of the income distribution.

To put it in context, they owned things like companies that generated that income. Those companies hired people to do the work because they didn't do it. I own two businesses, I work at business, not the work my businesses do. The money didn't appear.

So we take your view, if they earn more you take it. Well, then they aren't going to do it and all those people just lost their jobs. That is reality. You can not like it or not like it, but taxing the rich kills jobs, it's a fact and any economist even the most liberal will tell you that. If you are OK with it, fine, but you cannot deny that which has been repeatedly proven.

 

[georgephillip]

Oh Goodie. That's just what the country needs...Ralph Nader in drag doing a Mme. Defarge imitation.

Do you prefer another Republican/Democrat doing Wall Street Kabuki?

If so, which one?

You think those two are the only valid choices?

What are the odds that the next POTUS will be a Republican OR Democrat?

 

[georgephillip]

What's your educated opinion of the claim that over the last three decades the richest 1% of Americans has increased its share of national income by almost 10 percentage points?

"This comes to $1.5 trillion a year (current budget deficit $1.3 trillion), or as the deficit hawks are fond of saying, $90 trillion over the next 75 years.

"To put this in context, the size of this upward redistribution to the richest 1 percent over the last three decades is roughly large enough to double the income of all the households in the bottom half of the income distribution.

To put it in context, they owned things like companies that generated that income. Those companies hired people to do the work because they didn't do it. I own two businesses, I work at business, not the work my businesses do. The money didn't appear.

So we take your view, if they earn more you take it. Well, then they aren't going to do it and all those people just lost their jobs. That is reality. You can not like it or not like it, but taxing the rich kills jobs, it's a fact and any economist even the most liberal will tell you that. If you are OK with it, fine, but you cannot deny that which has been repeatedly proven.

If you are arguing the richest 1% of Americans have earned that $1.5 trillion annual increase over the last three decades because "they owned things like companies that generated that income," that is not a complete explanation of how they acquired those additional ten percentage points of national income.

They also made campaign donations to Republicans AND Democrats who were willing to pursue a trade and high dollar policy designed to put downward pressure on the wages of manufacturing workers.

The Fed did its part by deliberately keeping unemployment higher than necessary in order to weaken labor's bargaining power.

"We extended patent monopolies to allow drug companies to jack up prices, raking in hundreds of billions a year.

"And, we gave the Wall Street banks the benefit of 'too big to fail' status so they can borrow with a government subsidy."

And just when you thought it couldn't get worse, the largest asset bubble in the history of the world popped leaving 25 million Americans "unemployed, underemployed or out of the workforce altogether."

And during the last two years when millions of productive Americans were losing their jobs and homes and pensions, the richest 1% have increased their share of national wealth by nearly two percentage points.

The Deficit Hawks Target Nurses and Firefighters

 

[M14 Shooter]

If we really want to make the people who are responsible for the crushing debt the country has accumulated then let's confiscate every dime from every politician that has served in any elected state or federal office in the last 3 decades.

What you're talking about is a confiscatory purge and I'm in favor of that. But it must be based on evidence derived by audit and other evidence of corruption, because there are some ethical politicians who are not for sale.

Extending beyond the politician category, restore all of the regulations put in place by the FDR's New Deal but which have been removed (de-regulated) by Reagan, Bush-1, Clinton and Bush-2. Then, retroactive to 1981, audit all assets in excess of twenty million dollars and confiscate any income derived as the result of the deregulations.

Yeah... too bad that silly little Constitution will get in your way.
See: Article 1, S9:3

Not that liberals care about the Constitution, as your response will surely show.

 

[MitchMan]

People with money create jobs, not people who don't. I'm not going to prove the field of economics, take a class. If I say something that's opinion I'll be glad to support it.

The LESS CASH companies have on their balance sheets, the less they invest.

The MORE MONEY government spends, the lower the growth of the economy.

The LOWER THE GROWTH OF THE ECONOMY, companies have less reason to invest.

So, high taxes do two bad things (among other bad things): lower GDP growth and lower investment capital necessary for job creation.

When was the last time a poor person hired someone or maintained a payroll?

Cash or cash equivalents (or even the magnitude of net working capital) in the balance sheet, in and of itself, is not nearly the final nor the controlling factor for investing or creating jobs. A wide of variety of diverse financial structures still needs to depend on the market demand and management which is not a given. Money alone isn’t nearly the whole story

Right now, for instance, corporations are sitting on record profits and on $1.66 trillion in cash. The money is there, but there is no demand, therefore these fat cat companies are not/will not invest currently in productive resources. That is the real condition of our stalled economy. Not that there is no cash on the balance sheets!

Currently, America is only using 70% of its productive capability. The demand is not there and that is why the market and production is stalled, not for lack of money. Would you open a business if you knew that there was no demand for the business’s product, even if you had all the money you needed? Even if you have all the cash you needed on your balance sheet as you so inadequately/ineptly put it, a reasonable man would not open a new business without the demand being present in the market. That’s the situation now.

The much bigger issue that you in the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh peanut gallery can’t seem to get is that the reason there is no demand is because the working class doesn’t have enough money in their pockets to even buy the necessities like good health care, college education, sufficiently and adequately repair the car, let alone buy desired, though not so needed goodies, that make existence better. The vast majority of the working class doesn’t have enough money to make it. The average bottom 50% of taxpayer only has $15,000 left after paying even a modest amount of annual federal income tax. However, the top 1% has 923,000, the average top 10% taxpayer has $223,000 left over after paying their income taxes. The bottom 60% in the USA have only 4% of the nation’s wealth while the top 15% have 85% of the nation’s wealth. Get it yet, kaz/boedicca/T? The bottom 40% have only 1/3 of 1% of the nation’s wealth. How can you expect the USA to have a robust economy in that circumstance? Did you know that only the top 5% of USA Households increased their % of the nation’s household net worth from 1983 to 2007? Hmmmm?

The point is that an economy stalls when the vast majority of the working class (which is the vast, vast majority of all people in the USA including all you dumb working class right wingers) don’t get to keep an equitable portion of the wealth that they create with their own hands and minds, but instead see a lopsided amount of the wealth income get legally siphoned off in our inequitably biased economic system and wind up concentrated in the hands of the top 1%, top 5%, top 10% and top 15%.

You know, yacht builders are doing gangbusters right now, I guess it doesn’t matter that virtually no one in the bottom 60% of America can buy one. I am sure your genetically mutated right wing minds do not perceive any disparity, right? (No pun intended.)

BTW, hobbits, the economy is growing in spite of the current deficit spending. Boedicca, you couldn’t be more wrong about higher taxes right now. As I just mentioned, higher GDP growth and any related increase in wealth has not resulted in an increase to the wealth of the bottom 95% of all households between 1983 and 2007. GDP grew by $450 billion, on the average, each year since 1980 to 2010 all the while the net worth of the bottom 60% of your fellow US citizens has decreased during that same time frame while the network of the top 1% nearly doubled, and the top 10% did pretty darn good too. You righties can’t see it yet, can you?

Why don’t you right wingers stop quoting each other and look at the big picture, the big picture stats, analyze them, then draw a macro economic perspective instead of perpetually and constantly distorting your views on both the macro and micro picture?

Hey, T. Just to take up the absurdity of the question you pose in your feeble effort to make a point which actually is without real economic merit, there aren’t nearly enough moneyed employers to do all the work with their own hands needed to generate all the products that all the citizens of our country require. Those employers need the employees just as much as they need him. Also, that employer needs not only the employees to make his products, but that employer needs a market which is largely made up of mostly other employee citizens, not just other employers. It’s a two way street. It doesn’t begin and end with the employer only. The economic cycle requires a market and labor, not just employers and their money. It’s a mutual dependency.

The right wing thinks that everything begins and ends with employers and their money, it’s the folly of supply side trickle down voodoo economics. They also forget that market health has to do with equitable compensation at all levels so that the wealth circulates from consumer to producer in a constantly repeating cycle rather than accumulating only at the top which is the malaise of our economy right now, a weak demand because the bottom 60% has only 4% of the wealth and the top has top 15% has 85% of the wealth. T, the employers in our economy are underpaying their employees and charging prices that are too high and this has led to his hoarding the lion’s share of the wealth while his employees can’t afford decent health care and while the majority of the working class aren’t making it.

BTW, taxing the rich doesn’t kill jobs, that’s a ruse. The rich have more money than they can spend. The rich have so much wealth that they can’t spend it and consume it, it is an exaggerated excess. By giving the top 2% a 3% tax break does not produce any material increase in jobs, if at all. That saved 3% doesn’t go materially into compensation, even Milton Friedman said that. The top 2% do other things with it for the vast most part. All it does is increase the current lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top which is hurting the country and further depressing the already weak market demand.



MikeK, you are right on point!

 

[The T]

People with money create jobs, not people who don't. I'm not going to prove the field of economics, take a class. If I say something that's opinion I'll be glad to support it.

The LESS CASH companies have on their balance sheets, the less they invest.

The MORE MONEY government spends, the lower the growth of the economy.

The LOWER THE GROWTH OF THE ECONOMY, companies have less reason to invest.

So, high taxes do two bad things (among other bad things): lower GDP growth and lower investment capital necessary for job creation.

When was the last time a poor person hired someone or maintained a payroll?

Cash or cash equivalents (or even the magnitude of net working capital) in the balance sheet, in and of itself, is not nearly the final nor the controlling factor for investing or creating jobs. A wide of variety of diverse financial structures still needs to depend on the market demand and management which is not a given. Money alone isn’t nearly the whole story

Right now, for instance, corporations are sitting on record profits and on $1.66 trillion in cash. The money is there, but there is no demand, therefore these fat cat companies are not/will not invest currently in productive resources. That is the real condition of our stalled economy. Not that there is no cash on the balance sheets!

Currently, America is only using 70% of its productive capability. The demand is not there and that is why the market and production is stalled, not for lack of money. Would you open a business if you knew that there was no demand for the business’s product, even if you had all the money you needed? Even if you have all the cash you needed on your balance sheet as you so inadequately/ineptly put it, a reasonable man would not open a new business without the demand being present in the market. That’s the situation now.

The much bigger issue that you in the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh peanut gallery can’t seem to get is that the reason there is no demand is because the working class doesn’t have enough money in their pockets to even buy the necessities like good health care, college education, sufficiently and adequately repair the car, let alone buy desired, though not so needed goodies, that make existence better. The vast majority of the working class doesn’t have enough money to make it. The average bottom 50% of taxpayer only has $15,000 left after paying even a modest amount of annual federal income tax. However, the top 1% has 923,000, the average top 10% taxpayer has $223,000 left over after paying their income taxes. The bottom 60% in the USA have only 4% of the nation’s wealth while the top 15% have 85% of the nation’s wealth. Get it yet, kaz/boedicca/T? The bottom 40% have only 1/3 of 1% of the nation’s wealth. How can you expect the USA to have a robust economy in that circumstance? Did you know that only the top 5% of USA Households increased their % of the nation’s household net worth from 1983 to 2007? Hmmmm?

The point is that an economy stalls when the vast majority of the working class (which is the vast, vast majority of all people in the USA including all you dumb working class right wingers) don’t get to keep an equitable portion of the wealth that they create with their own hands and minds, but instead see a lopsided amount of the wealth income get legally siphoned off in our inequitably biased economic system and wind up concentrated in the hands of the top 1%, top 5%, top 10% and top 15%.

You know, yacht builders are doing gangbusters right now, I guess it doesn’t matter that virtually no one in the bottom 60% of America can buy one. I am sure your genetically mutated right wing minds do not perceive any disparity, right? (No pun intended.)

BTW, hobbits, the economy is growing in spite of the current deficit spending. Boedicca, you couldn’t be more wrong about higher taxes right now. As I just mentioned, higher GDP growth and any related increase in wealth has not resulted in an increase to the wealth of the bottom 95% of all households between 1983 and 2007. GDP grew by $450 billion, on the average, each year since 1980 to 2010 all the while the net worth of the bottom 60% of your fellow US citizens has decreased during that same time frame while the network of the top 1% nearly doubled, and the top 10% did pretty darn good too. You righties can’t see it yet, can you?

Why don’t you right wingers stop quoting each other and look at the big picture, the big picture stats, analyze them, then draw a macro economic perspective instead of perpetually and constantly distorting your views on both the macro and micro picture?

Hey, T. Just to take up the absurdity of the question you pose in your feeble effort to make a point which actually is without real economic merit, there aren’t nearly enough moneyed employers to do all the work with their own hands needed to generate all the products that all the citizens of our country require. Those employers need the employees just as much as they need him. Also, that employer needs not only the employees to make his products, but that employer needs a market which is largely made up of mostly other employee citizens, not just other employers. It’s a two way street. It doesn’t begin and end with the employer only. The economic cycle requires a market and labor, not just employers and their money. It’s a mutual dependency.

The right wing thinks that everything begins and ends with employers and their money, it’s the folly of supply side trickle down voodoo economics. They also forget that market health has to do with equitable compensation at all levels so that the wealth circulates from consumer to producer in a constantly repeating cycle rather than accumulating only at the top which is the malaise of our economy right now, a weak demand because the bottom 60% has only 4% of the wealth and the top has top 15% has 85% of the wealth. T, the employers in our economy are underpaying their employees and charging prices that are too high and this has led to his hoarding the lion’s share of the wealth while his employees can’t afford decent health care and while the majority of the working class aren’t making it.

BTW, taxing the rich doesn’t kill jobs, that’s a ruse. The rich have more money than they can spend. The rich have so much wealth that they can’t spend it and consume it, it is an exaggerated excess. By giving the top 2% a 3% tax break does not produce any material increase in jobs, if at all. That saved 3% doesn’t go materially into compensation, even Milton Friedman said that. The top 2% do other things with it for the vast most part. All it does is increase the current lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top which is hurting the country and further depressing the already weak market demand.



MikeK, you are right on point!

Gobbledygook.

 

[georgephillip]

Why are corporations sitting on record profits and $1.66 trillion in cash?

 

[MikeK]

So why do the people who do the work need owners/management exactly?

For the same reason a ship needs a captain, a first officer, navigator, etc. But without the ordinary seamen the ship would go nowhere.

 

[MikeK]

Yeah... too bad that silly little Constitution will get in your way.
See: Article 1, S9:3

Not that liberals care about the Constitution, as your response will surely show.

While I have no real expectation of any such action taking place, the Constitution protects against seizure by attainder but there are no such protections against congressionally authorized levies by the Internal Revenue Service.

Unfortunately it will never happen. But if it did it would be nothing but pure justice.