Tax the Rich?

[Wry Catcher]

No! They need it to grow the economy.

Or, maybe not:

Winners and

Looks like one more in a long line of bullshit promulgated by the GOP and their surrogates in the echo chamber has been exposed by the greed of the super rich.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No! They need it to grow the economy.

Or, maybe not:

Winners and

Looks like one more in a long line of bullshit promulgated by the GOP and their surrogates in the echo chamber has been exposed by the greed of the super rich.

Has anyone added up the hundreds of million of dollars these scofflaws have manipulated into their own pockets? Too unsure to invest in America are they? That talking point is one more pile of GOP bullshit.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

You mean the rich don't pay taxes?

 

[oldfart]

No! They need it to grow the economy.

Or, maybe not:

Winners and

Looks like one more in a long line of bullshit promulgated by the GOP and their surrogates in the echo chamber has been exposed by the greed of the super rich.

With real interest rates pushing the zero bound and major corporations and wealthy individuals sitting on trillions of excess cash, traditional economic theory would suggest that there is a shortage of low-risk, adequate return investments. At least that is what the capital markets are saying. In such an environment, the amount of expected increase in physical investment and employment due to increasing the the amount of monetary capital in the hands of business is precisely zero.

Until something increases demand, there will be no economic growth; we can be stuck at 1% for decades. Our range of possible policy choices are devalue the dollar (increase exports), promote inflation (lower real interest rates below zero to promote investment), or increase consumer or government spending. The last two imply borrowing by the public or government. Unless of course you believe in confidence fairies and bond vigilantes.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

No! They need it to grow the economy.

Or, maybe not:

Winners and

Looks like one more in a long line of bullshit promulgated by the GOP and their surrogates in the echo chamber has been exposed by the greed of the super rich.

With real interest rates pushing the zero bound and major corporations and wealthy individuals sitting on trillions of excess cash, traditional economic theory would suggest that there is a shortage of low-risk, adequate return investments. At least that is what the capital markets are saying. In such an environment, the amount of expected increase in physical investment and employment due to increasing the the amount of monetary capital in the hands of business is precisely zero.

Until something increases demand, there will be no economic growth; we can be stuck at 1% for decades. Our range of possible policy choices are devalue the dollar (increase exports), promote inflation (lower real interest rates below zero to promote investment), or increase consumer or government spending. The last two imply borrowing by the public or government. Unless of course you believe in confidence fairies and bond vigilantes.

Valid. Anybody looking into investing their money safely will quickly run into this miserable reality. Who the hell wants to bother investing in a less than 1% gain, which is what is typical of low-risk investments these days.

I was reading in a couple of places that dividend-yielding stock is when more investors are shifting their investment dollar, mostly in response to the investment market. If this trend continues, companies will be forced to provide dividends as a means of attracting investors, money which would normally be used for expansion. So, while this may provide some temporary reprieve to some investors, it ultimately hurts economic growth.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We all know throwing money hand over fist into the black hole that is government is much better than letting people keep their own money.

 

[S.J.]

A tax increase on the rich can't possibly raise anywhere near the amount of money needed to balance the budget, or even make a significant dent in the deficit (let alone the debt). The only thing it's likely to do is increase unemployment, and subsequently reduce revenue.

 

[oldfart]

A tax increase on the rich can't possibly raise anywhere near the amount of money needed to balance the budget, or even make a significant dent in the deficit (let alone the debt). The only thing it's likely to do is increase unemployment, and subsequently reduce revenue.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that conclusion. Could you walk me through how a tax increase on the wealthy will cause unemployment? Be careful now, if you argue that they will spend less, you just admitted that government stimulus works. If you argue that tax increases will reduce investment, you will have to explain the mechanism.

 

[S.J.]

A tax increase on the rich can't possibly raise anywhere near the amount of money needed to balance the budget, or even make a significant dent in the deficit (let alone the debt). The only thing it's likely to do is increase unemployment, and subsequently reduce revenue.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that conclusion. Could you walk me through how a tax increase on the wealthy will cause unemployment? Be careful now, if you argue that they will spend less, you just admitted that government stimulus works. If you argue that tax increases will reduce investment, you will have to explain the mechanism.

Easy question. Let's say I have 100 employees and I pay them each $2,000 a month salary. I get a tax increase that amounts to $120,000 a year. I can take that loss, or I can fire 5 employees and my profits stay the same. When I fire them, they receive no check, and they pay no taxes on that income they're no longer receiving. 5 people out of work and paying no income tax. Not only that, but they will go on unemployment and stay on unemployment until it runs out (they always do), and if we're lucky, they won't go on welfare and food stamps.

 

[oldfart]

Easy question. Let's say I have 100 employees and I pay them each $2,000 a month salary. I get a tax increase that amounts to $120,000 a year. I can take that loss, or I can fire 5 employees and my profits stay the same. When I fire them, they receive no check, and they pay no taxes on that income they're no longer receiving. 5 people out of work and paying no income tax. Not only that, but they will go on unemployment and stay on unemployment until it runs out (they always do), and if we're lucky, they won't go on welfare and food stamps.

I would say that you are either a remarkably generous employer or a remarkably inefficient one to have five employees who are apparently completely unnecessary, if you can lose them and your profit stays the same!

In my world employers only hire workers whose marginal addition to net revenue exceeds the cost of their labor. When I have an increase in my personal income taxes, my unit labor costs are not affected, so I do not change employment.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You mean the rich don't pay taxes?

Reading comp problem?

 

[Rshermr]

We all know throwing money hand over fist into the black hole that is government is much better than letting people keep their own money.

Yes. Well, maybe we should do nothing at all. Just wait and see. It worked so well for W. You know, worst economy since the great depression. that would be 80 years. but he did decrease taxes. that helped, eh.
Or we can do what Reagan did. After he decreased taxes greatly, and the unemployment rate went to 10.8%, he then borrowed like crazy (more than all the presidents before him combined, and enough to triple the national debt), And increase taxes 11 times. Used stimulus spending to get himself out of his self imposed problems. Employment went down quickly, and the economy improved.

 

[S.J.]

Easy question. Let's say I have 100 employees and I pay them each $2,000 a month salary. I get a tax increase that amounts to $120,000 a year. I can take that loss, or I can fire 5 employees and my profits stay the same. When I fire them, they receive no check, and they pay no taxes on that income they're no longer receiving. 5 people out of work and paying no income tax. Not only that, but they will go on unemployment and stay on unemployment until it runs out (they always do), and if we're lucky, they won't go on welfare and food stamps.

I would say that you are either a remarkably generous employer or a remarkably inefficient one to have five employees who are apparently completely unnecessary, if you can lose them and your profit stays the same!

In my world employers only hire workers whose marginal addition to net revenue exceeds the cost of their labor. When I have an increase in my personal income taxes, my unit labor costs are not affected, so I do not change employment.

First, I find 5 employees who voted for Obama and fire them. Then I increase the workload on the rest to compensate. We employers didn't get where we are through affirmative action, like the community organizer in the White House who's never had a real job in his whole ******* life.

 

[GlobeOtter]

Easy question. Let's say I have 100 employees and I pay them each $2,000 a month salary. I get a tax increase that amounts to $120,000 a year. I can take that loss, or I can fire 5 employees and my profits stay the same. When I fire them, they receive no check, and they pay no taxes on that income they're no longer receiving. 5 people out of work and paying no income tax. Not only that, but they will go on unemployment and stay on unemployment until it runs out (they always do), and if we're lucky, they won't go on welfare and food stamps.

I would say that you are either a remarkably generous employer or a remarkably inefficient one to have five employees who are apparently completely unnecessary, if you can lose them and your profit stays the same!

In my world employers only hire workers whose marginal addition to net revenue exceeds the cost of their labor. When I have an increase in my personal income taxes, my unit labor costs are not affected, so I do not change employment.

First, I find 5 employees who voted for Obama and fire them. Then I increase the workload on the rest to compensate. We employers didn't get where we are through affirmative action, like the community organizer in the White House who's never had a real job in his whole ******* life.

Ya for the most part this doesn't happen. You may try to cut cost elsewhere in your company but most good companies are already working their employees to the max and you really don't find employees that are not doing something worthwhile unless you are in the government. Now it is possible they might ship some things to a cheaper country but that has expenses too. It is just not as easy as firing 5 employees.

 

[S.J.]

I would say that you are either a remarkably generous employer or a remarkably inefficient one to have five employees who are apparently completely unnecessary, if you can lose them and your profit stays the same!

In my world employers only hire workers whose marginal addition to net revenue exceeds the cost of their labor. When I have an increase in my personal income taxes, my unit labor costs are not affected, so I do not change employment.

First, I find 5 employees who voted for Obama and fire them. Then I increase the workload on the rest to compensate. We employers didn't get where we are through affirmative action, like the community organizer in the White House who's never had a real job in his whole ******* life.

Ya for the most part this doesn't happen. You may try to cut cost elsewhere in your company but most good companies are already working their employees to the max and you really don't find employees that are not doing something worthwhile unless you are in the government. Now it is possible they might ship some things to a cheaper country but that has expenses too. It is just not as easy as firing 5 employees.

Well, that's exactly what's gonna happen.

 

[Politico]

Tax everyone.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

You mean the rich don't pay taxes?

Reading comp problem?

Not when it comes to the title of the thread.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You mean the rich don't pay taxes?

Reading comp problem?

Not when it comes to the title of the thread.

The title is an open question, open to interpretation. Something you subsequently did. Of course my agenda was to question the GOP slogan, "the rich create jobs". But more than that, great wealth is not under attack for had the wealthy (named in the article) not acted when they did they still would be very wealthy (self evident and worth stating).

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

The title is an open question, open to interpretation. Something you subsequently did.

Thank you for recognizing that I guess?

Of course my agenda was to question the GOP slogan, "the rich create jobs".

They do, whether one has a problem with the GOP or not. Last time I checked, Bill Gates created a shit ton of jobs. I could provide a very long list of them that create jobs if you would like. It doesn't matter whose slogan it is. If one wants to talk about appropriate taxation to cover our spending, or addressing the spending as well for that matter, go to it, man. But denying that rich people create jobs seems a little silly.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Bush economy did quite well. Low unemployment, more revenue coming into the federal treasury. When democrats took over both the house and senate they were able to create a sudden crash in the economy that obama has been depressing ever since. The crash itself was engineered by democrats and took 30 years to reach full flower.

The crash was the liar loans mandated by the Community Reinvestment Act. Loans that were insured by AIG, when AIG went bankrupt, it could no longer insure the defaulted loans, and that is what started the whole thing.