To Conservatives: What drives the economy?

[dannyboys]

A successful economy cannot be predicated on a business giving money to people who will then be able to buy the product that company makes. That's the essence of a consumer based economy. That's why they fail.

WTF?? You know that money that business's give out? It's called "wages". You ever earn any wages? Buy any things you need with the money you earned? That's what a consumer based economy does. And they don't "fail" unless there is no money being earned to be spent.

Wages are the measurement of a unit of labor. Would you pay $100,000 for a Fiat? No. That's because a Fiat isn't worth $100,000. Overpaying for a unit of labor is the same thing. Raise the minimum wage above the value of the unit of labor and it won't be worth keeping that business open. Either those jobs will disappear, gobbled up by automation or the business just won't open at all.

Fast food outlets like McDonalds already have the technology to basically fully automate 95% of your eating at McDonalds 'experience.
The only reason they haven't installed the tech is b/c at this time it would appear to be not 'PC'.
And most McDonald employees end up spending their money buying the food from McDonalds anyway.

 

[Wry Catcher]

.

Any time a thread begins with an either/or question to a highly complex issue, hilarity is bound to ensue.

.

You're not bound to restrict your response in any manner. Feel free to respond with a "highly complex" sagacious one.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't think that drastically lowering the taxes on the minority rich while drastically increasing the taxes on the majority poor is a fair sensible course of action.

And might I ask how we are raising taxes on the 'majority' poor? It looks like to me that taxes are only going up on the 'minority rich.'

A 10% flat tax without exemptions means the poor are paying taxes and that takes more from heir income than the current tax code.

Meanwhile, back at Marblehead, champagne corks are dimpling the frescos on the ceiling as their tax rate was suddenly reduced from a top rate of 34% to 10%! Pity the minority rich. Drop off some canned goods for the minority poor.

That's a lie.

By letting the the Bush Tax Cuts expire, they raised taxes on the rich. From 35% to 39.6%, the tax rate for the poorest was and still is 10%. The tax cuts for the poor and middle class were preserved, while as I just said, taxes were increased on the rich.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but it would behoove you to stop repeating the rhetoric you hear on occupy sites and research the facts.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And might I ask how we are raising taxes on the 'majority' poor? It looks like to me that taxes are only going up on the 'minority rich.'

A 10% flat tax without exemptions means the poor are paying taxes and that takes more from heir income than the current tax code.

Meanwhile, back at Marblehead, champagne corks are dimpling the frescos on the ceiling as their tax rate was suddenly reduced from a top rate of 34% to 10%! Pity the minority rich. Drop off some canned goods for the minority poor.

That's a lie.

By letting the the Bush Tax Cuts expire, they raised taxes on the rich. From 35% to 39.6%, the tax rate for the poorest was and still is 10%. The tax cuts for the poor and middle class were preserved, while as I just said, taxes were increased on the rich.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but it would behoove you to stop repeating the rhetoric you hear on occupy sites and research the facts.

To be clear, the Federal Income Tax Rate for the poorest is not 10%, and the wealthiest don't pay 39.6% on every dime they earn. The poor pay the same gas tax as do the wealthiest and the same sales tax, and of late local and state governments have attached fees to parks, beaches and other places frequented by the middle and lower classes, but not by the wealthiest. Where once taxes paid for many local sevices we now see fees taking their place. Thus more and more we have developed a regressive system which benefits the wealthy at the expense of the many.

 

[percysunshine]

What drives our economy? Consumer spending or business investment?

If you think consumer spending drives the economy, what would be wrong about putting more disposable income into the hands of the middle class and the poor?

If it's business investment, what would be wrong about making adjustments to the tax code that would discourage outsourcing and off shore tax shelters? Shouldn't American business investment be made in, I don't know, maybe America?

To Conservatives: What drives the economy?

Well, it certainly isn't a liberal.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

He didn't lie. He forgot that the top rate went back up. You keyed in on that point because you are an idiot. BTW, what is your tax bracket?

 

[midcan5]

Anyone who reads history realizes our best years were after the war, when unions were strong, when manufacturing was here, when consumers rebuilt lives after the war, when taxes were the highest on those who gained most from America's freedoms, what changed? Americans became spoiled and isolated and businesses and the wealthy fought the New Deal and Great Society with money, education, and think tanks that do anything but think. And guess what, the education worked, the entitlement worked and no longer did America live up to its principles. Good stuff below for the reader of history.

Ah, the golden age when liberalism appeared to work. Of course, the one fact that liberals always ignore is that the rest of the industrial world had been bombed back into the Stone age. Foreign countries need American products. American business thrived despite all the socialist wrecking the government engaged in because we had a virtual monopoly on the world market.

It's funny how all these same policies you endorse were in place in the 1930s, but the the American economy wallowed in depression. Liberals don't like talking about that. And then, of course, prior to 1914, our economy was almost completely laizzes faire, and it grew at an astounding rate making ours the largest economy in the world. We bypassed Britain sometime in the late 1800s. So if you ignore all the times when liberalism didn't work, then it's obvious the way to go.

. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .

However, capitalism as conceived today tends to revolve around something called the profit motive, even though profit is neither a cause of capitalism nor at the heart of the capitalist action. Profit is a useful result of the process, nothing more.

BWAHAHAHAHA! You're serious? You actually believe the profit motive isn't necessary?

With that claim you destroyed any kind of meagre credibility you may have had. Only a Marxist would claim the profit motive isn't necessary.

You obviously know no history, as those policies only started with FDR. Check the dates, see below. And do you forget the failure that was Reagan, Clinton, Bush or are you braindead? From your post, braindead fits. And you prove again wingnuts cannot read with understanding, read again the sentence beginning with the word 'profit,' ask mom to explain if you still don't get it.

Timeline of the Great Depression
Summary
Timeline of the Great Depression
The Great Depression, to 1935
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
Stiff upper lip.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What drives our economy? Consumer spending or business investment?

If you think consumer spending drives the economy, what would be wrong about putting more disposable income into the hands of the middle class and the poor?

If it's business investment, what would be wrong about making adjustments to the tax code that would discourage outsourcing and off shore tax shelters? Shouldn't American business investment be made in, I don't know, maybe America?

To Conservatives: What drives the economy?

Well, it certainly isn't a liberal.

.

LOL, I suppose you believe this post has a militate effect on others; it does not, it is an example of an idiot-gram.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

What drives our economy? Consumer spending or business investment?

If you think consumer spending drives the economy, what would be wrong about putting more disposable income into the hands of the middle class and the poor?

If it's business investment, what would be wrong about making adjustments to the tax code that would discourage outsourcing and off shore tax shelters? Shouldn't American business investment be made in, I don't know, maybe America?

Freedom of Innovation
Private Sector Investors
A free consumer market


What kills an economy?
When government intervenes, influences, or otherwise meddles to control any of the three above.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A 10% flat tax without exemptions means the poor are paying taxes and that takes more from heir income than the current tax code.

Meanwhile, back at Marblehead, champagne corks are dimpling the frescos on the ceiling as their tax rate was suddenly reduced from a top rate of 34% to 10%! Pity the minority rich. Drop off some canned goods for the minority poor.

That's a lie.

By letting the the Bush Tax Cuts expire, they raised taxes on the rich. From 35% to 39.6%, the tax rate for the poorest was and still is 10%. The tax cuts for the poor and middle class were preserved, while as I just said, taxes were increased on the rich.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but it would behoove you to stop repeating the rhetoric you hear on occupy sites and research the facts.

To be clear, the Federal Income Tax Rate for the poorest is not 10%, and the wealthiest don't pay 39.6% on every dime they earn. The poor pay the same gas tax as do the wealthiest and the same sales tax, and of late local and state governments have attached fees to parks, beaches and other places frequented by the middle and lower classes, but not by the wealthiest. Where once taxes paid for many local services we now see fees taking their place. Thus more and more we have developed a regressive system which benefits the wealthy at the expense of the many.

Then all I need do is show you this. Your argument is wrong. You're wasting your breath. Why do you think they call it "income" tax anyway? Because they tax the earnings of anyone and everyone who earns money in the continental United States, Hawaii and Alaska. Read up:

2014 Tax Brackets | Bankrate.com


Moreover, everyone does pay the same gas tax, but the gas tax is also something the government imposes, along with those tax brackets. In effect, you are blaming socioeconomic factors these poor people can't control on them being poor in the first place. That is utterly preposterous. You say the wealthy earn too much, but say the poor earn too little. What if a poor person starts earning too much? Are you going to be happy that a poor person has become prosperous, or will you revile him just the same as you have done with other wealthy patrons? What if a rich man loses his fortune through no fault of his own? Will you fight for him to regain his wealth, or will you sit there and say, "he was rich, now he knows what the rest of us feel like"? Your class warfare argument is so predictable, in essence it is nothing but a colossal strawman. Your argument is purely vengeful, not logical. The wealthy pay three times more taxes than do the poorest. Why do you think they are taxed the most?

You can spout that rhetoric very adroitly but it is baseless when founded on raw emotion. Facts, logic, and reasoning are the keystones of a good premise.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Countries with the highest taxes have the most awesome economies, just like, er, um, well, er

 

[Dad2three]

A successful economy cannot be predicated on a business giving money to people who will then be able to buy the product that company makes. That's the essence of a consumer based economy. That's why they fail.

WTF?? You know that money that business's give out? It's called "wages". You ever earn any wages? Buy any things you need with the money you earned? That's what a consumer based economy does. And they don't "fail" unless there is no money being earned to be spent.

when the govt takes half of your wages------------------------------how much does that leave for you to spend in the economy?

CBO: Fed tax rates hit historic low

The average tax rates for American households reached a historical low in 2009, according to a report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Indeed, federal taxes for American households averaged 17.4 percent in 2009, a historical low over the 1979 to 2009 period.

WEIRD, WASN'T THAT WHEN THE TP (BIRCHERS) WERE FORMED?


CBO: Fed tax rates hit historic low - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com


Your taxes are really low, in one chart

The average filer saw her effective tax rate drop from 22 percent in 1979 to 18.1 percent in 2010

Your taxes are really low, in one chart - The Washington Post


Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950


Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

 

[Dad2three]

Countries with the highest taxes have the most awesome economies, just like, er, um, well, er

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.


..However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

 

[Nosmo King]

What drives our economy? Consumer spending or business investment?

If you think consumer spending drives the economy, what would be wrong about putting more disposable income into the hands of the middle class and the poor?

If it's business investment, what would be wrong about making adjustments to the tax code that would discourage outsourcing and off shore tax shelters? Shouldn't American business investment be made in, I don't know, maybe America?

Freedom of Innovation
Private Sector Investors
A free consumer market


What kills an economy?
When government intervenes, influences, or otherwise meddles to control any of the three above.

Radio, television, the railroads, aviation, power generation. These are just a few of the economic areas the federal government has regulated and subsidized much to the improvement of our economy. Laizze faire contributes corruption and abuse..

 

[Dad2three]

That's a lie.

By letting the the Bush Tax Cuts expire, they raised taxes on the rich. From 35% to 39.6%, the tax rate for the poorest was and still is 10%. The tax cuts for the poor and middle class were preserved, while as I just said, taxes were increased on the rich.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but it would behoove you to stop repeating the rhetoric you hear on occupy sites and research the facts.

To be clear, the Federal Income Tax Rate for the poorest is not 10%, and the wealthiest don't pay 39.6% on every dime they earn. The poor pay the same gas tax as do the wealthiest and the same sales tax, and of late local and state governments have attached fees to parks, beaches and other places frequented by the middle and lower classes, but not by the wealthiest. Where once taxes paid for many local services we now see fees taking their place. Thus more and more we have developed a regressive system which benefits the wealthy at the expense of the many.

Then all I need do is show you this. Your argument is wrong. You're wasting your breath. Why do you think they call it "income" tax anyway? Because they tax the earnings of anyone and everyone who earns money in the continental United States, Hawaii and Alaska. Read up:

2014 Tax Brackets | Bankrate.com


Moreover, everyone does pay the same gas tax, but the gas tax is also something the government imposes, along with those tax brackets. In effect, you are blaming socioeconomic factors these poor people can't control on them being poor in the first place. That is utterly preposterous. You say the wealthy earn too much, but say the poor earn too little. What if a poor person starts earning too much? Are you going to be happy that a poor person has become prosperous, or will you revile him just the same as you have done with other wealthy patrons? What if a rich man loses his fortune through no fault of his own? Will you fight for him to regain his wealth, or will you sit there and say, "he was rich, now he knows what the rest of us feel like"? Your class warfare argument is so predictable, in essence it is nothing but a colossal strawman. Your argument is purely vengeful, not logical. The wealthy pay three times more taxes than do the poorest. Why do you think they are taxed the most?

You can spout that rhetoric very adroitly but it is baseless when founded on raw emotion. Facts, logic, and reasoning are the keystones of a good premise.

The bottom 99 percent pays a 27.5 percent total tax rate on average, while the top 1 percent pays an average 29 percent tax rate


Who Pays Taxes in America? | CTJReports

The share of total taxes paid by each income group is similar to that group’s share of total income.

 

[boedicca]

You obviously know no history, as those policies only started with FDR. Check the dates, see below. And do you forget the failure that was Reagan, Clinton, Bush or are you braindead? From your post, braindead fits. And you prove again wingnuts cannot read with understanding, read again the sentence beginning with the word 'profit,' ask mom to explain if you still don't get it.

Timeline of the Great Depression
Summary
Timeline of the Great Depression
The Great Depression, to 1935
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
Stiff upper lip.

You obviously don't understand history either.

...It's a myth. FDR did not get us out of the Great Depression—not during the 1930s, and only in a limited sense during World War II.

Let's start with the New Deal. Its various alphabet-soup agencies—the WPA, AAA, NRA and even the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority)—failed to create sustainable jobs. In May 1939, U.S. unemployment still exceeded 20%. European countries, according to a League of Nations survey, averaged only about 12% in 1938. The New Deal, by forcing taxes up and discouraging entrepreneurs from investing, probably did more harm than good.
Enlarge Image

Franklin D. Roosevelt Associated Press

What about World War II? We need to understand that the near-full employment during the conflict was temporary. Ten million to 12 million soldiers overseas and another 10 million to 15 million people making tanks, bullets and war materiel do not a lasting recovery make. The country essentially traded temporary jobs for a skyrocketing national debt. Many of those jobs had little or no value after the war.

No one knew this more than FDR himself. His key advisers were frantic at the possibility of the Great Depression's return when the war ended and the soldiers came home. The president believed a New Deal revival was the answer—and on Oct. 28, 1944, about six months before his death, he spelled out his vision for a postwar America. It included government-subsidized housing, federal involvement in health care, more TVA projects, and the "right to a useful and remunerative job" provided by the federal government if necessary.

Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR's ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war.

Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying "no." No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.

Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR's top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.

Corporate tax rates were trimmed and FDR's "excess profits" tax was repealed, which meant that top marginal corporate tax rates effectively went to 38% from 90% after 1945.

Georgia Sen. Walter George, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, defended the Revenue Act of 1945 with arguments that today we would call "supply-side economics." If the tax bill "has the effect which it is hoped it will have," George said, "it will so stimulate the expansion of business as to bring in a greater total revenue."

He was prophetic. By the late 1940s, a revived economy was generating more annual federal revenue than the U.S. had received during the war years, when tax rates were higher. Price controls from the war were also eliminated by the end of 1946. The U.S. began running budget surpluses....

Burt Folsom: Did FDR End the Depression? - WSJ

 

[Dad2three]

What drives our economy? Consumer spending or business investment?

If you think consumer spending drives the economy, what would be wrong about putting more disposable income into the hands of the middle class and the poor?

If it's business investment, what would be wrong about making adjustments to the tax code that would discourage outsourcing and off shore tax shelters? Shouldn't American business investment be made in, I don't know, maybe America?

Freedom of Innovation
Private Sector Investors
A free consumer market


What kills an economy?
When government intervenes, influences, or otherwise meddles to control any of the three above.

Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...



James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

 

[Cecilie1200]

What drives our economy? Consumer spending or business investment?

If you think consumer spending drives the economy, what would be wrong about putting more disposable income into the hands of the middle class and the poor?

If it's business investment, what would be wrong about making adjustments to the tax code that would discourage outsourcing and off shore tax shelters? Shouldn't American business investment be made in, I don't know, maybe America?

Never fails. Any time a leftist starts throwing around the word "should", I get cold chills down my spine.

 

[Nosmo King]

What drives our economy? Consumer spending or business investment?

If you think consumer spending drives the economy, what would be wrong about putting more disposable income into the hands of the middle class and the poor?

If it's business investment, what would be wrong about making adjustments to the tax code that would discourage outsourcing and off shore tax shelters? Shouldn't American business investment be made in, I don't know, maybe America?

Never fails. Any time a leftist starts throwing around the word "should", I get cold chills down my spine.

So, no answers, suggestions, thoughts?

 

[Dad2three]

You obviously know no history, as those policies only started with FDR. Check the dates, see below. And do you forget the failure that was Reagan, Clinton, Bush or are you braindead? From your post, braindead fits. And you prove again wingnuts cannot read with understanding, read again the sentence beginning with the word 'profit,' ask mom to explain if you still don't get it.

Timeline of the Great Depression
Summary
Timeline of the Great Depression
The Great Depression, to 1935
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
Stiff upper lip.

You obviously don't understand history either.

...It's a myth. FDR did not get us out of the Great Depression—not during the 1930s, and only in a limited sense during World War II.

Let's start with the New Deal. Its various alphabet-soup agencies—the WPA, AAA, NRA and even the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority)—failed to create sustainable jobs. In May 1939, U.S. unemployment still exceeded 20%. European countries, according to a League of Nations survey, averaged only about 12% in 1938. The New Deal, by forcing taxes up and discouraging entrepreneurs from investing, probably did more harm than good.
Enlarge Image

Franklin D. Roosevelt Associated Press

What about World War II? We need to understand that the near-full employment during the conflict was temporary. Ten million to 12 million soldiers overseas and another 10 million to 15 million people making tanks, bullets and war materiel do not a lasting recovery make. The country essentially traded temporary jobs for a skyrocketing national debt. Many of those jobs had little or no value after the war.

No one knew this more than FDR himself. His key advisers were frantic at the possibility of the Great Depression's return when the war ended and the soldiers came home. The president believed a New Deal revival was the answer—and on Oct. 28, 1944, about six months before his death, he spelled out his vision for a postwar America. It included government-subsidized housing, federal involvement in health care, more TVA projects, and the "right to a useful and remunerative job" provided by the federal government if necessary.

Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR's ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war.

Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying "no." No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.

Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR's top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.

Corporate tax rates were trimmed and FDR's "excess profits" tax was repealed, which meant that top marginal corporate tax rates effectively went to 38% from 90% after 1945.

Georgia Sen. Walter George, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, defended the Revenue Act of 1945 with arguments that today we would call "supply-side economics." If the tax bill "has the effect which it is hoped it will have," George said, "it will so stimulate the expansion of business as to bring in a greater total revenue."

He was prophetic. By the late 1940s, a revived economy was generating more annual federal revenue than the U.S. had received during the war years, when tax rates were higher. Price controls from the war were also eliminated by the end of 1946. The U.S. began running budget surpluses....

Burt Folsom: Did FDR End the Depression? - WSJ

AEI TALKING POINTS NOT BASED ON REALITY

SLOWLY THE US WAS COMING OUT OF THE GOP (HARDING/COOLIDGE) GREAT DEPRESSION UNTIL FDR LISTENED TO THE DEFICIT SCOLDS IN 1937 AND PUT US BACK INTO THE DEPRESSION



YOUR LINK

"The economy took off after the postwar Congress cut taxes...Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR's top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%"


LOL

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes