To Conservatives: What drives the economy?

[Cecilie1200]

How do you put "more disposable income" into the hands of the middle class? By destroying the corporations that fuel the GDP? Maybe lowering taxes and the cost of energy and eliminating government regulations that strangle big and small business is a better answer. Gigantic federal bureaucracies that skim confiscated taxpayer dollars and laws created by politicians who never had a job that wasn't funded by taxpayer dollars is not the answer.

The destruction of corporations isn't on the table. Why would you throw such a grenade?

There's a big difference between what you THINK you're putting on the table, and what the results are going to be of the horseshit you're putting on the table. That's always the problem with your bullshit.

 

[The Rabbi]

Dad is on crack.
Nosmo has had his ass kicked yet again in his own thread.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Yes, individuals making $400,000+ a year and families $450,0000 ADJUSTED incomes. STILL THE LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN IN 80 YEARS ON THE 'JOB CREATORS' WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

 

[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?

Great points unfortunatley conservatives like to deal with "Not"

So they'll usually respond like "I'm NOT saying that but...*no solution just complaints*"

Given that I've already heard several solutions floated by conservatives already on this thread, I can only assume that "No solution" actually means "No solution that I'm willing to allow; if you're not agreeing with me, you must not be talking".

 

[Dad2three]

How do you put "more disposable income" into the hands of the middle class? By destroying the corporations that fuel the GDP? Maybe lowering taxes and the cost of energy and eliminating government regulations that strangle big and small business is a better answer. Gigantic federal bureaucracies that skim confiscated taxpayer dollars and laws created by politicians who never had a job that wasn't funded by taxpayer dollars is not the answer.

The destruction of corporations isn't on the table. Why would you throw such a grenade?

There's a big difference between what you THINK you're putting on the table, and what the results are going to be of the horseshit you're putting on the table. That's always the problem with your bullshit.

NAME ONE TIME CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN CORRECT ON US POLICY? EVER?

They said Bush/Reagan tax cuts would boom the economy and create 'jobs, jobs, jobs' and Clinton increasing taxes would lead to a recession, lol

 

[Cecilie1200]

If there was something like a flat tax that would exponentially increase taxes on the poor, there should be an exemption. No taxes on the first $30,000 spent. It's tough enough on the poor. Raising their taxes is neither fair nor responsible.

How would you even begin to calculate that?

And why is everyone paying the same percent at all unfair?

As all spending would be subject to taxes, a record of expenditures is provided to the IRS. Once an individual's spending exceeds $30,000 annually, a flat tax could then apply to any amount over the exempted $30,000.

The poor spend more of their income on necessities. A family of four earning $25,000 will spend a far larger percentage of their income on food, utilities, clothing, school supplies, transportation and housing than a family of four making $250,000.

Oh, goodie! Now I get to report, in detail, all of my shopping to the government! Because God knows they aren't NEARLY as involved in and informed on my personal life as they should be!

 

[boedicca]

The destruction of corporations isn't on the table. Why would you throw such a grenade?

There's a big difference between what you THINK you're putting on the table, and what the results are going to be of the horseshit you're putting on the table. That's always the problem with your bullshit.

NAME ONE TIME CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN CORRECT ON US POLICY? EVER?

They said Bush/Reagan tax cuts would boom the economy and create 'jobs, jobs, jobs' and Clinton increasing taxes would lead to a recession, lol

It is a truth universally acknowledged that when a poster resorts to replying in All Caps in Bold, said poster is admitting defeat.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Great points unfortunatley conservatives like to deal with "Not"

So they'll usually respond like "I'm NOT saying that but...*no solution just complaints*"

Given that I've already heard several solutions floated by conservatives already on this thread, I can only assume that "No solution" actually means "No solution that I'm willing to allow; if you're not agreeing with me, you must not be talking".

To a libturd the word "solution" means a big government program and spending a lot of the taxpayers money. Or it means passing laws restricting our freedoms.

 

[bripat9643]

How would you even begin to calculate that?

And why is everyone paying the same percent at all unfair?

As all spending would be subject to taxes, a record of expenditures is provided to the IRS. Once an individual's spending exceeds $30,000 annually, a flat tax could then apply to any amount over the exempted $30,000.

The poor spend more of their income on necessities. A family of four earning $25,000 will spend a far larger percentage of their income on food, utilities, clothing, school supplies, transportation and housing than a family of four making $250,000.

Oh, goodie! Now I get to report, in detail, all of my shopping to the government! Because God knows they aren't NEARLY as involved in and informed on my personal life as they should be!

The FAIR tax is the simplest way to get around these difficulties. The only way to solve the problems of the income tax is to abolish it.

 

[KissMy]

What's wrong with letting everyone keep more of their own money?

Lower the income tax to a flat 10% for all income
Lower the corporate tax to the same percentage.

The problem is Republicans increase spending & cut taxes. That causes runaway inflation, job loss & funnels most money to elitist cronies. If you can't balance a budget, you should not have a credit line or bank account. Republicans boast starve the government beast & drown it in a bath tub. That means destroy the US dollar, jobs, economy & standard of living.

Republicans believe in fairytales & voodoo economics. The Wallstreet Bankers donate to & teach college economics that keeps money flowing to them. They preach more government stimulus saying the "Philips Curve" proves inflation creates jobs. The cultist drones thus vote for the people who spend the most & cut tax to cause inflation believing it will create jobs & stimulate the economy.

Democrats, Clinton & Obama proved they can increase record employment while cutting deficits & inflation. Bush destroyed 18 million jobs while increasing deficits creating massive inflation. Republicans only lookout for their entitled wealthy donors. They tax the working man to subsidize their rich friends.

 

[Newby]

The destruction of corporations isn't on the table. Why would you throw such a grenade?

The hypocrite left is so clueless that they cheer when the DOW spikes during a democrat administration while the DOW is an indication of corporate wealth that they despise. The median income for the middle class has dropped a whopping 6% since Obama took office. The middle class depends on low energy cost more than any demographic but the administration seems clueless while they support failing solar energy corporations and bird killing windmills and battery operated cars that nobody wants except wealthy liberals who park them in the garage and pat themselves for being so caring to the environment.

Liberals don't despise corporate wealth. Liberals despise the way corporate wealth is sequestered among the very wealthy and never really goes to those who have EARNED that wealth for the corporations: the actual workers.

So you're implying that every position in a corporation is equally important, equally responsible for the health of the corporation and all should be equally compensated? If not, exactly what does your model look like, and what incentive are you offering to those who are taking the heavy load of running corporation if not money?

 

[Dad2three]

As all spending would be subject to taxes, a record of expenditures is provided to the IRS. Once an individual's spending exceeds $30,000 annually, a flat tax could then apply to any amount over the exempted $30,000.

The poor spend more of their income on necessities. A family of four earning $25,000 will spend a far larger percentage of their income on food, utilities, clothing, school supplies, transportation and housing than a family of four making $250,000.

Oh, goodie! Now I get to report, in detail, all of my shopping to the government! Because God knows they aren't NEARLY as involved in and informed on my personal life as they should be!

The FAIR tax is the simplest way to get around these difficulties. The only way to solve the problems of the income tax is to abolish it.

FAIR tax is a joke. First it's regressive second nowhere near enough revenues!

 

[The Rabbi]

The hypocrite left is so clueless that they cheer when the DOW spikes during a democrat administration while the DOW is an indication of corporate wealth that they despise. The median income for the middle class has dropped a whopping 6% since Obama took office. The middle class depends on low energy cost more than any demographic but the administration seems clueless while they support failing solar energy corporations and bird killing windmills and battery operated cars that nobody wants except wealthy liberals who park them in the garage and pat themselves for being so caring to the environment.

Liberals don't despise corporate wealth. Liberals despise the way corporate wealth is sequestered among the very wealthy and never really goes to those who have EARNED that wealth for the corporations: the actual workers.

So you're implying that every position in a corporation is equally important, equally responsible for the health of the corporation and all should be equally compensated? If not, exactly what does your model look like, and what incentive are you offering to those who are taking the heavy load of running corporation if not money?

He thinks the CEO, COO, CIO, and CFO do nothing but drink coffee all day.

 

[Mac1958]

.

In America, you can start your own business and enjoy the fruits of your own labor and sacrifice.

I know how crazy that sounds to some.

.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, goodie! Now I get to report, in detail, all of my shopping to the government! Because God knows they aren't NEARLY as involved in and informed on my personal life as they should be!

The FAIR tax is the simplest way to get around these difficulties. The only way to solve the problems of the income tax is to abolish it.

FAIR tax is a joke. First it's regressive second nowhere near enough revenues!

It's less progressive than the present system for looting the wealthy, but it does exempt the poor from taxation, which is the only kind of distinction in the tax code that is justifiable. The revenues generated depend on where the tax rate is set. Of course, once set, it will take a lot more political will to raise it, which is exactly why government toadies like you hate it.

 

[Dad2three]

The hypocrite left is so clueless that they cheer when the DOW spikes during a democrat administration while the DOW is an indication of corporate wealth that they despise. The median income for the middle class has dropped a whopping 6% since Obama took office. The middle class depends on low energy cost more than any demographic but the administration seems clueless while they support failing solar energy corporations and bird killing windmills and battery operated cars that nobody wants except wealthy liberals who park them in the garage and pat themselves for being so caring to the environment.

Liberals don't despise corporate wealth. Liberals despise the way corporate wealth is sequestered among the very wealthy and never really goes to those who have EARNED that wealth for the corporations: the actual workers.

So you're implying that every position in a corporation is equally important, equally responsible for the health of the corporation and all should be equally compensated? If not, exactly what does your model look like, and what incentive are you offering to those who are taking the heavy load of running corporation if not money?

Lavish CEO Pay Has Virtually Nothing To Do With How Well A Company Performs



CEOs like to justify their sky-high pay by saying it rewards their work in steering companies toward better performance. But a new analysis doesn’t give much evidence to back that up.

Equilar, an executive compensation consultancy, compared the salaries of 200 highly paid CEOs to their companies’ performance based on things like profitability, revenue, and stock return. Rather than showing a clear trend line linking pay and performance, the data is scattered. In fact, chief executive pay is only 1 percent based on stock performance, with 99 percent based on other things entirely.

Here’s how it looks when Equilar compared stock return to CEO pay for 200 CEOs:

As Bloomberg Businessweek notes, “The comparison makes it look as if there is zero relationship between pay and performance.”

Lavish CEO Pay Has Virtually Nothing To Do With How Well A Company Performs | ThinkProgress


The More A Company Pays Its CEO, The Worse Its Shareholders Do


The companies that pay their chief executives the most see the worst results for shareholders, according to a new study, with an average annual shareholder loss of $1.4 billion at the companies with the highest CEO pay.

Exorbitant CEO compensation packages breed overconfidence,
\

The More A Company Pays Its CEO, The Worse Its Shareholders Do

 

[The Rabbi]

Liberals don't despise corporate wealth. Liberals despise the way corporate wealth is sequestered among the very wealthy and never really goes to those who have EARNED that wealth for the corporations: the actual workers.

So you're implying that every position in a corporation is equally important, equally responsible for the health of the corporation and all should be equally compensated? If not, exactly what does your model look like, and what incentive are you offering to those who are taking the heavy load of running corporation if not money?

Lavish CEO Pay Has Virtually Nothing To Do With How Well A Company Performs



CEOs like to justify their sky-high pay by saying it rewards their work in steering companies toward better performance. But a new analysis doesn’t give much evidence to back that up.

Equilar, an executive compensation consultancy, compared the salaries of 200 highly paid CEOs to their companies’ performance based on things like profitability, revenue, and stock return. Rather than showing a clear trend line linking pay and performance, the data is scattered. In fact, chief executive pay is only 1 percent based on stock performance, with 99 percent based on other things entirely.

Here’s how it looks when Equilar compared stock return to CEO pay for 200 CEOs:

As Bloomberg Businessweek notes, “The comparison makes it look as if there is zero relationship between pay and performance.”

Lavish CEO Pay Has Virtually Nothing To Do With How Well A Company Performs | ThinkProgress


The More A Company Pays Its CEO, The Worse Its Shareholders Do


The companies that pay their chief executives the most see the worst results for shareholders, according to a new study, with an average annual shareholder loss of $1.4 billion at the companies with the highest CEO pay.

Exorbitant CEO compensation packages breed overconfidence,
\

The More A Company Pays Its CEO, The Worse Its Shareholders Do

WTF is it your business what CEOs get paid?

 

[Dad2three]

.

In America, you can start your own business and enjoy the fruits of your own labor and sacrifice.

I know how crazy that sounds to some.

.

You can do that in Mexico and Somalia too. Try it there some time!

 

[rdean]

.

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

.

Nothing is more hilarious than right wingers explaining how "supply and demand" is something silly that liberals "made up". Jobs are created by the job CREATORS.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Here's your kitchen table.

You can start your business here, as millions have.

Now you're a CEO.

What are you waiting for?