Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Trickle-down is a scam, extending the Bush tax cut is wrong:
- Thread starter Mr. dB
- Start date
mrplunkey
New member
That article based on horrifically flawed arguments. Here are a few favorites:
"If tax rates are high enough to discourage profit taking - forcing wealth created by a business to be recycled back into the business – then businesses are pushed toward longer-term planning, as they invest in new plant and equipment that will be used for many years. "
That is complete and utter crap. The author is trying to argue that if we just steal all the profits out of a company via taxes, we'd force the businesses to spend all their profits on assets they could depreciate. In the real world, it works completely the opposite: If you take cash out of a business, we cut capital spending first, then are forced to cut employees. If high taxes forcing companies to invest is such a great idea, let's change every tax depreciation schedule to 1-3 years instead of 5, 7, 10 or even 30 years. Think they'll do that? Nope.
"Low tax rates encourage taking wealth out of industrial companies; the wealth taken out must then be “put to work.” That means more money chasing “investment” opportunities, leading to price increases in financial capital or real estate or some other asset. In other words, an asset bubble. "
Great idea! Make sure no one has any extra wealth so they won't create bubbles by making other investments. At least the author is correct about one thing: If you strip-out all the cash from businesses there wouldn't be any bubbles -- simply because we would be in a perpetual state of recession. This is a great example of liberal ideology at work: They'd rather make everyone less wealthy simply so they can prevent the top 10% from getting rich. Newsflash: Poor employers hand-out really shitty paychecks.
"Tax cuts do nothing to help the real, industrial economy. The rich of America have proven that they are not very good at investing: they prefer credit default swaps over investing in sustainable energy start-ups."
This is the old "we can spend your money better than you can" argument. Yeah, government is so great at managing its finances.
My question would be: If tax cuts for the uber rich are so awesome at creating jobs, why did private employment under 8 years of Bush decline by 670,000?
Not to mention the fact that between 1979 and 2005, the mean after-tax income for the top 1% increased by 176%, compared to an increase of 69% for the top quintile overall, 20% for the fourth quintile, 21% for the middle quintile, 17% for the second quintile and 6% for the bottom quintile.
If we're not going to enact tax reform (or move to a flat tax), the upper rates should revert back to Clinton-era levels*, if not higher. A new tax rate for those making $1 million and above would be a good idea.
*And LOL @ people who say Obama wants to raise taxes. All he would do is let a part of a piece of legislature expire as it was written to do. If you have a problem with tax rates for millionaires going up at the end of the year, take it up with Bush. He's the one who came up with the idea.
Not to mention the fact that between 1979 and 2005, the mean after-tax income for the top 1% increased by 176%, compared to an increase of 69% for the top quintile overall, 20% for the fourth quintile, 21% for the middle quintile, 17% for the second quintile and 6% for the bottom quintile.
If we're not going to enact tax reform (or move to a flat tax), the upper rates should revert back to Clinton-era levels*, if not higher. A new tax rate for those making $1 million and above would be a good idea.
*And LOL @ people who say Obama wants to raise taxes. All he would do is let a part of a piece of legislature expire as it was written to do. If you have a problem with tax rates for millionaires going up at the end of the year, take it up with Bush. He's the one who came up with the idea.
b0und
New member
b0und
New member
First, that's a very good and important question.
Second, those observations about income increases show where the money is going now.
Third, new tax rate for income millionaires, what are you a socialist now?
Welcome to the club comrade!
b0und (
)
mrplunkey
New member
Oh that one is easy. You use the Obama Stimulus Scam defense. It would have been soooooo much worse if they hadn't provided those 8 years of Bush cuts. I'm sure we could round-up an economist somewhere who will tell you it saved 20,000,000 jobs -- we just can't measure it.
Ok.
Seriously though...
The fact of the matter is that Bush lost 670k private sector jobs during a pretty remarkable economic growth period. Ironically, Bush presided over a pretty strong public sector growth period.
I understand how theoretically tax cuts for the wealthy are supposed to work, but reality shows that it hasnt been doing anything close.
Einstein and the whole insanity definition kind of applies.
First, that's a very good and important question.
Second, those observations about income increases show where the money is going now.
Third, new tax rate for income millionaires, what are you a socialist now?
Welcome to the club comrade!
b0und (
Ideally closing all of the tax loopholes and moving to a more simplified plan would be ideal.
i'll let the big brains flesh this argument out while i read...but in the meantime i do have to admit
to having large belly lol's at the though of obama extending the racist/evil/bush's tax cuts.
lololol at how mad it's making the libtards*, they are overcome with hatred over this and i love it
*edit: not referring to DB nor do i conser him as such
to having large belly lol's at the though of obama extending the racist/evil/bush's tax cuts.
lololol at how mad it's making the libtards*, they are overcome with hatred over this and i love it
*edit: not referring to DB nor do i conser him as such
digimon7068
New member
the actual fact of the matter is that...roads and schools and stoplights and fire trucks and flak jackets and tanks and guns and bombs and f-18's cost like a SHITLOAD (technical financial term) of money...and right now we don't have any...taxes are gonna go up...and the middle class is gonna pick up most of the tab (because they are the biggest group in the tax-paying population...it's a fucking bell-curve for chrissakes!!!)...and i didn't make up the rules...and, while we're on the subject of rules...owning a home is not a right, it's a privilege...being able to retire some day is not a right, it's a privilege...access to the best health care that the world has to offer is not a right, it's a privilege...fuck, getting a gawddamn driver's license is not a right, it's a privilige...in the u.s. we have certain "rights", and they are here FOR OUR CITIZENS, but honestly??? those rights are pretty damn few. everything else is a privilege...and privileges are earned through hard work...13 more months of unemployment ain't gonna earn you any privileges...there are jobs to be had...get the fuck off your ass and go back to work! oh and, you're probably gonna earn a little less for a little while...welcome to the new world order!
i'm a republican...and i approve of this message.
my gf is being sent off to the navy for 3 years and it pisses me off that some people are crying about their taxes being too high. she is putting her neck on the line to defend the country and her salary is with federal taxpayer dollars. when you put your neck on the line or have a loved one put their neck on the line you can bitch about your taxes.
this tax bill has something for democrats (cuts taxes for lower and middle class and extends unemployment benefits) and something for republicans (cuts taxes for the rich)
so everyone should be happy
this tax bill has something for democrats (cuts taxes for lower and middle class and extends unemployment benefits) and something for republicans (cuts taxes for the rich)
so everyone should be happy
digimon7068
New member
except you...because, as i said above, the machinery, equipment and supplies that you're gf relies on to do her job (and that you rely on to protect her while she's doing her job) costs a LOT of money...and the u.s. doesn't have any money...and tax cuts ain't gonna help that situation...so, there's a pretty good chance that your gf and her co-workers will not have all the stuff that they need to do their job properly.
if i don't have the proper tools to do my job...maybe i lose a client.
if your gf doesn't have the proper tools to do her job...maybe she comes home in a box.
You'd think. Instead, everyone has something to be pissed off about.
kx250rider
New member
The whole real estate bubble is directly a result of Carter and Clinton, forcing banks to lend to people who could never in their wildest dreams pay back the loans. Plain and simple fact, and it was done under the guise of affirmative action and Fairness in Lending Act. Banks were forced to make quotas of home loans to all races, and if there weren't enough qualified applicants of any one race, they were legally forced to take sub-prime applications to make up the quotas. (with the majority of the defaults being young white people, btw)... Then when the banks figured out how much more they could charge to lame borrowers, they took advantage, and started making sub-prime loans to anyone who breathed, and just assumed that in a year when the borrower couldn't pay, they'd sell the house and still come out way ahead. It worked great for a few years, then BAM! the truth couldn't be hidden anymore, and the investors disappeared like a morning hard-on out in a blizzard.
And on the "Bush tax cuts" being extended or not; why is it (and why was it ever) fair to punish someone for being successful, by charging them a higher tax rate? If I make $10K a year, and pay $1K taxes, which is about what I'd pay, then why aren't the Dems happy if I make $1M, and pay $100K? The pre-Bush tax rate would have made the tax on $1M earned income appx $550,000!!!!! A flat tax is perfectly fair as far as I can see, and it would encourage me to make more & more; not watch out for a ceiling whereby if I make a penny over, I get raped. And "investment opportunities" are very often things like putting a new company together, or building an apartment building, or doing something that involves hiring people at all levels, and buying all kinds of materials. And letting a successful earner make good investments and not getting butt raped by Uncle Sam, leaves more cash to get pumped back into the economy by spending on fun stuff, spending on sports & travel, and buying durable goods.
And I don't find it reasonable when people say that "rich people are lucky and/or selfish". It's NOT luck. Some are selfish, but so are many poor people and "barely making it" working people. Look at any movie star who is popular for a year or 2 and makes millions & millions, then falls out of stardom, and all the $$$$ is GONE in a few years, and they're either in a rehab or on public assistance (or even in & out of jail on drug charges). The whole issue is knowing what to do with money, whether it's $5 or $50,000,000. Selfish? I'm not going to list a bunch of stuff, but my wife and I have 2 people in our rentals who can't afford to pay rent, and we said don't worry about it. There was a fire at the German Shepherd rescue shelter in Los Angeles last year, and maybe we had something to do with a brand-new kennel building that they now have, and my father-in-law is paying tuition for someone who couldn't qualify for a scholarship, to attend 4 years at USC. Does any of that count?
Just my 2c worth, if Obama will allow me to keep 2c, that is....
I'm not here to blast you or disrespect your opinion, and you didn't say anything about anyone being selfish, but I got off on a rant. Your opinions are just as valid as mine, and that's what makes the USA a free country.
Charles
Last edited:
Perhaps, but I would argue that her sacrifice isn't really valued that much or (more correctly) valued at the market forces. Just like teachers, ER doctors, etc.
I understand your point, but I think that's an over-simplification of things.
For example, I've also seen other argue that banks should of appealed more directly or gone after those that could afford it (not everyone owns a house) rather then the lowest of the low who they knew couldn't.
That statement is also an over-simplification. Neither are completely right and both have some truth to them.
I don't think that people think that "rich people" are the small business owner (although statistically they are). Instead, I think that people think that "rich people" are the Madoffs and others of the world who have "gamed" the system.
A civil disagreement on EF? Whoa.
Here's what I don't get:
Why is this one of the FEW countries where the wealthy resent giving back? Seriously. They're wealthy, primarily, because of where they live. Why do wealthy Americans resent paying more than someone who isn't? This argument of "Well, you're not rich because you're lazy" doesn't cut it. Not everyone can be wealthy (or even comfortably middle class, we won't go there). If you aren't born rich then acquiring wealth is often about being dealt the right genetic hand so you have the intellect to be successful and the ambition to implement it. And even if you have the smarts and drive, if you were handed a total shit sandwich in terms of life start (which includes, though to a much lesser degree, GENDER and/or RACE) then you could have all the brains and ambition in the world, but you could still be spinning your wheels.
Why should the rich people pay more taxes than the poor? Simple: The closer you get to the poverty line, the more valuable nickles and dimes become. $5000 a year in extra taxes is an okay vacation for some people, for others it's an entire year's rent.
Why is this one of the FEW countries where the wealthy resent giving back? Seriously. They're wealthy, primarily, because of where they live. Why do wealthy Americans resent paying more than someone who isn't? This argument of "Well, you're not rich because you're lazy" doesn't cut it. Not everyone can be wealthy (or even comfortably middle class, we won't go there). If you aren't born rich then acquiring wealth is often about being dealt the right genetic hand so you have the intellect to be successful and the ambition to implement it. And even if you have the smarts and drive, if you were handed a total shit sandwich in terms of life start (which includes, though to a much lesser degree, GENDER and/or RACE) then you could have all the brains and ambition in the world, but you could still be spinning your wheels.
Why should the rich people pay more taxes than the poor? Simple: The closer you get to the poverty line, the more valuable nickles and dimes become. $5000 a year in extra taxes is an okay vacation for some people, for others it's an entire year's rent.
There are no damned jobs, not even crap jobs. How the hell do you work if you can't get hired? Companies are cutting, and it's cut bait or row and if you can't double or triple your workload, I can find some desperate bastard who will and will be happy. Employment has become a "buyers market." Shit, retailers have already started letting their christmas help go, used to be they hung on to them until after the 1st of the year to get past the returns.They want to extend Unemployment benefits another fvckin year ??????????
So the choice is, extend unemployment or strain the welfare system further and watch even MORE houses go into foreclosure.
i'd love to hear what countries attract wealty people cause their taxes are high...lol at their being a nation of wealthy people who don't resent paying higher taxes
It depends on your definition of wealth, but I would look at Europe at showing people who don't resent giving back (to some degree), no?
and aren't we seeing this come to a head with the unrest and finaincial insecurity taking place in the EU?
look how happy high taxes have made the french population, as they riot and burn
If you look at the stats, a large portion of foreclosures came from upper middle class types. Anyway, I think 99% of economists would argue that it was the extended period of low interest rates (via Greenspan) and his announcements that everybody should go out and purchase real estate as the main cause. Even Greenspan himself agrees with this.
My question to you is why do you see taxes as "punishment?" Taxes arent meant to be punitive. At the end of the day we need some form of taxation. Although many people look at this from a standpoint of whats "fair," I prefer to look at what is most efficient when it comes to creating a healthy capitalistic society that provides ample opportunity for the vast majority of the citizens.
The Bush tax cuts obviously dont fit the bill in that regard. There is no arguing with the results (as they are right there in black and white) so why should we continue with them?
To repeat a quote of mine above: Not to mention the fact that between 1979 and 2005, the mean after-tax income for the top 1% increased by 176%, compared to an increase of 69% for the top quintile overall, 20% for the fourth quintile, 21% for the middle quintile, 17% for the second quintile and 6% for the bottom quintile.
That doesnt concern you at all?
As I mentioned to plunk above, I understand thats how it should work...but its been proven (regarding job creation) over the past 10 years thats not how it does work.
I can't say why the EU is taking a beating financially. Too be honest, other then Iceland, I really haven't read up into it.
I don't see that the French (or Europeans) are rioting for the high taxes. I see them rioting for a whole lot of other reasons. I'll look around.
However, the main point was the list of some countries where people are not completely adverse to paying higher taxes.
I still say flat tax FTW.
digimon7068
New member
boy, there is here! and most of them are not bs, minimum wage jobs either...and the people that used to occupy these positions??? they don't wanna go back to work because they are making 75% of what they did before and they're sitting on their asses...or they're out in the woods hunting deer...but, they aren't taking their fucking jobs back, even though the hr person calls them once a week trying to drag them back to work...it's fucking horseshit.
I've been reading Predictability Irrational.
It provides some suggestions on why it doesn't work and why logic doesn't always apply to market forces (ie M$, which can be argued as a poorer operating system in the early years, has a higher market share then others).
Or, you could wait for it to come out on the next version of Wikileaks.
i'm not a finacial euro genious, but one could deduct that higher taxes in france led to:
-business owners getting the fug out.
-less tax base, forcing an increase to make up the loss
-further tax hikes scares away more business
all this equals less money for social programs, and forces an increasing in the retirement age, thus leading to the riots.
proly more to it than that but i'm sure that figures into it
The riots across the EU are due to a host of reasons, but its primarily driven by austerity measures that the countries are forced to enact due to the financial collapse. The bond market is concerned about the deficits of countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc so in order to bring the deficits under control, the countries have made tough decisions concerning cutting back on entitlements and (in a few cases) raising taxes.
The French specifically are bitching primarily because the retirement age was raised from 62 to 65 over the next 30 years I believe.
Anyway, as far as countries with higher taxes than us while the citizens seem happy, you only need to look at places like Canada, Australia, and Japan.
In fact, one of Japans biggest problems is that its unemployment rate is too low.
The French specifically are bitching primarily because the retirement age was raised from 62 to 65 over the next 30 years I believe.
Anyway, as far as countries with higher taxes than us while the citizens seem happy, you only need to look at places like Canada, Australia, and Japan.
In fact, one of Japans biggest problems is that its unemployment rate is too low.
yeah i have to agree...i think a better statement is, the jobs available don't pay as much as the person's last job, and therefore they feel above that and chose to collect UE instead.
cause i can get anyone a job that doesn't have felonies...a pretty good fed job...if you are physically fit and not a dumbfuck i could set things in motion as quick as next week.
but the money isn't gonna be engineering/IT/etc sorta money...and folks can't come to terms with that
LOL, if we had a flat tax the rate would be a whole hell of a lot higher than 10%. To support the present size of government it would be in the high 20% range. So the rich would get a moderate tax cut and the poor would get a huge tax hike. Yeah, that's "fair".
The point of a progressive tax rate is that it taxes disposable or discretionary income. It takes into account that for some people, virtually all of their income is used to pay for necessities, and for other people there is money to burn. The money-to-burn crowd are still left with plenty to burn.
The riots are due to changes being made to account for the large deficits.
The irony is that letting the Bush tax cuts expire as they were always intended to do would help close our deficit by a significant percentage.
Also, another factoid:
The top .1% (one tenth of one percent) of earners in this country in 2008 had 11% of the wealth. The top 1% had 23% of the wealth. Over the past 10 years, the top 400 earners have seen their effective tax rate cut in half.
The last time so much wealth was concentrated between so few people was 1928 folks.
Also, its the middle class that creates the most jobs, folks. They are the ones who spend the money, keeping businesses in business. A strong middle class is essential to a strong economy.
The top .1% (one tenth of one percent) of earners in this country in 2008 had 11% of the wealth. The top 1% had 23% of the wealth. Over the past 10 years, the top 400 earners have seen their effective tax rate cut in half.
The last time so much wealth was concentrated between so few people was 1928 folks.
Also, its the middle class that creates the most jobs, folks. They are the ones who spend the money, keeping businesses in business. A strong middle class is essential to a strong economy.
javaguru
Banned
Roughly 40% of Americans don't pay income tax after deductions, credits and rebates. The wealthiest already pay the vast majority of the income tax revenue to the government. I saw an interview, on ABC I believe, with one of those billionaires that wants to pay more taxes. The interviewer asked him why he just didn't turn his billion dollar charitable foundation over to the feds.....his response was the feds would squander it. Given that opinion, I have no idea why he would support raising taxes except that he must be a progressive liberal that loves to spend other people's money more than his own...
Essentially, the reason people making 251k a year don't want to turn more money over to the feds is the same reason you don't take a twenty out of your purse and burn it.
mrplunkey
New member
You are assuming there is a one-to-one relationship between jobs and economic growth. It's a simple fact that while the two are highly correlated, it's never one-to-one -- nor should it ever be. That's the entire basis behind productivity.
Here's an exaggerated example: I bet if we forced every American to grow their own food, growth in private sector jobs would skyrocket. But would be be wealthier? No, we'd all get poorer because we'd take a huge productivity hit.
Overall employment diminished during the Bush years because productivity grew, but a huge portion of that growth came from moving jobs overseas (yes, that is a form of productivity enhancement). To stop that, you've got two choices: Either 1) re-write the business laws for every other country in the world or 2) make the US a more friendly place to employ people. How do you do that? Easy -- less regulation, less litigation and alas yes... lower taxes.
mrplunkey
New member
mrplunkey
New member
So you're be for letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire? The ones that affect every single bracket?
mrplunkey
New member
That's a false choice. There's a plan C -- let the private sector do its job and provide employment and benefits for more people.
Here's what Barry & Co wrestle with: In order to create those jobs, they're going to have to let a few people get wealthy (or even more wealthy). Providers of capital create jobs when they see an opportunity to make money. If Barry wants to keep kicking capital providers in the shins, they're going to deploy that capital elsewhere.
OBAMA DID NOT CREATE THE CURRENT MESS THE ECONOMY IS IN and it took the previous administration eight years to create it, so why does everyone expect the new guy to fix it in less time than that?
As far as the private sector fixing it, lemme guess, you're an advocate of the Milton Friedman school of economy. Frankly, I believe if left to its own devices, the private sector will just be an absolutely greedy pig. A perfect epitome of "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It needs SOME neutral oversight. You need an impartial third party otherwise, I'm sorry, greed overcomes all. If money is your motivating factor, what motivation do you have for making sure other people have it? And really, if you are rich, you ARE motivated by money.
It's like asking a heroine addict to become a good pharmacist, let's be realistic here.
You know who are the worst tippers (i.e., you go to a restaurant, get a meal, tip the server)? Rich people, seriously. I never worked restaurant, but I've heard the same from numerous people who have. The best tippers are Joe Everyman. The rich are stingy bastards. Really, how the hell do you think they got that way? They only grease a wheel if it will eventually line their pocket. In other words, the motto of the rich is: "Fuck the other guy, I got mine, let him figure out how to get his." Trust me, that philosophy applies to EVERY aspect of their lives. They treat an employee worse than a rental car.
There are people in this world who do believe that the greatest way to achieve greatness is by helping another achieve their own greatness, first.
Anyway, 80 years or so ago I would have been a New Dealer, and I think Milton Freidman should have kept his opinions to himself.
digimon7068
New member
i'm self-employed, i have a bachelors degree, a masters degree and several professional certifications and, for the most part, i work 7 days a week...for 2010, my take home will be around $15-grand less than it was in 2009 and around $20-grand less than it was in 2008...that's life under the new world order.
however, i am not sitting idly by and watching my gross receipts languish in mediocrity...over the last 3 months, i've identified 80 attorneys in my geographic region (some that i've worked with and some that i haven't) that do divorce work, estate planning, employee theft work, etc. and, i've begun to reach out to them with a quarterly news letter dealing with valuation, forensic accounting and litigation support topics...i've also reached out to and established working relationships with a couple of larger firms in my area...as a result of my extra effort, i now have a book of projects that will probably carry me through the end of june and i have more stuff coming through the door on a weekly basis.
i guess what i'm trying to say is that we've all suffered as a result of this economic disaster...but, it's time to suck it up and get the frig back to work...the sooner you do, the sooner you can get back to your regular standard of living.
lol...
Ill put it this way...
If completely reforming the tax code (as you and I have discussed before) wasnt an option, and I was forced to chose between having all the tax cuts extended "for 2 years" (but lets be honest, chances are 2 years will become 6, then 10, etc) or letting them all expire, I'd go with the latter.
Letting them expire would allow me the flexibility to lower the brackets I felt should be lowered or using it as an excuse to go the reform route.
IMO thats the difference between a leader and a politician. Obama is definitely the latter.
digimon7068
New member
i kinda think that they ought to expire too...and i'm a conservative republican...but, we have a lot of responsibilities now in the middle east and they are damned expensive and they aren't gonna go away anytime soon...and we can't allow the chinese to continue to finance all of our efforts.
The rich are all over the map on tipping. You'll get one asshole who tips $5 on a $200 ticket, and then you'll get someone like Jerry Jones who walks into the bar at closing time, buys a round for the 20-30 stragglers who are still there, pays with his Amex and then palms the bartender a $100 bill.
The worst tippers are school teachers and Blaques. Even the Black waiters don't want to wait on Black customers, they're bossy and high-maintenance and don't tip. The best tippers are other restaurant/bar workers.
The rest of your post is 100% accurate. Business must be rode hard with a heavy-handed regulatory environment or else the only people who benefit will be mgmt and stockholders. They would gladly go back to Pre-WWI work conditions if they could get away with it.
THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are fucking jobs out there
go to Lowes or Home Depot and STFU
Absolutely!
Look at these happy taxpayers:
Choose your response:
A) That would depend on why that particular group is angry.
B) Stop posting up pictures of my parties. I promise that I'll invite you next time.
Perhaps it would be wise to pull out of the ME while the entitlements are trimmed down?
There's a game I saw around here that talked about that premise.
I don't speak Spanish...
mrplunkey
New member
That's because Milton Friedman was correct.
So let me get this straight. We can't trust the private sector because their greed and lust for power corrupts them. So instead we'll entrust that power to 435 representatives + 100 senators + a president and VP = 537 people. Does that really make sense to you? That's about $27 billion of annual GDP per politician. I think I'll take my chances with the private sector.
Kinda like if you're a witch, you worship the devil and eat little children. Both comments are equally uninformed. Guess what? Some people love what they do and happen to make a lot of money doing it.
Really? Because I'll bet if you correlate the quality of service to the tip amount, or even the attractiveness of the server to the tip amount, you'll find a much stronger correlation.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say: "Hard work, talent, access to capital and luck." But it's also been said: "The harder I work, the luckier I become."
What a horrible outlook on life and capitalism. If you really believe this, why wouldn't you live in an egalitarian place where you wouldn't suffer under such as system?
mrplunkey
New member
I choose (C): Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.
javaguru
Banned
Not my fault you didn't develop job skills over your lifetime.
javaguru
Banned
Henry Morgenthau..FDR's Treasury Secretary and brilliant economist...
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."
Keynes has been weighed, measured and fallen short...
Buying $500.00 hammers and paying someone to dig a hole and fill it in doesn't create "real" economic growth.
At the beginning of our "Great Depression" England took the opposite approach of Roosevelt. The liberals were thrown out and the conservatives implemented austerity measures...unemployment returned to normal levels within two years.
On a side note....People call Bush stupid...FDR was a solid C student in college.
redshirt27se
New member
It was a compromise. The far left is acting like a bunch of bitches cause they didn't get their way. When you hate on bi-partisanship, it's called extremism.
I'm not sure that either side really appreciates it. Both have some form of government control and manipulation that can skew the results one way or the other.
javaguru
Banned
The level of government control is the important variable. I support regulations that prevent the free market from poisoning people as part of the judicial system but big government not only destroys wealth but individual freedom. Likewise, the welfare state destroys the human spirit through dependence.
mrplunkey
New member
I bet 80% of the American public doesn't understand that concept.
It's about quality of jobs, not quantity of jobs. And you're only going to get quality jobs from rich employers.
Indeed, this is the kind of compromise that politics is made of.
Agree about extremism. I don't think this is quite a "Read My Lips: No New Taxes" moment though. Those people who dumped on Bush41 were real extremists.
kx250rider
New member
The punishment for success is that the more you make, the higher your percentage is. That's the punishment (aka butt rape). In other words, a flat tax is what would be fair, as I don't consider taxation itself unfair or punishing at all. A person who figures out how to make a strong income, should be rewarded by a lower tax rate, if anything. That would encourage MORE people to work HARDER; not encourage people to work to a certain point, and then realize they're about to be raped, and back off the efforts.
Here's an example of how this "tax the rich" is backfiring: Let's suppose somebody is in a situation where they run a small business, and are making just below the alternative-minimum tax ceiling (where you're not allowed to take any deductions; medical, or writeoffs of any kind)... I forget what that level is, but say $1 million. So that person right now, will spend all kinds of money on improving the business, hiring more people, and buying new equipment since the cost will offset taxable income. Do you think anyone is going to do that spending and hiring, if they will be out not only their spent money, but also be out $600,000 or so in taxes? NO. They'll spend as little as possible, and be SURE to make just under whatever that cutoff of death taxable income level is. And that can mean trashing products (literally), or just shutting down the business for a few weeks or months to be sure not to earn that extra dollar of death.
If we had a flat tax, THAT would be true fairness and equality.
And next time anyone complains about the cost of gas, just know that there are capped oil wells capable of producing plenty of extra crude, and they're capped because their lessees can't "afford" to sell any more oil that year. And that trickles down too, in a bad way. Those oil fields are all tied up in leaseholds, and the land owners are sitting and waiting for royalties that don't come when the wells are capped, and there goes another snowball of money not moving. I'd write a book about the inside truth of all this, but I'd be murdered.
Charles
kx250rider
New member
It's already been proven by members of the Left and the Right, that a 10% flat tax would nearly triple the federal income tax revenue taken in. It would increase the amount paid by the wealthiest (NOT Obama's idea of "wealthiest" who include McDonalds' managers in some states, but those with 7-figure incomes). It would reduce the amount paid by the upper-middle income people who run small and medium businesses. It would put all the accountants out of work, and it would reduce the need for the IRS work force by about 90%, so that's probably the true reason that flat tax isn't on the table.
Charles
thats a probably a bigger part of it than people realize. Theres an entire industry centered around tax services that so many jobs, public and private, would be lost if the whole nation had a flat tax.
Welfare as anything other than a temporary leg-up must die.
I'd like to see a source for these numbers.
The last estimate I saw was in the mid-1990s, at the rate of Gov't spending in place at that time it would have taken a 25% flat tax to achieve revenue parity. Today it would be worse.
I think you are fucking hallucinating if you think that a 10% flat tax would result in revenue parity, much less an increase.
javaguru
Banned
The "fair tax", one proposal that gives a rebate every year equal to estimated basic living expenses needs to be at 23% to generate the amount of revenue taken under the current tax system.
digimon7068
New member
we can't...and we won't...fiscally-speaking it's obviously the right thing to do, but we have created a responsibility for ourselves in the middle east, and now we have to live with it...we walk away? God help us all...there's a lot of extremists in that part of the world and right now they're busy dealing with us over there...we leave now? we'll be dealing with them, over here...it really is that simple. and in that scenario, money (or lack-there-of) won't matter.
Ever hear of the declare success and move on? I think that moving out of that region would be feasible without too much attacking over here.
The main reason for this theory is because I surmise that new bloodshed (ie accidental killings and what not by US soldiers) help fuel the flames over there. If you stop that, then it's them vs them.
digimon7068
New member
and therein lies the diplomatic can-o-worms...it will be vicious genocide that will make darfur look like a nice vacation spot...and we'll take all of the blame from the finger-wagging world...it's ok and intelligent to cut your losses and move on with your life's work when your business is failing or your sitting at a craps table in vegas...but to walk away from a situation where we have upset the balance of power in a whole region and we know that we are the only thing that is keeping it from turning into a decades long bloodbath? i guess i just don't see it happening like that. it's not that i disagree with you...i just don't see us going cold turkey on the situation...it sucks, but i kinda have a feeling we're gonna be living there for a while.
First, I totally agree and don't see the soldiers leaving the area anytime soon regardless of what anyone says on here.
Second, I think that people will die either way if soldiers stay or leave. I think that the US will be blamed either way for those people dying if the soldiers stay or leave.
However, leaving would prevent incurring new debt and allow those soldiers to live (ie go home and see their families). Ideally, the leaving would also allow the region to work itself out (unlikely but a hope).
I totally agree that it's a calculated risk.
That's exactly what we should do. If the situation deteriorates drastically after we're gone, let the rest of the UN and international community deal with it, the ones who weren't on board when we first went over there.
mrplunkey
New member
It's hard to argue with that logic.
1) Nation-building costs us too many lives and money. I can see doing it on a case-by-case basis under extenuating circumstances, but there's a lot of evidence that suggests it's incredibly hard.
2) The people we're trying to protect (the Afghan government) are corrupt. We shouldn't die to keep corrupt regimes in power.
3) We haven't received adequate help from other countries (both NATO and middle-east neighbors).
4) We're broke. And when you're broke, everything has to get cut.
digimon7068
New member
hell...it's christmas time, let santa claus and the baby jesus deal with it...there's probably a better chance of that happening than the u.n./international community scenario
sorry...i couldn't help myself
hell...it's christmas time, let santa claus and the baby jesus deal with it...there's probably a better chance of that happening than the u.n./international community scenario
sorry...i couldn't help myself
This is probably true. But that's a necessary transition if we're to resign our position as World Cops.
I really wish that someone would go in front of the UN and say "guys, seriously...what do you do?"hell...it's christmas time, let santa claus and the baby jesus deal with it...there's probably a better chance of that happening than the u.n./international community scenario
b0und
New member
Exactly right. The Iraq war was a waste of lives, money and time from the beginning. The Afghanistan war has become a quagmire, same shit just deeper.
Those trillions of dollars spent on these futile wars would come in handy now.
b0und (how many trillions? Lost count)
mrplunkey
New member
I personally think that the futile wars are somehow the root cause of the financial collapse.
When Bush enacted it, it was a tax cut. That tax cut was designed to expire, so repealing that expiration amounts to extending a tax cut.
b0und
New member
As for tax cuts:
If you adjust/reduce the brackets for lower and middle income earners, ie 15k - 80k, then you will automatically boost consumption, savings and your whole economy.
As 75th pointed out the top 1% have been getting a bigger and bigger share of the wealth while reducing their relative tax contribution.
Time for re-adjustment, start taxing income millionaires more, tax people between 15-80k less. Cut down on long term ss benefits gradually to prod people back into the workforce, 75% s/s or benefits of what you would earn is way too much.
And cut wasteful military and intelligence spending on all these contractors.
b0und (2 cents)
If you adjust/reduce the brackets for lower and middle income earners, ie 15k - 80k, then you will automatically boost consumption, savings and your whole economy.
As 75th pointed out the top 1% have been getting a bigger and bigger share of the wealth while reducing their relative tax contribution.
Time for re-adjustment, start taxing income millionaires more, tax people between 15-80k less. Cut down on long term ss benefits gradually to prod people back into the workforce, 75% s/s or benefits of what you would earn is way too much.
And cut wasteful military and intelligence spending on all these contractors.
b0und (2 cents)
javaguru
Banned
The banking collapse was inevitable. I did my law school thesis in banking law and I remember the professor stating after Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal,"There will be a major banking collapse in the next twenty years.
I did my thesis on the S&L Crisis and the banks were doing the same things in the 1980's.
mrplunkey
New member
Maybe he means the workforce that got shipped overseas due to high taxes, ridiculous regulation and pointless torts.
But who knows, maybe raising taxes, increasing regulation and continuing to protect trial lawyers will lure those jobs back. I personally wouldn't bet on it.
b0und
New member
The workforce that will be needed when the jobs from middle class and lower income tax cuts are created. More money in the economy - more demand for services, more jobs.
A billion dollar tax cut will create a lot more jobs when it is spread out amongst a million people rather than given to one rich guy.
Don't be all doom and gloom about all the jobs being lost forever to China, etc. Most people in China would still rather work/live in the US or under US conditions.
b0und (2.5 cents)
javaguru
Banned
The United States job growth numbers, almost a year after the recession officially ended, aren't keeping up with the number of 18 year old workers entering the workforce.
Labor costs are only 10% of U.S.-China price differential.
IndustryWeek : First Up: The Wrong Path
mrplunkey
New member
And that will happen when "rich" guys invest in plants, property and equipment. That's not happening right now.
The top 1% already pay over 1/3 of all taxes and the top 20% pay over 80%. We've shifted plenty of the load onto job creators already.
That's a plan for how we can get jobs back. We'll ship all our wealth over there, then they can buy nice homes here and relocate.
mrplunkey
New member
Holy hell. I watched a JG video!
That one was really good.
If Michael Moore had learned back then, think of all the misery that could have been saved.
kx250rider
New member
This may be a chicken vs. egg debate at this point, but the fact is that the IRS was originally formed as a special TEMPORARY fund for the efforts of World War I, and was to be abolished after the war. President Woodrow Wilson is the original liar on taxes. Guess what: We're now 92 years past the end of WWI, and the IRS has grown like a fungus in an a basement in New Orleans in the summertime. Since Wilson started it, no president has done a thing to fix it. The Dems try to worsen it, and the Reps try to lessen it.
And on the subject of "temporary" taxes, how about the CA State temporary tax for the rebuilding of San Francisco after the 1903 (or whatever year) quake & fire? Jeez: I knew that building permits in CA are a bitch, but I didn't know it took 107 years to get something rebuilt!
As long as Wilson's "temporary" income tax means pushing 100 years, let's be fair and have Bush's cut push a century as well
Charles
javaguru
Banned
It was as inevitable as the tide!
Similar threads
