RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs?

RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs?

Yes

20% (5)

80% (20)

Total Votes : 25

(last vote on : 4/13/2012 3:38:10 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

Hillwilliam -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 8:15:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead However when the goods are manufactured out of the country, that doesn't do the American jobs market any favours, does it? They have to hire another stocker at WalMart.

Moonhead -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 8:44:42 AM)
Not necessarily. WalMart has a pretty bad rep for overworking its staff, does it not? (Besides, if they hadn't outsourced the manufacturing, that'd be a lot more jobs than just an extra shelf stacker or two if they're really selling a shitload of cheap Chinese tat for a grotesque markup...)

SoftBonds -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 9:33:27 AM)
(quick reply, not to moonhead) You know, I realized I made a mistake with my poll. How many of the no votes are "No reduction in taxes for the rich for any reason," and how many are "What do you mean the rich should have to do anything to get tax breaks?" Oh well, too late to change it now...

DomKen -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 9:46:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Not necessarily. WalMart has a pretty bad rep for overworking its staff, does it not? (Besides, if they hadn't outsourced the manufacturing, that'd be a lot more jobs than just an extra shelf stacker or two if they're really selling a shitload of cheap Chinese tat for a grotesque markup...) That's why I said 2 instead of 3, which is the number that used to be used to describe the knock on effects of middle class spending.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 9:47:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs. How many US jobs has the average person created? We are not talking about the average person. I keep hearing folks here and elsewhere saying "the rich create jobs," but without backup. This would not only give the backup, but make sure the tax cuts go to the people who are actually creating jobs. If you are trying to defend tax cuts for derivatives traders or corporations that move jobs to China, by all means do so directly. Otherwise please tell me what you think of the plan as written. The bolded section above makes the claim that you won't extend the Bush tax cuts to anyone who hasn't created US jobs. Your words. Not mine. Now, if you can't see how that addresses your plan as written, well, we have other things to chat about.

SoftBonds -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 9:51:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs. How many US jobs has the average person created? We are not talking about the average person. I keep hearing folks here and elsewhere saying "the rich create jobs," but without backup. This would not only give the backup, but make sure the tax cuts go to the people who are actually creating jobs. If you are trying to defend tax cuts for derivatives traders or corporations that move jobs to China, by all means do so directly. Otherwise please tell me what you think of the plan as written. The bolded section above makes the claim that you won't extend the Bush tax cuts to anyone who hasn't created US jobs. Your words. Not mine. Now, if you can't see how that addresses your plan as written, well, we have other things to chat about. OK, I was not sufficiently specific. My plan would take the tax cuts in capital gains for the very rich, and redirect those tax cuts only to the very rich whose investments support US jobs. Now how do you feel about that idea? Revenue neutral, just making the rich prove that they are supporting US jobs. If they are getting capital gains for layoffs, off-shoring jobs, or investment vehicles such as derivatives, they don't get the tax break. If they are getting capital gains by having stock in companies that hire people in the US, they get a tax break. Or to be extremely clear, if tax cuts spur investment in jobs, is there a problem with making people prove it?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 9:52:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Here's a thought. How about 100% inheritance tax. You earned your fortune, no question. But your KIDS? There's no reason they should become fat and lazy exploiting YOUR productivity or good luck? Is there any more ANTI-CAPITALIST idea than "inherited wealth?" They need to prove themselves by competing on their own merits, not living off of your achievements. Go re-read Atlas Shrugged if you need a primer. Dynastic Wealth if for losers. Notice how none of the important players in Atlas Shrugged actually procreate? None. That's because any real objectivist knows that kids are for losers, because all they do consume resources without any productivity of their own. Wow. So, what you are saying now, is that you made your money, if you don't spend it before you die, you have no say over what happens to your property. Nice. Are you going to shitcan all your Apple products since Jobs is no longer with us? I mean, it was his company, was it not?

SoftBonds -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 9:59:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Here's a thought. How about 100% inheritance tax. You earned your fortune, no question. But your KIDS? There's no reason they should become fat and lazy exploiting YOUR productivity or good luck? Is there any more ANTI-CAPITALIST idea than "inherited wealth?" They need to prove themselves by competing on their own merits, not living off of your achievements. Go re-read Atlas Shrugged if you need a primer. Dynastic Wealth if for losers. Notice how none of the important players in Atlas Shrugged actually procreate? None. That's because any real objectivist knows that kids are for losers, because all they do consume resources without any productivity of their own. Wow. So, what you are saying now, is that you made your money, if you don't spend it before you die, you have no say over what happens to your property. Nice. Are you going to shitcan all your Apple products since Jobs is no longer with us? I mean, it was his company, was it not? Actually, I had an interesting thought on how to "fix," the inheritance tax. First off, the idea that an inheritance tax is a bad tax hasn't ever made sense to me, I mean, of all the times to complain about a tax, the deathbed seems like a weird one. And for someone to whine that "Daddy made all that money, and I'm entitled to it," doesn't sound that great either. But I do agree with the "family farm," argument. If a business has been in the family, the inheritance tax shouldn't force the family to sell. That said, most republican proposals don't do anything to fix that. So here is my proposal. Deferred gain. When ownership or partial ownership of a business is given or passed by inheritance, the person who receives the ownership has a basis equal to the amount of non-taxable inheritance (which is over a million dollars btw). If they hold on to it, no harm, no foul. If they sell it, they pay taxes on the difference between what they get and the basis, at the inheritance tax rate! As long as you don't sell the family farm, you never pay taxes. If you sell, you pay the taxes you deferred. Simple, right? Course, it would never be passed, cause it would make life hard for sons of riches.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 10:03:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs. How many US jobs has the average person created? How many jobs have the 1% created in America, rather than (say) China and India? It always strikes me as funny when you see claims that the plutocracy shouldn't be paying taxes because they create employment, despite the fact that they've spent most of the last forty years moving employment out of your country as thoroughly as they can. Doesn't matter, Moonhead. According to SoftBonds, the only people getting the extension are those that created US jobs. I never said anything about who should or should not get the extensions. It was simply a question based on the criteria. But, since you brought it up, why did the "1%" move jobs outside the Country? Your answer will be something along the lines of greed, or profit-motive. My next question will be: How is moving jobs outside the US profit-friendly? Your answer will be something along the lines of sweat shops, shitty wages, no environmental regulations, etc. My response will verify that your response includes government regulations here that aren't there. My next question will ask why labor is cheaper over there. Okay, you're turn to respond. Go.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 10:06:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs. How many US jobs has the average person created? Assuming average income and wealth? Something like 2 from economic activity alone. You see when people spend money on goods and services they create demand for those goods and services which is supplied by other people working at jobs. Well, that means that even the 1% will get their Bush Tax Cut extensions.

truckinslave -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 10:22:34 AM)
This is so depressing. There are more ideas (good, bad; I don't care: ideas) here than have come out of DC in 10 years. The nation is doomed.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 10:25:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs. How many US jobs has the average person created? We are not talking about the average person. I keep hearing folks here and elsewhere saying "the rich create jobs," but without backup. This would not only give the backup, but make sure the tax cuts go to the people who are actually creating jobs. If you are trying to defend tax cuts for derivatives traders or corporations that move jobs to China, by all means do so directly. Otherwise please tell me what you think of the plan as written. The bolded section above makes the claim that you won't extend the Bush tax cuts to anyone who hasn't created US jobs. Your words. Not mine. Now, if you can't see how that addresses your plan as written, well, we have other things to chat about. OK, I was not sufficiently specific. My plan would take the tax cuts in capital gains for the very rich, and redirect those tax cuts only to the very rich whose investments support US jobs. Now how do you feel about that idea? Before you respond to my answer, hear my reasoning out. I disagree with your idea. Why? Because I think the Bush Tax Cuts should expire. All of them. Not some partisan shit ass rhetoric. If the Bush Tax Cuts were bad, let 'em expire. The only reason it's only "the rich" that are being singled out is for partisan election bullshit. quote: Revenue neutral, just making the rich prove that they are supporting US jobs. If they are getting capital gains for layoffs, off-shoring jobs, or investment vehicles such as derivatives, they don't get the tax break. If they are getting capital gains by having stock in companies that hire people in the US, they get a tax break. Your argument is that tax cuts don't create jobs or that the tax cuts for the rich are helping to drive our deficits. How can you support something that is revenue neutral under those criteria? quote: Or to be extremely clear, if tax cuts spur investment in jobs, is there a problem with making people prove it? More partisan bullshit. If tax breaks are good, keep 'em. If they aren't let them expire. Not for this group or that, but for everyone. If you let the "non rich" keep theirs, all you're doing is creating yet another carve-out, aka loophole. Oddly enough, I am all for closing all the loopholes, except for the ones that allow charities to not pay taxes. I'm for my not being able to claim charitable tax donations as deductions. I'm for raising the income ceiling on SSI tax to infinity (unless it is repealed). I'm for all these things as part of a plan to lower tax rates, or to move from an income tax to a consumption tax. As the National debt drops, the tax rates continue to lower accordingly. A sound financial plan to reduce the debt completely while also balancing the spending ability of citizens is what is needed. Part of the overall debt plan also has to include repealing SSI or to moving it to a dedicated - and untouchable - trust solely and specifically for SSI. Federal Spending has to be slashed drastically while tax rates have to be lower gradually. Eventually, we'll find that "sweet spot" where the overall tax rates are low and match our spending needs (which need to be based on an Original Intent interpretation of the US Constitution).

Moonhead -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 10:38:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Not necessarily. WalMart has a pretty bad rep for overworking its staff, does it not? (Besides, if they hadn't outsourced the manufacturing, that'd be a lot more jobs than just an extra shelf stacker or two if they're really selling a shitload of cheap Chinese tat for a grotesque markup...) That's why I said 2 instead of 3, which is the number that used to be used to describe the knock on effects of middle class spending. You're probably being too generous there: it might not even be a whole employee each shitload of shit if you're sticking to the service industries alone. That was why I took issue with Hill's point in the first place.

Moonhead -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 10:41:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The only reason it's only "the rich" that are being singled out is for partisan election bullshit. Nothing to do with the fact that "the rich" broke the global economy back in '08 and set this recession that's got everybody bitching in the first place, then?

SoftBonds -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 10:41:19 AM)
DS, I think you'd like Scott Adams' (Dilbert cartoonist) idea for fixing the national debt/deficit. Freeze spending at current levels, and let inflation fix the problem. Kinda elegant when you think about it. Of course, that means SSI decreases since the same amount of money has to pay for more people. Medicare age would have to go up, etc. But it would certainly chip away at military spending...

farglebargle -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 10:53:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Here's a thought. How about 100% inheritance tax. You earned your fortune, no question. But your KIDS? There's no reason they should become fat and lazy exploiting YOUR productivity or good luck? Is there any more ANTI-CAPITALIST idea than "inherited wealth?" They need to prove themselves by competing on their own merits, not living off of your achievements. Go re-read Atlas Shrugged if you need a primer. Dynastic Wealth if for losers. Notice how none of the important players in Atlas Shrugged actually procreate? None. That's because any real objectivist knows that kids are for losers, because all they do consume resources without any productivity of their own. Wow. So, what you are saying now, is that you made your money, if you don't spend it before you die, you have no say over what happens to your property. Nice. If you look closely, you'll see that those "Dollars" in your hand are the property of the US Treasury and you're just the temporary bearer.

DomKen -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 10:54:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs. How many US jobs has the average person created? Assuming average income and wealth? Something like 2 from economic activity alone. You see when people spend money on goods and services they create demand for those goods and services which is supplied by other people working at jobs. Well, that means that even the 1% will get their Bush Tax Cut extensions. I never said anything about the Bush era tax cuts. My opinion is that we should: end the Bush tax cuts, immediately end the cap gains tax and treat all capital gains as simple income, return to a top marginal rate of 40%, end all tax breaks for moving jobs or capital overseas, actually enforce our own trade laws and rigorously pursue unfair trade complaints at the WTO, gradually cut defence spending by at least 60%, institute Medicare for all and return the inheritance tax to the pre Reagan standard.

DomKen -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 10:58:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Not necessarily. WalMart has a pretty bad rep for overworking its staff, does it not? (Besides, if they hadn't outsourced the manufacturing, that'd be a lot more jobs than just an extra shelf stacker or two if they're really selling a shitload of cheap Chinese tat for a grotesque markup...) That's why I said 2 instead of 3, which is the number that used to be used to describe the knock on effects of middle class spending. You're probably being too generous there: it might not even be a whole employee each shitload of shit if you're sticking to the service industries alone. That was why I took issue with Hill's point in the first place. First there is still some manufacturing done in the US and secondly our economy relies on lots and lots of good paying service sector jobs. It's not just the stocker at wallie world.

Lucylastic -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 11:12:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: The Bush tax cuts were extended recently, but are still temporary. I'd like to propose that if they are extended again, the cuts only apply to folks who actually create US jobs. How many US jobs has the average person created? How many jobs have the "rich" sliced out of their companies to save money only to relay the "savings" to the shareholders and management. Just in the last four years 9 million and more jobs were cut. How many average people had a hand in that?

Moonhead -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/5/2012 11:18:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen First there is still some manufacturing done in the US and secondly our economy relies on lots and lots of good paying service sector jobs. It's not just the stocker at wallie world. I'm not saying that there isn't any manufacturing left over there. On the other hand, that tends to be more prestigious and expensive brands that people mostly don't buy, and it's pretty inarguable that the bulk of goods sold in the 'States are manufactured elsewhere. (I'd also question that there are lots and lots of good paying service sector jobs. A few management positions have a pretty decent starting rate, while a lot more pay the same sort of godawful wages for absurd hours that have Barbara Ehrenreich writing angry and caustic books. That's a whole other debate, though.)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.046875