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)
No
  80% (20)


Total Votes : 25
(last vote on : 4/13/2012 3:38:10 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message

DaddySatyr -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/10/2012 3:28:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

How about a consumption tax and a capital gains tax. Otherwise the rich can just sit on their money forever, never spend it, and never pay taxes...
"What is wrong with that?" Well, for one thing, it is really bad for the economy. Trading stocks, for example, doesn't do much to actually create jobs or goods or services. Plus the US government spends a huge amount of money on the corporations, making their products safe enough to trust for one thing. Someone on one of these threads pointed out that the US Navy maintains freedom of the seas, which doesn't do much for the average consumer (maybe Chinese stuff at walmart is slightly cheaper?) but which is a huge boon to the rich investors and corporations. Heck, I'd argue that these days the entire military is an expense that only benefits the rich. You think Canada's gonna invade us Aye?


Your idea that rich will "sit on their money" is kind of silly because as anyone that knows about creeping decimalism will tell you; the money needs to keep "moving" to make more money.

"Rich" people tend to buy newer cars, more frequently (more taxes under a consumption plan); they tend to buy more expensive houses (ditto); the truly rich do indeed employ gardeners, personal servants, personal shoppers, etc. which may not "create" jobs but it certainly keeps some people employed. All of those things would be taxable.

The consumption tax would absolutely "reward" people who are thrifty with their money by not taxing money that isn't spent but, it would also get the marginal members of society paying taxes on some of their ill-gotten gains (drug dealers, hookers, degenerate gamblers, etc.). It would bring more people and money into the taxation process, thereby making taxation a lot more fair than it currently is.

Let's think of it this way: A guy, working at Walmart makes minimum wage and pays 25%? a third, if he's not married, in taxes? How about if he only paid 15% of what he spent? Seems like a good break for him.

While people who were paying less taxes, before (the "rich" and truly rich who find loopholes and deductions under the current sca ... errr ... plan) and people who have never paid taxes (Dope dealers and people that work in "cash businesses") start paying their fair share.

Sounds like a win/win to me.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



DesideriScuri -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/10/2012 6:52:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds
How about a consumption tax and a capital gains tax. Otherwise the rich can just sit on their money forever, never spend it, and never pay taxes...
"What is wrong with that?" Well, for one thing, it is really bad for the economy. Trading stocks, for example, doesn't do much to actually create jobs or goods or services. Plus the US government spends a huge amount of money on the corporations, making their products safe enough to trust for one thing. Someone on one of these threads pointed out that the US Navy maintains freedom of the seas, which doesn't do much for the average consumer (maybe Chinese stuff at walmart is slightly cheaper?) but which is a huge boon to the rich investors and corporations. Heck, I'd argue that these days the entire military is an expense that only benefits the rich. You think Canada's gonna invade us Aye?

Your idea that rich will "sit on their money" is kind of silly because as anyone that knows about creeping decimalism will tell you; the money needs to keep "moving" to make more money.
"Rich" people tend to buy newer cars, more frequently (more taxes under a consumption plan); they tend to buy more expensive houses (ditto); the truly rich do indeed employ gardeners, personal servants, personal shoppers, etc. which may not "create" jobs but it certainly keeps some people employed. All of those things would be taxable.
The consumption tax would absolutely "reward" people who are thrifty with their money by not taxing money that isn't spent but, it would also get the marginal members of society paying taxes on some of their ill-gotten gains (drug dealers, hookers, degenerate gamblers, etc.). It would bring more people and money into the taxation process, thereby making taxation a lot more fair than it currently is.
Let's think of it this way: A guy, working at Walmart makes minimum wage and pays 25%? a third, if he's not married, in taxes? How about if he only paid 15% of what he spent? Seems like a good break for him.
While people who were paying less taxes, before (the "rich" and truly rich who find loopholes and deductions under the current sca ... errr ... plan) and people who have never paid taxes (Dope dealers and people that work in "cash businesses") start paying their fair share.
Sounds like a win/win to me.
Peace and comfort,
Michael


I quite like it when the rich sit on their money. When they actually "sit" on it (not literally), they earn nothing. Now, if they were to save it, or invest it, well, they get interest, but that money is used by others, for other investments. It is said quite nicely here.

Almost all the consumptive tax plans I've seen have pegged 17-23% as the rate, but have also eliminated all exemptions. I would have a very difficult time getting behind a plan that would tax currently exempt grocery items. Would the rich get a bigger break? Sure, but that's merely a function of their buying higher priced foods. As a % of income, they will get a smaller break.

You are absolutely correct in your analysis of "cash" businessmen would pay their share now, too.



erieangel -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/10/2012 8:16:19 AM)

A consumption tax hurts the poor far more than it would benefit anybody, actually.

In PA, only certain food items are taxed, but buy those food items on SNAP and you pay no tax. But SNAP only lasts the typical family about 2 weeks, after that they are using cash and so they will either have to do without those taxable food items or pay a tax they can't afford.

My income is so low, that even as single person I don't pay federal income taxes. And I work full time!! I don't buy a lot of stuff because I am saving for three things--new wiring and new plumbing and a vacation cruise. I figure with the money I am now not putting into car repairs I will have the money for the wiring next year, plumbing the year after unless I can get it done by redevelopment and the cruise is a good 5 years down the road. I did recently buy a new washing machine because mine had died. Under a consumption tax, the few items I do buy would be heavily taxed (in relation to my income).

A consumption tax, as well as the idea of a 'flat tax', would be regressive, punishing the poor and inhibiting their ability to participate in the economy more than ever.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/10/2012 2:06:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel
A consumption tax hurts the poor far more than it would benefit anybody, actually.
In PA, only certain food items are taxed, but buy those food items on SNAP and you pay no tax. But SNAP only lasts the typical family about 2 weeks, after that they are using cash and so they will either have to do without those taxable food items or pay a tax they can't afford.
My income is so low, that even as single person I don't pay federal income taxes. And I work full time!! I don't buy a lot of stuff because I am saving for three things--new wiring and new plumbing and a vacation cruise. I figure with the money I am now not putting into car repairs I will have the money for the wiring next year, plumbing the year after unless I can get it done by redevelopment and the cruise is a good 5 years down the road. I did recently buy a new washing machine because mine had died. Under a consumption tax, the few items I do buy would be heavily taxed (in relation to my income).
A consumption tax, as well as the idea of a 'flat tax', would be regressive, punishing the poor and inhibiting their ability to participate in the economy more than ever.


What items are taxable in PA? In OH, carbonated beverages and alcoholic beverages are taxable, but I think that's the only foodstuffs that are. Don't buy those things and you automatically pay no taxes on grocery items. Now, if you're paying for a cell phone and cable, and a host of other things and claim that your food bill is too high, well, that's a problem with priorities. And, don't take that to be a personal attack. I don't know your situation. Plus, I do my best to not make any of this personal.

A quick search turned up several states also including prescription medications as tax exempt.



Arturas -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/10/2012 6:11:02 PM)

This is so simple. So very simple. No spin needed. So, Let's look at the facts and you decide.

First There is no IRS lower tax rate for the rich. The IRS tax rate for everyone with an income over $379,150 dollars is 35%.

Second, when anyone mentions a 15 % tax rate for Mitt, for example, they are talking about his income excluding income derived from investments the Congress is certain benefits you and me in jobs, or the saving of jobs, or city and state bonds for making your city or state better. It's a carrot to push the "rich" into investing in us, or to put it another way, the more Mitt invests his money in us the less his tax rate.

Third, if you remove these tax breaks the amount collected will pay only one single day of the Governments daily spending. One day. While removing any incentive for the rich to live and invest their fortunes in America and you.

So, if you remove that carrot, do we benefit? You do the math. You decide.

I did. The math says this Obama plan is a political ploy to avoid running on his record and of course for votes without regard to the economy or your future job or your city or state.




SoftBonds -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/10/2012 7:03:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

This is so simple. So very simple. No spin needed. So, Let's look at the facts and you decide.

First There is no IRS lower tax rate for the rich. The IRS tax rate for everyone with an income over $379,150 dollars is 35%.

Second, when anyone mentions a 15 % tax rate for Mitt, for example, they are talking about his income excluding income derived from investments the Congress is certain benefits you and me in jobs, or the saving of jobs, or city and state bonds for making your city or state better. It's a carrot to push the "rich" into investing in us, or to put it another way, the more Mitt invests his money in us the less his tax rate.

Third, if you remove these tax breaks the amount collected will pay only one single day of the Governments daily spending. One day. While removing any incentive for the rich to live and invest their fortunes in America and you.

So, if you remove that carrot, do we benefit? You do the math. You decide.

I did. The math says this Obama plan is a political ploy to avoid running on his record and of course for votes without regard to the economy or your future job or your city or state.


Hmm, so $100 billion dollars a year is only a single day of the government's daily spending (the Bush tax cuts have cost about $1 Trillion in revenues over the past 10 years)? Wow, we really are overspending... I thought our budget was closer to 3 Trillion than 36.5 Trillion.
As for the 15% capital gains rate, you make a lot of assumptions about what "investments," qualify. A little while back I sold some ownership in a Canadian limited partnership trust thingy (loved the company, never understood their form of ownership). I paid more in taxes that year than I made in a pretty good job all year. I paid 16% (altmin, plus paid a little extra for my earned income).
So how many US jobs do you think my Canadian mining company created? Did it make my city or state better?
Of course, if the tax break was somehow tied to creation of US jobs, then you would have a point.
As for Muni bonds, they are 100% federal tax free, I am pretty sure you know that. I wasn't proposing any changes to that, nor were they affected in any way by the Bush tax cuts.



Edwynn -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/10/2012 7:32:34 PM)

quote:

So, if you remove that carrot, do we benefit? You do the math. You decide.

I did.


Congratulations on your math skills. This 1 + 1 = 3.7 math says high income individuals and companies hire employees in lock step with however much tax break bestowed upon them. More tax breaks? Good. Make more product, hire more people. We don't know or care how much of it will actually sell, we don't need to do silly things like market research studies anymore, -'we got us one of them economy booster tax breaks, Ethyl!' Private equity firm? Sure, 'we thought this particular venture we looked into was kind of "iffy" before, so we chose not to invest, but now that we got us a tax break it looks real safe now, yeah buddy!' And at home, we can hire another one or two maids, maybe even get us a driver. Woo hoo! I never knew I was so dang patriotic until I got this here tax break!


The math which has it that 1 + 1 = 2, and other reality and the businesses themselves reveal that regardless of the amount of funds in hand, investment is made if the company feels strongly enough that an attractive return might be obtained sufficient to make the risk worthwhile, and that alone determines whether the investment is made or not. BTW, economic investment means putting money into land, plant, machines, or offices and phones and computers for services, and the employees for all the above. Private investing in after market stocks, bonds, etc. does nothing for new businesses or employment.

There are piles of cash sitting idle at this time waiting on companies and high-level investors to put it into action. It doesn't matter if the money came from tax breaks or prior earnings, idle cash is idle cash.

Another reality is that after two significant tax reductions and significant deregulation to 'unburden' the financial sector over 8 million jobs were lost, companies went out of business, state and local governments are pinned to the wall, thousands of schools were closed and shuttered permanently, the economy went in the tank, and the deficit is higher than ever, so much for the Laffer curve ...

This is what is referred to as "empirical evidence," the bane of those cockamamie hard right political blogs laughingly calling themselves 'econ' blogs.





Hippiekinkster -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/10/2012 8:20:39 PM)

Instead of Trickle Down Prosperity, the right created Trickle Down Stupidity. There's no other explanation for the morons who got laid off, lost their houses, racked up so much med debt that they had to go Chapter 11, and STILL think that somehow, some way, bribing corporations and the very rich with tax breaks and credits and subsidies and welfare is going to help THEM.

Some of that stupidity has made an appearance on this very thread! The fact that, according to the IRS, the rich and the corporations have cheated the rest of us out of ≈$370 BILLION [B][U]ANNUALLY (going by 2006 stats) evidently means the rich and the corps pay TOO MUCH!

So what do the economic geniuses of the Church of St. Wrinklemeat propose? Consumption taxes! Because if the rich pay less tax, they'll buy more cars and houses! And hire a gardener! (probably illegal) Fuck, there's a Nobel in Economics waiting to be picked up for THAT flash of brilliance. Meanwhile, the stupid bastards are going full-steam ahead with their plans to reform government a la the TeaBagger solution: buy more guns!

Never underestimate the ability of the descendents of Scots-Irish inbred drunken peasants to respond to adversity in the Modern World in the most bizarrely sociopathic paranoid way possible: buy guns, meth, and lottery tickets!



Arturas -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/13/2012 1:10:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

So, if you remove that carrot, do we benefit? You do the math. You decide.

I did.


Congratulations on your math skills. This 1 + 1 = 3.7 math says high income individuals and companies hire employees in lock step with however much tax break bestowed upon them. More tax breaks? Good. Make more product, hire more people. We don't know or care how much of it will actually sell, we don't need to do silly things like market research studies anymore, -'we got us one of them economy booster tax breaks, Ethyl!' Private equity firm? Sure, 'we thought this particular venture we looked into was kind of "iffy" before, so we chose not to invest, but now that we got us a tax break it looks real safe now, yeah buddy!' And at home, we can hire another one or two maids, maybe even get us a driver. Woo hoo! I never knew I was so dang patriotic until I got this here tax break!


The math which has it that 1 + 1 = 2, and other reality and the businesses themselves reveal that regardless of the amount of funds in hand, investment is made if the company feels strongly enough that an attractive return might be obtained sufficient to make the risk worthwhile, and that alone determines whether the investment is made or not. BTW, economic investment means putting money into land, plant, machines, or offices and phones and computers for services, and the employees for all the above. Private investing in after market stocks, bonds, etc. does nothing for new businesses or employment.

There are piles of cash sitting idle at this time waiting on companies and high-level investors to put it into action. It doesn't matter if the money came from tax breaks or prior earnings, idle cash is idle cash.

Another reality is that after two significant tax reductions and significant deregulation to 'unburden' the financial sector over 8 million jobs were lost, companies went out of business, state and local governments are pinned to the wall, thousands of schools were closed and shuttered permanently, the economy went in the tank, and the deficit is higher than ever, so much for the Laffer curve ...

This is what is referred to as "empirical evidence," the bane of those cockamamie hard right political blogs laughingly calling themselves 'econ' blogs.






I'm not sure what you are talking about when you discuss "my math". I offered no math nor did I need to. I simply explained what the IRS tax rate is and then how Mitt has a "lessor tax rate" than a secretary and why the Congress did this. It is because they know what drives the economy and it is not taxes.

If you were in business, you would understand the tax code rewards risk taking in business and investments. So, Obama reversing this would punish the risk taker and the business and investment maker. It's no more complicated than this.

For you, let's take dividen income. Obama will take that from 15 percent to 40 percent. These dividens are largely used by retired Americans who earned this income from stock investments they took the risk to make and they did it partly because they know they would be rewared with a lower tax rate on that income. Their investments went into American companies and grew or kept jobs. So, to break the promise and raise the tax rate on these individuals dividen income would rob them, break a promise, and suppress future investment.

Just that simple. It's basic economics. It's the way we kept the jobs we have and the jobs we will get after November.


P.S. I'm not worried he will do this because Congress knows this is crap and only a talking point so he can look like he is "on the working mans side" for his class and gender warfare reelection strategy. So, this is also the last time I will even think about it. Rant on.



Edwynn -> RE: Would you support lower taxes for the rich ONLY if they can show they created US jobs? (4/13/2012 3:33:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
quote:

So, if you remove that carrot, do we benefit? You do the math. You decide.
I did.

Congratulations on your math skills.

I'm not sure what you are talking about when you discuss "my math". I offered no math nor did I need to.

The reference to your math is right there in your own quote of what you said, within my quote. It surprises me little that you cannot understand what you are saying, not many others can either. "You do the math. I did." Still not sure what I was talking about?
quote:

I simply explained what the IRS tax rate is ...

Your further comments regarding a 40% dividend (not "dividen") tax rate as if applying across the board indicate that you have no idea what "marginal tax rate" means, likely because you have no idea what "marginal" means in the economic or financial (ergo, tax) sense of the word. So your claiming to explain anything about "the IRS tax rate" is ... funny. This as likely result of reading various blogs who also have no idea what marginal tax rate means (of which there are many), along with other blogs (of which there are a great many) who have no clue about economics or economic (as opposed to financial) investment.

quote:

For you, let's take dividen income. Obama will take that from 15 percent to 40 percent.
More comedy.

quote:

These dividens are largely used by retired Americans who earned this income from stock investments they took the risk to make and they did it partly because they know they would be rewared with a lower tax rate on that income.

So, prior to 2003 nobody bought stocks for dividend earnings, then? All those decades, nobody making any financial investments for purpose of dividend income. Wow. I wonder what the assets of all those (many) mutual funds focusing on dividend income were before 2003- what, maybe a few hundred bucks apiece? BTW, if any noticeable number of new such mutual funds suddenly sprang up after 2003 I missed it, and I keep up with such things.
quote:

Just that simple. It's basic economics. It's the way we kept the jobs we have and the jobs we will get after November.

Just because simple is the only thing you understand does not mean economics or investment is 'simple,' other than in the sense that the sun revolves around the earth is 'simple.' Or in the way that after two tax cuts, losing 8+ million jobs means, for you, "It's the way we kept the jobs we have" is 'simple.'






Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875