Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
<SNIP>
5. Or it boils down to preventing starvation and homelessness.
6. How exactly will cutting taxes help the unemployed, homeless and starving children?
<SNIP>
Taxing the "rich" removes money from the economy. Makes the "rich" people & corporations invest less money, hire fewer people, and fund fewer business opportunities.
You want to help the unemployed, homeless and starving children? Make it easier for businesses to hire and pay more employees. The middle & lower economic classes fare better in a robust healthy economy. Stifling economic growth & opportunity by penalizing it with more taxes just hurts everyone!
Taxing the "rich" removes money from the economy. Makes the "rich" people & corporations invest less money, hire fewer people, and fund fewer business opportunities.
You want to help the unemployed, homeless and starving children? Make it easier for businesses to hire and pay more employees. The middle & lower economic classes fare better in a robust healthy economy. Stifling economic growth & opportunity by penalizing it with more taxes just hurts everyone!
Didn't we have an experiment based upon that theory between 2001 and 2009? Taxes on the upper income were lowered based upon the theory that you described. What was the result? An increase in the gains at the top and stagnant incomes for everyone else -- coupled with lack-luster job creation.
As Warren Buffett said in his NYT op-ed:
Quote:
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Conversely, in the 1990s with higher taxes, we had the largest increase in economic activity ever. That was when conservatives argued against raising taxes, claiming it would cause a recession. They couldn't have been more wrong.
Yes, dotcoms themselves went to ridiculous levels — but people weren’t borrowing vast amounts to buy them, so there wasn’t a deleveraging crisis when the bubble burst. It also didn't collapse the rest of the economy. Those 22 million jobs created under Clinton didn't disappear when dot coms fell.
But the point is that we don't have to feed the horses well just so the sparrows eventually get something to eat.
Didn't we have an experiment based upon that theory between 2001 and 2009? Taxes on the upper income were lowered based upon the theory that you described. What was the result? An increase in the gains at the top and stagnant incomes for everyone else -- coupled with lack-luster job creation.
As Warren Buffett said in his NYT op-ed:
Conversely, in the 1990s with higher taxes, we had the largest increase in economic activity ever. That was when conservatives argued against raising taxes, claiming it would cause a recession. They couldn't have been more wrong.
I suggest Mr. Buffett is being disingenuous. No one ever said that he or others would "throw a fit & refuse to invest." As he said, investors continue to make sensible investments. It's just that the higher tax on investment gains moves some investments from the "sensible" column over to the "not sensible" column. As sa result, less is invested in startups, research, and growth. It's a well known and widely accepted economic fact; the best way to limit any activity is to increase it's cost.
Taxing the "rich" removes money from the economy. Makes the "rich" people & corporations invest less money, hire fewer people, and fund fewer business opportunities.
You want to help the unemployed, homeless and starving children? Make it easier for businesses to hire and pay more employees. The middle & lower economic classes fare better in a robust healthy economy. Stifling economic growth & opportunity by penalizing it with more taxes just hurts everyone!
Your plan would be watching people starve and suffer while we eliminate all taxation on the rich and wait for the trickle down effect? Or is there a taxation level that is perfect? Are we there now?
The concept that "taxing the rich removes money from the economy" is flawed. It does not. After the government collects their revenues they get spent. We don't run surpluses.
I don't support stifling or punitive taxation. But, given the vast and accelerating concentration of personal wealth at the upper stratum and the amount of cash resources that corporations are holding, where are the jobs that (in your theory) should be forthcoming?
I suggest Mr. Buffett is being disingenuous. No one ever said that he or others would "throw a fit & refuse to invest." As he said, investors continue to make sensible investments. It's just that the higher tax on investment gains moves some investments from the "sensible" column over to the "not sensible" column. As sa result, less is invested in startups, research, and growth. It's a well known and widely accepted economic fact; the best way to limit any activity is to increase it's cost.
To what motive is WB being disingenuous? Do you have data to support your contention that the recent raise in capital gains rate has impacted start ups, research and "growth". Let us not forget that there are vast differences between corporate taxation, personal earned income taxation and unearned income taxation.
A good investment doesn't become a bad investment because you only get to keep 80% of the profit incurred versus 85%. Consider if you had a profit of $100,000 at the end of 2012. You sell to avoid the capital gains increase, netting $85,000 after all is said and done. Had you held onto the equities and participated in the run up (appx 20% S&P) to $120,000 and took profits this year you would netted $96,000 at the current tax rate. This is what Buffet was talking about.
Often studies are commissioned with a "purpose" in mind and "reported" accordingly. Often they fail to take into account other factors that make their conclusions quite specious. Real research doesn't begin with a preordained conclusion.
Your plan would be watching people starve and suffer while we eliminate all taxation on the rich and wait for the trickle down effect? Or is there a taxation level that is perfect? Are we there now?
Sorry, but this is about the best country to be in if you're poor. Many people live quite comfortably thanks to the generous tax payers. There's no reason to starve in America with our social safety net. Matter of fact, we are among one of the most obese nation's.
The only people who seem to starve in great numbers are those with mental disorders without family support. They live on the streets in many cases, living in squalor and all together neglected. This seems quite acceptable treatment by our elected officials so long as you can't be counted on (en mass) to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
The concept that "taxing the rich removes money from the economy" is flawed. It does not. After the government collects their revenues they get spent. We don't run surpluses.
So you're suggesting we confiscate the wealth of the rich and spend it as you see fit? Didn't they try that in Russia at one point or another? How'd that work out exactly? But you are correct. The U.S. doesn't run surpluses. We spend about $1 for every $4 taken in. Nice to have the world's largest printing press, isn't it?
I don't necessarily believe the rich couldn't afford to pay more. I'm also not going to pretend the government taxing and spending is a more efficient means of "spreading the wealth". Attempting to replace the normal wage/labor exchange would be rubbing shoulders with communism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
I don't support stifling or punitive taxation. But, given the vast and accelerating concentration of personal wealth at the upper stratum and the amount of cash resources that corporations are holding, where are the jobs that (in your theory) should be forthcoming?
Doing business in America just isn't working out. Hence, America stagnates while Bangalore sees an influx of jobs annually. Maybe making life more difficult for the job creators will help? I understand what history tells us, but that history did not include intense global competition featuring countries with wage a fraction of ours.
Sorry, but this is about the best country to be in if you're poor. Many people live quite comfortably thanks to the generous tax payers. There's no reason to starve in America with our social safety net. Matter of fact, we are among one of the most obese nation's.
The only people who seem to starve in great numbers are those with mental disorders without family support. They live on the streets in many cases, living in squalor and all together neglected. This seems quite acceptable treatment by our elected officials so long as you can't be counted on (en mass) to vote.
So you're suggesting we confiscate the wealth of the rich and spend it as you see fit? Didn't they try that in Russia at one point or another? How'd that work out exactly? But you are correct. The U.S. doesn't run surpluses. We spend about $1 for every $4 taken in. Nice to have the world's largest printing press, isn't it?
I don't necessarily believe the rich couldn't afford to pay more. I'm also not going to pretend the government taxing and spending is a more efficient means of "spreading the wealth". Attempting to replace the normal wage/labor exchange would be rubbing shoulders with communism.
Doing business in America just isn't working out. Hence, America stagnates while Bangalore sees an influx of jobs annually. Maybe making life more difficult for the job creators will help? I understand what history tells us, but that history did not include intense global competition featuring countries with wage a fraction of ours.
It occurs to me that if I tried to respond to what you are posting, it would reinforce your complete misunderstanding of anything you just responded to. I don't see how anything you just posted follows from my words, when taken in context. Hence, no point in defending my words against your misinterpretation.
Seriously? I am suggesting we confiscate wealth? Commie implications? I am writing this off as a temporary case of poor comprehension.
Last edited by shaker281; 10-03-2013 at 04:54 AM..
Businesses hire people when they know they can make money off of the labor of that individual.
The idea that businesses have the ability to hire people and are not hiring them is absurd.
Businesses don't say "Well I hire this person at $12 (or X amount) and make $24 off their labor...but I'm going to wait and see what the politicians do.
That is just politicians being politicians and trying to manipulate the public.
The best thing for businesses is to have a thriving middle class that can purchase their products easily.
People living paycheck to paycheck can't do that.
That's why the attitude of screw the middle class is a very dangerous one. Paying 'lip service' to the middle class , but not actually caring is the same or worse.
The best thing we can do is provide the best possible environment for entrepreneurs and small business owners.
The "JOBS act" is supposed to help with this, but now it looks like it might just make things worse and add more redtape/bureaucracy!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
