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.
Better not vote Democratic guys if you want your jobs...LOL
Hard time debating the issue without making personal attacks? That shows a weak standing..
I go back to this thread to show you have no clue how taxes affect the rich..
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
Because you say?? Where are you getting this line that increasing taxes on the rich by 11.5% would cause unemployment to rise???
I bet you're one of the ones complaining about the lack of rising standards of living also!!
Hard time debating the issue without making personal attacks? That shows a weak standing..
I go back to this thread to show you have no clue how taxes affect the rich..
I bet you're one of the ones complaining about the lack of rising standards of living also!!
If you could even source one single iota of evidence that raising taxes costs jobs you might begin to build some crediblity????
Some of us here don't put up with B.S.....so deal with it.
If you could even source one single iota of evidence that raising taxes costs jobs you might begin to build some crediblity????
Some of us here don't put up with B.S.....so deal with it.
ScoopThis.Org » High Unemployment Rates Tied to Democrat Controlled States and Higher State Taxes; States with Lower Rates Controlled by Republicans with Lower State Taxes (http://www.scoopthis.org/2008/09/high-unemployment-rates-tied-to-democrat-controlled-states-and-higher-state-taxes-states-with-lower-rates-controlled-by-republicans-with-lower-state-taxes/ - broken link)
Tax Rates and Unemployment Rates Show Negative Correlation (http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/tax_rates_unemployment_correlation.html - broken link) "The bottom line is, cuts in taxes lead to economic growth, which leads to improvements in the labor market to levels that are better than they otherwise would have been," said Mark J. Warshawsky, acting assistant Treasury secretary for economic policy.
The fact that anyone needs this explained to them is laughable. Here, let me speak slowly
1) Lower federal taxes = more money in peoples pockets
2) more money in peoples pockets
a) = more being spent
b) = more money to invest
3) more money being spent = people buy more
4) people buying more = more manufacturing, shipping and sales jobs
a) meaning more revenue for the states
b) higher federal revenue due to moe employment and export taxes
5) more money to invest means
a) more techology spurs
b) higher techology jobs
I bet you think it was just a coincidence that when Bush cut taxes, unemployment levels dropped, and when Congress raised minimum wage, they increased again..
The people that I know that most would consider rich, were rich under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and now Bush. When someone is wealthy, they know how to invest and whether they're taxed 25% of 65%, they will still be wealthy. They're good at managing money or at least they have talented money managers doing it for them. I'm old enough to know some people that were rich under Carter...and they're either still rich or their heirs inherited a sizeable sum of money. Don't worry about the rich going bust. There will always be wealthy people. Most of them are very resiliant and smart. This is how they got rich in the first place. Just look at Obama and Biden themselves. They're not worried about it and they'd be considered wealthy or at least at the very high level of upper middle class.
"When President Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993, the unemployment rate dropped, from 6.9 to 6.1 percent, and kept falling each of the next seven years. When President Bush cut taxes in 2001, the unemployment rate rose, from 4.7 to 5.8 percent, then drifted to 6 percent last year when taxes were cut again.
It has become conventional wisdom in Washington that rising tax burdens crush labor markets. Bush castigated his political opponents last week for "that old policy of tax and spend" that would be "the enemy of job creation."
""""Yet an examination of historical tax levels and unemployment rates reveals no obvious correlation.""""""
"The fact of the matter is, we have much higher rates of employment today than we did in 1954, but our level of taxation is considerably higher," said Gary Burtless, a labor economist at the Brookings Institution. "You simply can't look at total taxation to find employment levels."
More from your own link. ( Remind me to come to you whenever I need a source to embarass you)
some prominent conservative economists, including Harvard University's Martin S. Feldstein, predicted wrongly that the Clinton tax cuts would choke off the 1990s recovery and kill jobs, while the millions of new jobs that Bush said his $1.7 trillion in tax cuts would generate have not materialized.
Gosh nearly all of your link agrees that taxes don't have a damn thing to do with unemloyment.
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan again slashed taxes. Taxation fell from 19.6 percent of the economy that year to 17.4 percent in 1983. The unemployment rate, however, rose over that period, from 7.6 percent to 9.6 percent. By 1989, taxation had drifted upward again, to 18.3 percent of the economy, but unemployment had fallen to 5.3 percent
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.
