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.
IC, this is the second time you've posted a link that you obviously either didn't read or don't comprehend. From the section on Adam Smith:
Now what was it you claimed? Oh, yes....
Now you were saying about getting a clue?
This is why I asked you to actually RESEARCH what was posted on Wikipedia. It's plain to see that you did not.
Please educate yourself. Adam Smith on the counterproductivity of "a direct tax upon the wages of labour":
Quote:
A direct tax upon the wages of labour, therefore, though the laborer might perhaps pay it out of his hand, could not properly be said to be even advanced by him; at least if the demand for labour and the average price of provisions remained the same after the tax as before it. In all such cases, not only the tax, but something more than the tax, would in reality be advanced by the person who immediately employed him. The final payment would in different cases fall upon different persons. The rise which such a tax might occasion in the wages of manufacturing labour would be advanced by the master manufacturer, who would both be entitled and obliged to charge it, with a profit, upon the price of his goods. The final payment of this rise of wages, therefore, together with the additional profit of the master manufacturer, would fall upon the consumer.
Or, in today's terms... the end user/consumer always pays.
low income earner's money (a higher % of it) goes right into the economy by products and services. Since there are a lot of lower income workers, these policies help people in that group and because of it, directly inject money into the greater economy in relatively fast and real way.
low income earner's money (a higher % of it) goes right into the economy by products and services. Since there are a lot of lower income workers, these policies help people in that group and because of it, directly inject money into the greater economy in relatively fast and real way.
So... with low income earners' extremely low tax rates, the majority paying no federal income tax at all, and many even getting additional money from the federal government in the form of refundable tax credits, why do we still have a stagnant economy?
A dollar earned through investment is not earned through the investor's own work. They earn that dollar through the hard work of others who earn far less.
Don't give us any BS about how much "work" investing is. I know plenty of investors and they all think it's better than real jobs. Some even enjoy it.
So... with low income earners' extremely low tax rates, the majority paying no federal income tax at all, and many even getting additional money from the federal government in the form of refundable tax credits, why do we still have a stagnant economy?
Because despite that, they still don't have enough left over for extras. What do you want too do, give them even more?
FWIW - to Driller 1 and all the rest. I worked for over 60 years (counting my step father's amusement park), fought in a stupid war, managed to get a college education while working summers, and finally retired a couple of years ago on a good pension with great health insurance. I worked as hard as I had to because working any harder got more criticism than praise. I actually have a decent set of investments and own my house. I am living a frugal but satisfying life. I accomplished what I wanted not what the Greedsters said I should.
I still believe that all income, legal or not, from all sources should be counted and income above the 95th percentile taxed at a progressive rate varying form 20 to 85+%. Those that make the most money from the society should be taxed in proportion to the protection received. Those that cannot make enough to survive should be provided with food, shelter, clothing and enough income to develop some savings (present welfare systems prevent recipients from having savings accounts). All citizens should be educated to whatever level they find proper and there should be a government universal health insurance system with proper cost controls on the providers and drug companies. In addition there should be a Universal Draft to provide soldiers and workers for all foreign wars so the children of the elite are exposed to the same risks as the children of the poor in our Forever War.
Oh, as corporations are now considered people for political contribution purposes they should be taxed as individuals on all of their retained profits.
Class struggle is NOT BS. It has been going on since the beginning of time and has always favored the owners over the renters. I am always amazed that the 5% with 90% of the wealth can always out vote the 95% with comparatively nothing.
We need to restore some semblance of balance by heavily taxing the top 10% and letting the rest keep their wages to invest and spend in the rest of the economy. If that ever happened I might have more faith that we actually had a democracy instead of a greed driven Corprotocracy designed to make the wealthy wealthier at the cost of everyone else.
CLASS WARFARE IS REAL AND MOST OF US ARE LOSING!
"by heavily taxing the top 10%"
As usual you missed where that 10% ALREADY put in 90% of ALL taxes collected.
Couldn't this argument be reversed? Why should low earners' tax exemptions stay in place while high earners tax breaks are repealed? Isn't a dollar earned a dollar earned? If a person amasses more of those dollars through hard work and successful business and investment decisions, why should they be taxed more? Why penalize success? Why not penalize success at all levels if the end goal is to put more money in government coffers? Because that's ultimately what Liberals want, right? More money for government to spend on liberal programs. Fair's fair, right?
Just had this discussion with my GF. We are both fairly moderate, she votes red, I vote blue (I consider myself fiscally conservative, but don't buy into the rhetoric on either side. Both spend too much, and both are owned by corporate America. My vote is based on other issues, but I digress...)
The reason is that if that person amasses more dollars through hard work your argument would be valid. But in the case where corporations are amassing their wealth through paying lower wages, avoiding taxes, and (sometimes) being irresponsible citizens, then it is not the same. We were talking about how big box companies will not pay a working wage, and then actually CAUSE people to be low income, and still expect government handouts. She fought me on it, saying the poor should work harder, and make their own way, to which I agreed. But then we looked at HER job. She got laid off of her white collar job two years ago, totally reinvented herself, got hired at minimum wage (retail) and QUICKLY got herself up to a wage that would support her, in a regional managment position. Then her company decided that they needed to post higher quarterly earnings to impress investors, they cut back on the program that she grew, keeping her hours the same, but decreasing her ability to earn any money.
This happens all over the place. "Work harder" doesn't get it done.
Wal-Mart should not be getting tax breaks, while they underpay their employees, causing them to need gov't support to survive. ExxonMobil should not get to avoid taxes, and still rely on the gov't to maintain the very infrastructure (roads to move their oil, and to create demand for it) that makes them viable.
The other key point is that 40 years ago, a single income bread-winner could live a modest but liveable wage working retail, or doing unskilled work, if they just worked hard. That has changed. It hasn't changed because profits have gone away and they are sharing in the pain. It has gone away while during the same period, the rich are getting richer.
Also, to the OP, the "difference" is billions of dollars. The amount of corporate wellfair going toward the rich is staggering compared to that going to the poor. It's just that the rich have more influence, more ability to make more noise, and therefore are able to cry louder. follow the money, and you'll see they are getting WAY more handouts than the poor are.
One difference is, tax breaks generate money that is used for personal portfolios and pulls money out of the Economy, tax exemptions for lower income generate money that is spent on goods and services, thereby letting that money go into the Economy and participate in the Multiplier effect. Hey, isn't that letting people make the decision on how it is spent? Perhaps those aren't the people the Conserves are talking about when they cry the the people can spend it better than Govt.
Poor people don't count, because they are "losers" according to conservatives.
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.
