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.
Well then howcome when Reagan was president, the unemployment rate shrunk bigtime? What did he do to make that happen? Wasn't it trickle down economics? If it created a ton of jobs, then why do people say it was a failed theory? WTF?
Because the Bush economy (that we're still operating under) is trickle-down/tax cuts/deregulation on steroids. It ballooned on false prosperity from the housing bubble, but all those gains were wiped out and the economy crashed.
How's it been working over the past five-six years or so?
No, it does not make sense to tax the rich even more. What needs to happen is the removal of artificial stores of wealth. The big ones are real estate and da guberment debt. The rich can roll forward their wealth with little risk because they can purchase large stakes in sovereign, state obligations and real estate. These are all a creation of law such as the form of financing taken on by the state and the nature of property ownership and tax policy.
Stopping those hidy holes will force them to take more risk and hence add real value instead of the game of turtle that is rigged in such a way that they cannot lose.
Naturally my position, the correct one, is popular in neither major party.
I mean, the top 10% income earners pay a whopping 71% of the nation's taxes, while the bottom 50% earners pay NOTHING! And this problem of tax burden inequality is getting worse and worse. Before Obama took office, 45% of Americans paid no tax, now it's up to 50%! Does it really make sense to tax the rich even more? It is a complete lie when liberals say that the tax burden has fallen on the middle class, beacuse the facts just don't back that up. How can they say that when the bottom 50% pay NOTHING?! Why not have a flat, fair tax system instead? Let's say the tax rate is 20%. If you earn $30,000 a year, you pay $6,000 in tax. If you earn $1 million a year, you pay $200,000 in tax. It's simple and fair.
Did you know that 6.1 billion hours per year are spent on interpreting the tax code (by accountants) in America? (I am a tax accountant myself). The tax code is absolutely outrageously complex to the point where you know something is just wrong.
I think the corporate tax rate should be reduced to ZERO. That would immediately create 8 million jobs and bring our jobs back on American soil and leave China in the dust. This would create 8 million new taxpayers, which of course, increases revenue for the government. Isn't that common sense?
It makes sense to cut loopholes, not raise taxes.
If tax cuts mean growth, then why aren't we growing at the fastest rate ever? Taxes are lower now then they were under Bush or Clinton. Economy still sucks.
We need spending cuts, no ifs, ands, or buts about it, but extending tax cuts (without cuts to offset them), is spending under any other name.
I think the corporate tax rate should be reduced to ZERO. That would immediately create 8 million jobs and bring our jobs back on American soil and leave China in the dust. This would create 8 million new taxpayers, which of course, increases revenue for the government. Isn't that common sense?
News: jobs aren't being held down because corporations have to pay taxes. As it is, corporations are sitting with two trillion dollars on the sidelines. Do you thing they'd start hiring if they had $3 trillion on the sidelines?
Businesses aren't hiring for the simple reason that they already employ as many people as they need given current demand. Period.
Moreover, there is no evidence that corporate taxes are a drag on growth.
Spending cuts cause layoffs. How do more layoffs translate to more jobs?
Spending cuts do not mean layoffs. Sometimes, yes. Cuts in highway spending, for instance, would mean layoffs.
Cuts in food stamps, for instance, would not mean layoffs. Cuts in farm subsidies, would not mean layoffs. Cuts in defense may or may not mean layoffs.
No, it does not make sense to tax the rich even more. What needs to happen is the removal of artificial stores of wealth. The big ones are real estate and da guberment debt. The rich can roll forward their wealth with little risk because they can purchase large stakes in sovereign, state obligations and real estate. These are all a creation of law such as the form of financing taken on by the state and the nature of property ownership and tax policy.
Stopping those hidy holes will force them to take more risk and hence add real value instead of the game of turtle that is rigged in such a way that they cannot lose.
Naturally my position, the correct one, is popular in neither major party.
no, not at all, it is a great take. it would be very easy for the gobernment to wipe clear that ugly "hidy hole" debt overnight. screw those wall street bastards that have been feeding that the gobernment trough. Heck, their the one's screaming the loudest about the debt. just default, wipe the debt to zero and start fresh... or the uber wealthy could submit their wealth to a systematic financial hair cut until the debt is cleared. they're the ones that created the debt, time to fit it.
I would rather pay for what I need , than to be taxed into the poorhouse
Who would pay for everyone else's?
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.
