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.
No, the rich also get the tax cuts... below the threshold.
Then you're NOT replicating the tax conditions of the 1990s you so desire to reinstate. Won't work. It's not enough. MOST of the income is earned by those who earn below $250K. Only a very small percentage is earned by those who earn over $250K. Increasing tax revenue by only a very little will logically only make a very little difference.
You're advocating on a purely emotional basis: "tax the rich," instead of a logical basis: increase taxes on everyone, including those who earn the majority of the income (those below $250K).
For what? Contract the economy more? Is it your believe that during the depression that we should have shrunk the money supply more? The cure for lack of demand is even less demand and unemployment?
That's exactly why taxes shouldn't be raised on anyone. See the luxury tax of 1990 and the devastating economic consequences that wrought.
Then you're NOT replicating the tax conditions of the 1990s you so desire to reinstate.
I'm replicating tax conditions of 1993-2000, except for capital gains.
Quote:
MOST of the income is earned by those who earn below $250K. Only a very small percentage is earned by those who earn over $250K. Increasing tax revenue by only a very little will logically only make a very little difference.
Then, there should be nothing to worry about, like your worry with luxury tax of 1990.
Quote:
You're advocating on a purely emotional basis: "tax the rich," instead of a logical basis: increase taxes on everyone, including those who earn the majority of the income (those below $250K).
Actually, mine is logical, yours is not. Count how many times I've mentioned that EVERYBODY gets tax cuts below $250K, but you keep babbling... but the rich. Did I not tell you, they will too... below $250K?
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 11-19-2012 at 02:55 PM..
The congressional republicans should acquiesce immediately on the marginal tax increase on the top earners. Let Obama and the Dems own the consequences, good or bad. Continuing to fight it only gives the Dems an excuse for future economic shortcomings.
That's exactly why taxes shouldn't be raised on anyone. See the luxury tax of 1990 and the devastating economic consequences that wrought.
I already debunked the financial shell game.
I'll stick with the classical economic theory that luxury taxes are a tax option which is consistent with my other refutation that product produced by the middle class must also be consumed by the middle class to file under a middle class benefit. Financial benefits do not qualify.
Taking it to the extreme, in a 1100 person civilization 1000 people building a palace for the emperor who are compensated with wages that will allow them to purchase from a market produced by 100 remaining people making middle class product means the entire middle class of 1000 has 1/10 the buying power of the emperor. That is not a healthy middle class of producers. Producers who by and large can afford to consume their own product are an essential metric. Yacht building flunks for lauding it as a middle class benefit. Its an upper class benefit.
I'm replicating tax conditions of 1993-2000, except for capital gains.
No, you're not. The Bush tax cuts would have to expire for EVERYONE for that to be true, not just for those who earn more than $250K.
Quote:
Actually, mine is logical, yours is not. Count how many times I've mentioned that EVERYBODY gets tax cuts below $250K, but you keep babbling... but the rich. Did I not tell you, they will too... below $250K?
That's an irrational and emotional "tax the rich" response. A logical response would be to have the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone. Most of the income is earned by those who earn less $250K.
I'll stick with the classical economic theory that luxury taxes are a tax option which is consistent with my other refutation that product produced by the middle class must also be consumed by the middle class to file under a middle class benefit. Financial benefits do not qualify.
Taking it to the extreme, in a 1100 person civilization 1000 people building a palace for the emperor who are compensated with wages that will allow them to purchase from a market produced by 100 remaining people making middle class product means the entire middle class of 1000 has 1/10 the buying power of the emperor. That is not a healthy middle class of producers. Producers who by and large can afford to consume their own product are an essential metric. Yacht building flunks for lauding it as a middle class benefit. Its an upper class benefit.
And yet look at what happened to the economy in that region when the yacht building industry tanked because of the luxury tax. The middle class was severely negatively impacted.
No, you're not. The Bush tax cuts would have to expire for EVERYONE for that to be true, not just for those who earn more than $250K.
Correct. I am for it. But I'm also being realistic that it won't be the preferred approach by many and chances of it being a two-stepped process exists.
Quote:
That's an irrational and emotional "tax the rich" response. A logical response would be to have the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone. Most of the income is earned by those who earn less $250K.
If you so desire to be logical, let us establish a baseline:
1- Define income.
2- Produce numbers so we can investigate how tax cuts, or elimination of, affect an individual/household within various income groups.
3- If most impact of the tax cuts is on incomes under $250K, then keeping it but letting it expire for incomes above $250K would not have a significant impact. Agreed? If you wish to flip on the "conservative" tune that Bush tax cuts mostly benefited people making less than $250K, please do so now. Or, I will have to move forward accordingly.
And yet look at what happened to the economy in that region when the yacht building industry tanked because of the luxury tax. The middle class was severely negatively impacted.
Why do you keep ignoring my statement? Why don't you just give me money and see how much better off I will be? I have rejected financial compensation as a metric since those producers don't make product most people can use. They are paid money which will chase goods they don't produce. Unless the wealthy in this case are giving a middle class product as compensation then those funds are drawing from the goods and services of everyone else. If a fat prince gives money to build a yacht and pays the builders to buy product then all it does is inflate the money supply since the fat prince does not make anything, charging access fee to his royal lands. If we made inventors into the filthy rich then it would be a viable economic loop. However we make dirt bags rich in this country with a few exceptions who actually make a product.
And look what happens when the wealthy pretend to have a financial crisis(which they created) and shut down the economy of the middle class.
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.
