Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
And why would a company do that? Because that company would like to stay alive and not be bought off by foreign companies teeming new growth, investment and demand.
|
You seem to be under the impression that I'm blaming them for being profitable. I'm not, they
should try to maximize profits, that is their job, and I never said or implied otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Yeah, and you still see a stagnant or declining GDP. Do you think your GDP would be growing substaintially if you had higher revenues as a percentage of GDP?
|
A stagnant or declining GDP after 50+ years of a steady decline in corporate taxes would not support your argument. So what you're saying is, it hasn't worked so far, so let's double down on it?
In general I favor small government and low taxes, but the argument that the economy is suffering because corporate taxes are too high is not backed up evidence. And for the time being, with a national debt/GDP ratio of ~102% and a yearly deficit of ~$800 billion I think it would be foolish to lower taxes.
As a famous Republican president (or a ******* socialist in modern GOP speak) once said "We cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income, until we have in sight a program of expenditure that shows that the factors of income and outgo will be balanced."
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Hopefully you're not counting on taxing the rich and think that's going to be passed on to you through the Federal bureaucracy...
|
Did I say anything about taxing the rich? There seems to be a pattern emerging here: you creating straw men to argue against. It seems you couldn't find anything I actually wrote to argue against, so you started inventing things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
And the economy as a whole has been slightly growing, stagnant or declining since then. Maybe you ought to think about that a second before you think increasing their taxes is going to increase the ability for them to stave off being bought out or just going straight to bankruptcy do not pass go.
|
So the economy has been struggling since taxes decreased to ~15% of GDP (actually it tanked a couple years earlier at about 17-18% of GDP). So you're arguing that we should reduce taxes, since the economy has struggled since we reduced taxes? Or are you saying that reducing taxes from 17-18% of GDP to 15% didn't help, so we should reduce taxes? More bizarro logic.
We can't just keep reducing taxes hoping it will get the economy going. There is that pesky little national debt thing. I thought Republicans were worried about that. Oh yeah, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Sure they do. The fact that you don't see that there are more than 314 million people on planet Earth is troubling. While you think US companies are hoarding cash from your pocket, you're spending large sums off (borrowed) money to buy goods from them. But you're not spending anywhere near the amount the other 6.6 billion people on planet Earth are spending and they're not just buying US goods. In fact they're buying more goods from companies that are not US which fills the coffers of those companies who then look to buyout competition.
|
I'm not spending any borrowed money to buy goods from them. You must have hacked into the wrong credit card account, I have no credit card balance. "You think the US companies are hoarding cash from your pocket." Yet another straw man. I have neither said nor implied any such thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Maybe you should think about that before subvert the ability of those US companies to keep afloat and keep, at the bare minimum, the R&D departments in the US. Make no mistake, if they weren't piling up cash you'd be hearing about "record" numbers of US companies being bought out by foreign investors and you may or may not get to keep your job depending on if they even think having any part of the company in the US as profitable enough.
|
Now I'm trying to subvert the ability of US corporations to stay afloat? Jesus Christ. Stop with the straw men. If you want to create straw men to argue with, create another account here and argue with your troll account, leave my name out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Uh, the "working" class spent money it didn't have and it just barely kept the economy afloat. Now you're seeing a faltering economy because the "working" class has to pay off that debt.
|
Right. That's what I said. Glad we're finally on the same page on something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
So let's clear all this up. You don't think there's enough demand for US goods because it's workers are paid well enough? So, why not just raise the rate of pay for all US workers? That'll make US produced goods more profitable, right?
|
Hey look, more straw men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
No, it won't. Not in your fantasy land or any other *******s either.
You've had a progressive tax rate since the beginning of the income tax. Face it, the people won't outright vote for socialism so by covert means you wish to impose it on them.
That's very democratic of you...
|
Democratic? Wrong. Socialist? Extremely wrong. More straw men. I'm a conservative independent that leans Libertarian, in 2012 I voted for Gary Johnson. You know, a real conservative, not a GOP basket case that thinks that science is "a lie straight from the pit of hell," and that the government should play world police and tell people who they're allowed to marry.
Of course, in the child-like minds of modern GOP sycophants, you either repeat the same dogma as us or you're against us. Are none of the neocons capable of thinking for themselves?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
People aren't going to be spending more money because their 401k has risen. Do you not understand that a 401k is a lifelong investment plan with penalties for removing it early?
|
They're not spending money
from their 401k genius. They're spending more of their income
because their 401k is doing better. Or because their house's value has gone up, making them feel more secure and better off.
It's hilarious that you think that I don't know anything about economics and you don't even know what the wealth effect is. Let's say you have $800k in your 401k and your retirement target is $1.5 million. Your 401k increases in value to $1.1 million and you still have 10 years to go until your retirement date. You are going to feel more financially secure and better off because you're closer to your target, and as a result you might lighten up a bit on saving and spend some more. You might take a trip to Yosemite or buy a new car.
The opposite happens in a recession or market crash. Your 401k loses 40% of its value so you rein in your spending a little, pay down some debts, and start saving more.
Here's one economist who thinks the wealth effect could boost GDP growth by about 0.7% in 2013:
What to watch: Will rising wealth effect lift GDP?
The joys of arguing with neocons.
Neocon: 2+2= 5.
EugeneOnegin: Not it doesn't, it equals 4.
Neocon: Your a socilist who hates 'merica, stoopid Obummer luving *******
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.
