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.
Of course. But in Reagan/Romney-ville, employers get to externalize big chunks of their actual labor costs, forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for those instead of customers or stockholders. Sounds good to them.
Oh really? Is it the employer's fault when the workers choose to work less so they can keep their benefits? In your Marxist world I am sure it is:
In order to qualify for welfare, applicants can’t make more than the income cap. Many households benefiting from the wage hike would have earned their way to independence from the government, but for many the draw to extra free time and less effort outweighed the alternative. The purpose of the plan was to better their bank accounts, but the ramifications for everyone else outweighs the wage, specifically on employers and consumers.
Meanwhile, employers had no choice but to increase product and services prices, and consumers were stuck paying more for the same thing they used to pay less for, all to cover the higher wage imposed on business owners. As these increases occurred, some welfare-receiving employees’ efforts decreased, and employers were left with scheduling gaps while paying the workers the same. This should have been foreseen from the start, as the welfare mentality is a reality, and they didn’t earn that reputation of freeloading for no reason.
That's fair enough; however, Republicans predicted Clinton tax increases would destroy the economy, and the economy soared.
For starters, the Clinton Administration signed off on one of the largest tax cuts in history--the slashing of capital gains on investment about in half--from 28% / 20% short / long term to 15% / 10% short/long term. Whatever slight increases there were in marginal "earned" (wage) income were piddling in comparison. And the dot-com boom of the mid to late 1990s resulted.
Clinton, after his 1994 congressional drubbing, triangulated. He ditched most of his initial leftism. He sacked the most leftist of his advisers (does anybody remember the radical Ms. Achtenberg, Mr. Cisneros, Ms. Elders, Mr. Reich, Ms. Shalala? All of whom had to leave under clouds of scandal and disgust) and Billy Jeff put in pragmatic types like Robert Rubin as replacements.
In the end, although loathsome to many Conservatives on a personal level, Billy Jeff did a couple of downright Conservative acts: (1) welfare curtailment and reform, and (2) cutting the capital gains tax rates in half, from 28/20% short/long to 15/10%, fueling the investment boom of the mid to late 1990s. The Obamunists have undone both.
For starters, the Clinton Administration signed off on one of the largest tax cuts in history--the slashing of capital gains on investment about in half--from 28% / 20% short / long term to 15% / 10% short/long term. Whatever slight increases there were in marginal "earned" (wage) income were piddling in comparison. And the dot-com boom of the mid to late 1990s resulted.
Clinton, after his 1994 congressional drubbing, triangulated. He ditched most of his initial leftism. He sacked the most leftist of his advisers (does anybody remember the radical Ms. Achtenberg, Mr. Cisneros, Ms. Elders, Mr. Reich, Ms. Shalala? All of whom had to leave under clouds of scandal and disgust) and Billy Jeff put in pragmatic types like Robert Rubin as replacements.
In the end, although loathsome to many Conservatives on a personal level, Billy Jeff did a couple of downright Conservative acts: (1) welfare curtailment and reform, and (2) cutting the capital gains tax rates in half, from 28/20% short/long to 15/10%, fueling the investment boom of the mid to late 1990s. The Obamunists have undone both.
Now Hillary is proposing a huge increase in capital gains taxes for those with over $400K in earnings. She basically wants to tax capital gains like regular income, at 39% top marginal rate. It's a typical nonstarter tax-the-rich campaign promise--there's no way she'd get it passed by a Republican Congress--but it sounds good to the low information voters.
Even if she could ram through such a huge tax increase, there's a problem. When you raise capital gains taxes, you effectively discourage new investment, at least domestically. Since investment is usually in new or expanded plants and operations which means new or expanded jobs, your shiny new tax on the rich is actually killing new jobs, and that hits the middle class and the poor.
The likely result of Hillary's tax-the-rich scheme is that people with money to invest will put more of it into foreign investment and keep the money in foreign accounts rather than repatriate the proceeds. Investment will lag domestically except for the largest businesses that can afford the tax hit (and have the clout to get exceptions for specific cases). The stock market, which is based on investment, will decline, taking down millions of people's 401k and other retirement accounts, damaging the economy even while our Asian competitors are going gangbusters with easier access to capital.
It's like a bad dream, coming back to haunt us after we thought we'd woken up.
The second half of your post is completely wrong, and the first half of your post is why. The poverty doesn't have anything to do with environment or genetics, it's a simple structural labor surplus. If you have 50m jobs and 60m people, you'll have 10m unemployed. It doesn't matter if they're all brilliant athletic love-children of Adonis and Bill Gates, # People - # Jobs = # Unemployed. Likewise, if you have 10m decent jobs and 40m crappy min wage jobs, you'll have 40m min wage earners. Even if everyone on Earth has a MBA and a Ph.D., we still need janitors.
The scheme to fuel foreign investment to the detriment of domestic investment, jobs, and wages began with Reagan and has continued ever since.
Still, nothing says it won't get worse. The tax the rich scheme is good politics but she knows the reality. None of these things has no negative effects. The middle class always lose.
Yep. Bush, worried that Republicans were always viewed as the party that takes away the punch bowl when the party is getting good, spent like a drunken progressive.
For starters, the Clinton Administration signed off on one of the largest tax cuts in history...
The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, with the top rate hitting joint returns with incomes above $250,000 ($400,000 in 2012 dollars). In addition, it removed the cap on the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax, raised the corporate tax rate to 35% from 34%, increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits, and imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.
Yep. Bush, worried that Republicans were always viewed as the party that takes away the punch bowl when the party is getting good, spent like a drunken progressive.
LOL! He spent like someone driven to bankrupt the public sector so that safety net programs could never be paid for again. Shocking, huh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
Oh. And we were at war, too.
Learn what a war is.
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.
