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.
"Rich" investors can create as many companies as they want, without a middle class able to buy their products and services their ideas are worth $0. Cutting taxes won't help, whether you cut them at the top or the middle or the bottom, as that just means more people buying more Chinese goods, and very few American jobs created except those at the top (import/export companies).
Now, if these "rich" investors are creating companies that create jobs via exports, then they can have all the tax-breaks they want for all I am concerned.
Oh, BTW, union dues are a small percentage of your pay check. Mine is 1.95%. Unions also are trying to keep the jobs in the States, albeit unsuccessfully. They may be "mean and corrupt" to a point but they are actually attempting to keep the jobs here. How much can the "rich" investors say that?
I never said that people were being forced. But it's obvious that people are being tricked. And you yourself brought up the reason why. It's because they're uninformed and not educated on how things really work. I'm simply interested in exploring other ways in which corporations have tricked people into doing things that work make it harder for them to find jobs.
And again, the victim mentality. People aren't being "tricked".
And again, the victim mentality. People aren't being "tricked".
I wouldn't say "tricked" either, but there are definitely still some snake oil salesmen out there that can mislead people who are ignorant. There, I said it. People are ignorant and they need to be educated. Sorry if that makes me an elitist. I took out loans for my education and if I knew then what I know now, that would have never happened. But I was a naive, ignorant, overly-ambitious 17 year old from a blue collar family. My parents did know how to help me, since they did not have experience with college or college financial aid plans. And the financial aid office sure as hell didn't help me. It happens. We are all, at times, victims of our own ignorance. It's true.
As far as the other poster's argument about a doctor not hiring anybody with his tax breaks, that is neither here nor there. A doctor's business isn't predicated on growth, typically. But if the government lessens his tax burden, the eventual benefit isn't solely increased employment. It's to keep the services that doctor provides affordable for his clients.
Just because that doctor didn't spend the savings he got from his tax break, doesn't mean the economy at large didn't benefit.
How do you know the doctor's services weren't affordable prior to the tax cut? How do you know he'll apply that tax cut to his practice? And if you're going to use the argument that tax cuts benefit the economy, how bout provided actual proof instead of saying "just because he didn't spend the money doesn't mean the economy didn't benefit." Congratulations. I can now apply that same argument to defend unemployment benefits. Just because the unemployed guy didn't spend the money he got from the government doesn't mean the economy at large didn't benefit.
As for tax breaks leading to a growing economy, history has already debunked that theory. There are 4 periods during which the economy was booming. FDR's first two terms, WWII, the post war period up through Eisenhower, and the Clinton years. When FDR came into office, he raised the top tax rate to 79%. The economy grew 58% from the time he took office til the start of the war. During WWII, the top tax rate was between 88 and 94%. During the post-war period from Truman and Eisenhower, the rate was between 81 and 92%. When Clinton took office, he raised the top rate from 31 to 37% and then to 39%. Do you notice the pattern? 3 out of 4 of America's highest growth periods were preceded by big tax hikes.
What's also true is that every time there was a big tax cut, the economy faltered. During World War I, the top marginal tax rate got up to 73%. In 1922, the rates were reduced to 56%, 46%, and finally down to 25% in 1925. Then in 1929, we got The Great Depression. Between 1936 to 1982, the top marginal tax rate was between 70 and 92%. Then Reagan cut it down to 50%. Then we got a recession. Then in 1987, the top rate went down to 38.5% followed by the crash of October 1987. George W. Bush comes into office and cuts the top marginal rate down to 35%. He also cuts capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes. Employment didn't grow much, median income went down, and the stock market was flat.
Ok, and where does startup funding for most small businesses come from?
The people running corporations are greedy. They want to make the most money possible, and it is impossible to make money without spending money, whether that be in an equity market (which will allow a person to borrow money for that small business) or directly in purchasing (which directly creates jobs)
The funding for small businesses comes from consumers. If I want to start a home improvement business, I apply for a loan at a bank. I'm not getting money from Merill Lynch. As for spending money to make money, why are corporations spending so much money on lobbyists instead of actually growing their business? I'll tell you why. Because they've figured out that it's easier to increase your profit margin by getting Congress to lower your taxes or create loopholes than, I don't know, actually trying to increase revenues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manderly6
And again, the victim mentality. People aren't being "tricked".
Yes, because when someone votes Republican after being told that person would create jobs only to have that same person give tax breaks to companies who outsource jobs, yeah he hasn't been tricked.
Yes, because when someone votes Republican after being told that person would create jobs only to have that same person give tax breaks to companies who outsource jobs, yeah he hasn't been tricked.
What is it called when someone votes Democrat for the same reason with the same result?
Yes, because when someone votes Republican after being told that person would create jobs only to have that same person give tax breaks to companies who outsource jobs, yeah he hasn't been tricked.
I'm not sure how this applies to your point of being "tricked" by corporate america in to doing things that make it harder to find work.
How do you know the doctor's services weren't affordable prior to the tax cut? How do you know he'll apply that tax cut to his practice? And if you're going to use the argument that tax cuts benefit the economy, how bout provided actual proof instead of saying "just because he didn't spend the money doesn't mean the economy didn't benefit." Congratulations. I can now apply that same argument to defend unemployment benefits. Just because the unemployed guy didn't spend the money he got from the government doesn't mean the economy at large didn't benefit.
As for tax breaks leading to a growing economy, history has already debunked that theory. There are 4 periods during which the economy was booming. FDR's first two terms, WWII, the post war period up through Eisenhower, and the Clinton years. When FDR came into office, he raised the top tax rate to 79%. The economy grew 58% from the time he took office til the start of the war. During WWII, the top tax rate was between 88 and 94%. During the post-war period from Truman and Eisenhower, the rate was between 81 and 92%. When Clinton took office, he raised the top rate from 31 to 37% and then to 39%. Do you notice the pattern? 3 out of 4 of America's highest growth periods were preceded by big tax hikes.
What's also true is that every time there was a big tax cut, the economy faltered. During World War I, the top marginal tax rate got up to 73%. In 1922, the rates were reduced to 56%, 46%, and finally down to 25% in 1925. Then in 1929, we got The Great Depression. Between 1936 to 1982, the top marginal tax rate was between 70 and 92%. Then Reagan cut it down to 50%. Then we got a recession. Then in 1987, the top rate went down to 38.5% followed by the crash of October 1987. George W. Bush comes into office and cuts the top marginal rate down to 35%. He also cuts capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes. Employment didn't grow much, median income went down, and the stock market was flat.
Folks, we have a celebrity in this forum. Welcome, Michael Moore.
Convenient that you mention WWII which we all know back then, the expression went 'nothing the economy needed more to get going than a good war'. Also, boom periods due to burgeoning industries like the automobile, or high-tech in the Clinton era (not to mention the benefits of Reaganomics), baby booms, other forces, however you cling to high taxes as being the sole reason the economy boomed in those periods. I repeat: simplistic.
Interesting also that you omitted the Reagan years when the US economy was booming.
As far as your UI argument, who ever said it was designed to stimulate the economy? UI is almost explicitly designed to help the unemployed individual get by until the next job. It is a social program, not an economic one.
Also, you're big on increasing the 'top tax rates'. I'm assuming you're not in this demographic. How about an increase to your taxes? See how that shoe fits.
The funding for small businesses comes from consumers. If I want to start a home improvement business, I apply for a loan at a bank. I'm not getting money from Merill Lynch. As for spending money to make money, why are corporations spending so much money on lobbyists instead of actually growing their business? I'll tell you why. Because they've figured out that it's easier to increase your profit margin by getting Congress to lower your taxes or create loopholes than, I don't know, actually trying to increase revenues.
Yes, because when someone votes Republican after being told that person would create jobs only to have that same person give tax breaks to companies who outsource jobs, yeah he hasn't been tricked.
And banks keep 10% of their assets liquid. What do you think is happening with the other 90%?
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.
