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.
I am not too familiar with the tax code, but I am skeptical of the claim that income taxes can be redirected into capital investment at a zero percent tax liability.
However, the claim that lowering taxes on "job creators" will create jobs is just as bogus. Just take a cursory glance at the Bush administration who had the worse job growth record since WWII. Take a look at today's economic climate where taxes are still at all time lows among job creators, yet we have high unemployment.
In fact, after tax corporate profits are at their all time highest.
Any sane economist will tell you that the lack of jobs is due to a lack of demand, not because of high taxes. We have a demand problem, but people forget that demand often creates jobs, not supply.
No. 1 concern. Instead, the vast majority of small business owners believe weak demand is the primary problem for their business right now, not regulations. Just scroll down to Figure 1 on page 5. http://asbcouncil.org/sites/default/...NAL.pdf#page=3
Taxing the wealthy does not, in and of itself, create jobs. It does, however, free up funds to be used to improve the society as a whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
Any sane economist will tell you that the lack of jobs is due to a lack of demand, not because of high taxes. We have a demand problem, but people forget that demand often creates jobs, not supply.
In any real world scenario, yes, that is true. There are caveats, though.
Taxing the wealthy does not, in and of itself, create jobs. It does, however, free up funds to be used to improve the society as a whole.
One must define wealth. To quote Stiglitz, There is nothing wrong if someone who has invented the transistor or made some other technical breakthrough that is beneficial for all receives a large income. He deserves the money. But many of those in the financial sector got rich by economic manipulation, by deceptive and anti-competitive practices, by predatory lending. They took advantage of the poor and uninformed, as they made enormous amounts of money by preying upon these groups with predatory lending. They sold them costly mortgages and were hiding details of the fees in fine print. Inequality in the US: Interview with Economist Joseph Stiglitz - SPIEGEL ONLINE
While there is nothing wrong with creating wealth as you innovate to improve upon societal well-being, there is a problem with parasitic rent-seeking behavior which also creates wealth.
In fact, we just subsidized this parasitic wealth creation by bailing Wall St.
Quote:
In any real world scenario, yes, that is true. There are caveats, though.
Of course there are caveats, but what is your point?
That not everyone here would be awarf the subtleties if they weren't explicitly stated.
What subtleties? As people demand more goods and services, firms produce more goods and services. As firms produces more goods and services, what happens to unemployment?
It goes down.
There is nothing subtle about this.
This is the basic AE model, which is clearly straightforward. The subtleties lie within the multiplier effect, which I never even talked about or hinted of. But perhaps this is a conversation for another day.
The point is that it did not work for reagan or bush so what makes mitt think that it will work now? Giving the wealthy tax breaks never guaranteed that they would provide more jobs here, maybe overseas.
The point is that it did not work for reagan or bush so what makes mitt think that it will work now? Giving the wealthy tax breaks never guaranteed that they would provide more jobs here, maybe overseas.
Reagan went from an extremely high marginal tax rates to a low one. He was also blessed by Carter and Volcker who aggressively fought inflation by raising interests to all time highs. Therefore, the Fed had much more power in manipulating the economy when it lowered interest rates.
However, you are right. Giving the wealthy tax breaks to spur the economy is completely bogus. Only idiots and Republicans believe in this logic.
In fact, I still await (and urge) the rich and "disenfranchised" voters to start their own Galt's Gulch. After all, wouldn't they be better off in a society that doesn't leech off of them?
One of my liberal friends just sent me this. Thoughts? Rebuttals?
Let's say we set a 50% tax rate at the 1 million mark and a 90% tax rate at the five million mark, sound fair? Now do the math.
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.
