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.
Nope. The job market is flat because you, Mr. Worker have done a fabulous job of being incredibly efficient both through your own industriousness and automation so we only need one of you to do the job three people did 30 years ago. And a lot of low skill manufacturing has been offshored because that middle class lifestyle of yours requires a wage that cuts into corporate profits. Frankly you should be making a much higher wage because of your increased efficiency, but we've found that it's more effective to create wealth for our largest shareholders through trading of shares and cost cutting than actually making or selling something beyond the minimum necessary. And just you wait until 75% of your job tasks are replaced by a robot... We'll we can probably pay you half what you make now because there will be 10 other people in your same shoes just happy to compete for what few jobs are out there.
And I only get taxed at 15% for that investment income. What motivation is there to put that money back into the company. Sure, wages and operating expenses are deductible, but why bother when I can get that 15% down to less than 10% by donating a lot of that income into my non-profit organization and other less on the board means.
No one is going to not try to make a profit because of higher income tax rates. In fact, rates higher than the our would likely spur investment and new job creation. It's not as if Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, etc... aren't turning out millionaires these days.
First, people absolutely factor in the costs and risks when deciding whether an investment is worth pursuing. Second, the idea that higher tax rates would spur investment is just plain gibberish. Even progressives that want higher tax rates don't claim that. Even they wanted to delay tax increases until the recession wasn't so bad. Third, the nations you mention have lower capital gains tax rates than the United States does so that runs directly counter to your argument.
First, people absolutely factor in the costs and risks when deciding whether an investment is worth pursuing. Second, the idea that higher tax rates would spur investment is just plain gibberish. Even progressives that want higher tax rates don't claim that. Even they wanted to delay tax increases until the recession wasn't so bad. Third, the nations you mention have lower capital gains tax rates than the United States does so that runs directly counter to your argument.
No actually higher tax rates would spur investment. Higher taxes means redistribution down to the lower classes, rather than reverse. Lower taxes on the rich means less investment. The rich don't invest in anything.. they stack cash in off-shore accounts and tax-exempt "charity" organizations.
No actually higher tax rates would spur investment. Higher taxes means redistribution down to the lower classes, rather than reverse. Lower taxes on the rich means less investment. The rich don't invest in anything.. they stack cash in off-shore accounts and tax-exempt "charity" organizations.
Sometimes I wonder if people believe their own garbage.
First, people absolutely factor in the costs and risks when deciding whether an investment is worth pursuing. Second, the idea that higher tax rates would spur investment is just plain gibberish. Even progressives that want higher tax rates don't claim that. Even they wanted to delay tax increases until the recession wasn't so bad. Third, the nations you mention have lower capital gains tax rates than the United States does so that runs directly counter to your argument.
The German Capital Gains Tax on financial instermants is at least 25%. And yes, higher tax rates do incentivise reinvestment. There is a moderate point of taxation that when crossed either direction causes either disinvestment or cash hoarding. We have crossed that point on the low end.
What liberals are really interested in are outcomes that are slightly better than the worst possible but not as good as they could be if it means individuals get credit for their own success instead of liberal do-gooders who continue to hold the strings.
Remember, FDR, in spite of his New Deal economic policies failing by every objective standard, and that with double-digit unemployment eight years in, had to die in office to lose the White House.
He didn't succeed at anything except making otherwise proud hardworking American dependent of the hand of government, but in the grand scheme, that was all that was needed to advance the cause of liberalism and build the party's brand.
This is a lesson not lost on today's Democrats who realize that rescuing impoverished and marginalized segments of society requires that a significant portion of the greater society continue to be poor and marginalized.
Knowing that there is no penalty for speaking out of both sides of their mouths, liberals, in the name of equal opportunity defend the failed public school system and oppose school vouchers while, at the same time, incentivize single motherhood and unemployment.
I am hopeful that one day the poor and disconnected elements of society will come to recognize the parasitic nature of their liberal rescuers, but I also realize that liberalism is a flea that has learned to breed dogs.
Spoken like someone whose family has never known poverty. Then WPA, CCC and other programs were lifesavers for millions of Americans and gave them to ability to ultimately join the ranks of the working and middle classes.
There was a time not to long ago where children ran around hungry in the streets. Grown men in the South died of malnutrition related diseases. And the unemployed weren't just jobless, they lived in tar paper shacks without plumbing in our cities. While our system has many faults to be fixed I'd hardly call it a an abject failure compared to what we had beforehand.
But don't you still have the moral problem of taking money away from people who strive more than those who do not? Obviously I'm not talking about inherited wealth. Although, you can even make that case for inherited wealth. Some people get family money and do nothing with it while others invest and make wise choices in their life and multiply their wealth. Why punish someone for striving to do better?
Why should you punish 99% of people for not being rich?
No actually higher tax rates would spur investment. Higher taxes means redistribution down to the lower classes, rather than reverse. Lower taxes on the rich means less investment. The rich don't invest in anything.. they stack cash in off-shore accounts and tax-exempt "charity" organizations.
Giving money to the government who then turns around to fund social programs is NOT investment unless you advocate moving away from capitalism.
So when you increas capital gains tax and people stop investing which creates jobs and those with wealth move to other countries who exactly is going to employee people?
WRONG!!! Increasing capital gains tax will not keep people from investing. It never has and never will. People invested when the capital gains tax was much higher than it is now.
"Never did anyone mention taxes as a reason to forgo an investment opportunity that I offered," Buffett said, noting that the top marginal tax rate from 1956 to 1969 was 70%.
Giving money to the government who then turns around to fund social programs is NOT investment unless you advocate moving away from capitalism.
Your logic is flawed.
Higher taxes on the wealthy means the government can be funded with less taxes on the lower and middle classes. Giving them a tax break helps the economy more than giving the 1% a tax break. The lower classes create demand through consumption.
As for capitalism, yes I advocate moving away from capitalism. We are on an unsustainable path to unfettered capitalism, which as always failed. European style "socialism" practiced in Canada, Australia, and Scandanavian countries has more vibrant middle classes, healthier economies, and happier populations.
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.
