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.
Obviously not. But what if that'd been taxed on what they spent? Aha! No write-offs, no loop holes, straight up tax on spending. That will fix the revenue problem without killing off what's left of the middle class.
Yup. We poor and middle class folks are taxed so much, it should be a crime.
First you pay taxes on your income. Then, with your net incomes you pay taxes on your property. Then taxes on everything we buy with our taxed money. Then we are taxed when we used our tax funded highways in the form of "Tolls". We get taxed on Gas, cell phones, cable, electricity....all from the same folks who are taxing our income to begin with!
ALL this TAXING..and we still have a deficit in local, state and federal government?
I guess you folks know companies will push for massive lay-offs if Obama wins, huh?
More factories going overseas, corporate HQs moving overseas....
Consumers are the job creators. Taxes have nothing to do with hiring...it's 100% about demand. If lower taxes decreased the unemployment rate, we'd be close to full employment. You need to look at history and not talking points. Which economic group does the most consumption?
Consumers are the job creators. Taxes have nothing to do with hiring...it's 100% about demand. If lower taxes decreased the unemployment rate, we'd be close to full employment. You need to look at history and not talking points. Which economic group does the most consumption?
Exactly. They perpetuate this economic myth because it benefits them. Tax consumption, not income. Only then will the rich have to pay their fair share.
It's funny how some people believe that we should protect the big businesses and corporations because supposedly they create jobs, etc. When in a slow economy with low demand, there is no reason for them to create a job. Put more money into CONSUMERS so they can BUY goods and services - and let the people decide which companies/corporations to give their money to (i.e. survive in this tough economy).
This is TRUE capitalism from the ground up.
That's what the stimulus was also intended for. The bailout was just to help prevent a further economic disaster from becoming worse - in essence a band-aid fix.
We need a long-term fix in works now - close the gap between the ultra wealthy and the middle class.
During Clinton we experienced the longest economic boom in history.
Everytime the repubs try trickle down it hurts the economy and our jobs.
there is a chart out on wiki and some other places that lets you see
per president job creation.. its clear the dems create more jobs.
just look at the economic crash we are in right now. Creating billionaires
and choking the middle class into poverty does not help the economy
one bit. I think you knew all this though.
Your little graph shows clinton with a 200 Billion surplus, however the deficit increased every year he was in office. Can't have a surplus with the deficit increasing every year.
You also fail to note that his Fiscal responsibility started when his congress turned republican.
Hahaha! Boy! You're just flailing and frothing all over the place!!
YOUR BUSH lowered taxes for the rich....how's that unemployment rate going right now????? Lookin' good????
Please keep whining and crying all over the place...you make the repubs look like exactly what they are...spineless whining little cry babies afraid of their own shadows
bush lowered taxes on everyone.
People with minimal math skills mistakenly think that taxes for the rich were lowered to a greater extent. This is actually untrue, their taxes were lowered to a lesser extent, however if a person making 10K, and get's their taxes decreased by 5%, they only save $500. If a person making 200K get's their taxes reduced .5%, they save $1000.00, making it appear to those with lessor math skills that they received a larger percentage tax decrease.
However, those who understand math, can see that the person making less money, actually received a 4.5% larger tax break, but because they make less their actual savings appeared less.
Can ANYONE explain how higher taxes/burdens on companies will CREATE new jobs?
sure. Pardon my use of the term , "Kill jobs," it is the only language some people around here speak.
currently the tax code for businesses is very uneven. It says 35%, but after you plug in the myriad of deductions and such, the effective rate is 13%, and plenty of large firms pay 0%, while plenty of Joe Sixpack small businesses pay 35%.
the result is that you have a variety of corporations who don't pay any taxes. This gives them advantages over new competitors, creating artificial barriers to entry in those markets, driving down competition, and killing jobs.
Furthermore, the tax code encourages certain activities and discourages others, which directs capital into certain fields where the money is misallocated and lost, or else perpetually supported by the taxpayer, killing jobs. If you remove distortions on the tax code, people will invest wherever the demand actually is, rather than where the government tells them the supply ought to be.
As far as whether businesses should be taxed more or less vs. the individual -- business taxes, as a share of federal revenues, have been decreasing for decades, while we've been killing jobs. There seems to be little or no relationship between lowering business taxes and job growth. I suppose this is because:
a. the taxes have to come from somewhere, and
b. if they don't come from businesses, then they will come from the pockets of families and consumers, and that will drive down aggregate demand, which kills jobs.
People with minimal math skills mistakenly think that taxes for the rich were lowered to a greater extent. This is actually untrue, their taxes were lowered to a lesser extent, however if a person making 10K, and get's their taxes decreased by 5%, they only save $500. If a person making 200K get's their taxes reduced .5%, they save $1000.00, making it appear to those with lessor math skills that they received a larger percentage tax decrease.
However, those who understand math, can see that the person making less money, actually received a 4.5% larger tax break, but because they make less their actual savings appeared less.
No, it is true. Bush also lowered the capital gains rate, which benefits the ultrawealthy far more than the median wage earner.
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.
Absolutely inaccurate
