Tax the rich

[glassgowkiss]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rep-john-fleming-field-criticism-over-600k-income-153305241.html

GOP argument is you can't tax "job creators". They had all sorts of tax brakes for the past 10 years in the form of bush era tax cuts- so wtf are these jobs? surely not here. so if with all the tax brakes they pretty much destroyed the economy what makes the teabaggers think they will start creating them now?

[rob]

that's because there weren't ENOUGH tax breaks

[JayB]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rep-john-fleming-field-criticism-over-600k-income-153305241.html

GOP argument is you can't tax "job creators". They had all sorts of tax brakes for the past 10 years in the form of bush era tax cuts- so wtf are these jobs? surely not here. so if with all the tax brakes they pretty much destroyed the economy what makes the teabaggers think they will start creating them now?

 

Thank god the "Smoke Crack and Worship Satan" autosig is back.

 

1. How did the tax breaks wreck the economy, in your opinion?

2. What qualifies as rich?

3. What percentage of the total tax burden should the rich bear relative to their income and the total tax burden?

 

Useful data:

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/graphics.cfm

[JayB]

[KaskadskyjKozak]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rep-john-fleming-field-criticism-over-600k-income-153305241.html

GOP argument is you can't tax "job creators". They had all sorts of tax brakes for the past 10 years in the form of bush era tax cuts- so wtf are these jobs? surely not here. so if with all the tax brakes they pretty much destroyed the economy what makes the teabaggers think they will start creating them now?

 

Thank god the "Smoke Crack and Worship Satan" autosig is back.

 

1. How did the tax breaks wreck the economy, in your opinion?

2. What qualifies as rich?

3. What percentage of the total tax burden should the rich bear relative to their income and the total tax burden?

 

Useful data:

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/graphics.cfm

 

If the upper marginal rate were only 39.6% instead of 35% then the economy would be so much better!

 

[j_b]

[video:youtube]v=RRl-AzugWSs

[ivan]

what makes the teabaggers think they will start creating them now?

doood, did you just put "teabagger" in the same sentence as "think?"

[G-spotter]

Better that we render them for their oil than tax them renewably?

[ivan]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rep-john-fleming-field-criticism-over-600k-income-153305241.html

GOP argument is you can't tax "job creators". They had all sorts of tax brakes for the past 10 years in the form of bush era tax cuts- so wtf are these jobs? surely not here. so if with all the tax brakes they pretty much destroyed the economy what makes the teabaggers think they will start creating them now?

 

Thank god the "Smoke Crack and Worship Satan" autosig is back.

 

1. How did the tax breaks wreck the economy, in your opinion?

2. What qualifies as rich?

3. What percentage of the total tax burden should the rich bear relative to their income and the total tax burden?

 

Useful data:

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/graphics.cfm

the basic question goes unanswered: if tax cuts lead to job creation, why did unemployment go in the crapper and stay there for 3 years despite no real change in taxes?

 

i'm hardly an economic historian, but it seems like big tax cuts did go hand-in-hand with an orgy of real-estate speculation which did eventual resulted in the meltdown of '08 that still hasn't worked itself out today.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rep-john-fleming-field-criticism-over-600k-income-153305241.html

GOP argument is you can't tax "job creators". They had all sorts of tax brakes for the past 10 years in the form of bush era tax cuts- so wtf are these jobs? surely not here. so if with all the tax brakes they pretty much destroyed the economy what makes the teabaggers think they will start creating them now?

 

Thank god the "Smoke Crack and Worship Satan" autosig is back.

 

1. How did the tax breaks wreck the economy, in your opinion?

2. What qualifies as rich?

3. What percentage of the total tax burden should the rich bear relative to their income and the total tax burden?

 

Useful data:

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/graphics.cfm

the basic question goes unanswered: if tax cuts lead to job creation, why did unemployment go in the crapper and stay there for 3 years despite no real change in taxes?

 

i'm hardly an economic historian, but it seems like big tax cuts did go hand-in-hand with an orgy of real-estate speculation which did eventual resulted in the meltdown of '08 that still hasn't worked itself out today.

 

 

Democrats are now arguing that the stimulus spending helped stop a *worse* recession than we got.

 

You could make the same argument about the tax cuts.

 

[olyclimber]

'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'

[G-spotter]

When John Dillinger was asked why he robbed banks, he replied "Because that's where the money is".

[glassgowkiss]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rep-john-fleming-field-criticism-over-600k-income-153305241.html

GOP argument is you can't tax "job creators". They had all sorts of tax brakes for the past 10 years in the form of bush era tax cuts- so wtf are these jobs? surely not here. so if with all the tax brakes they pretty much destroyed the economy what makes the teabaggers think they will start creating them now?

 

Thank god the "Smoke Crack and Worship Satan" autosig is back.

 

1. How did the tax breaks wreck the economy, in your opinion?

2. What qualifies as rich?

3. What percentage of the total tax burden should the rich bear relative to their income and the total tax burden?

 

Useful data:

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/graphics.cfm

the basic question goes unanswered: if tax cuts lead to job creation, why did unemployment go in the crapper and stay there for 3 years despite no real change in taxes?

 

i'm hardly an economic historian, but it seems like big tax cuts did go hand-in-hand with an orgy of real-estate speculation which did eventual resulted in the meltdown of '08 that still hasn't worked itself out today.

 

 

Democrats are now arguing that the stimulus spending helped stop a *worse* recession than we got.

 

You could make the same argument about the tax cuts.

Democrats are on the same shit wagon, just look at the donations from the corporations: AT&T donated 3 mil to GOP and 2 mil to DNC in '08. The whole system of 2 party rule outlived itself about 40-50 years ago. My whole point is that the top earners are able to hide assets and earnings through numerous tax loop holes, same goes for private parties and for corporations. And I am sick and tired of hearing don't tax "job creators". while maybe they create jobs in India or China, they did rather piss job of creating them here. If corporations make billions of dollars a year, but don't pay any income tax (GE) i think there is something totally fuck here.

[Doug]

I know I won't get any detractors on the "maybe I'm not smart enough to understand this" position, but here goes: Are the proposed tax rate increases for personal income or for payroll and other taxes associated with owning and running a business? Seems to me if the former, the argument of taxing the job creators to the extent that they can't hire isn't a very strong argument. If I understand small and medium sized business, the proprietors income from that business is paid as if the owner was an employee, right?

 

If the latter, then I can certainly see the business (not the individual who owns is) is getting dinged possibly to the extent that hiring is off the table and shutting down may be their best option? So what's getting taxed more in this latest proposal; business, income or both?

[ivan]

millionaires make up something like 1% of the total population, yet 50% of the congress - i'm holding my breath on what decision them thare boys make

[JayB]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rep-john-fleming-field-criticism-over-600k-income-153305241.html

GOP argument is you can't tax "job creators". They had all sorts of tax brakes for the past 10 years in the form of bush era tax cuts- so wtf are these jobs? surely not here. so if with all the tax brakes they pretty much destroyed the economy what makes the teabaggers think they will start creating them now?

 

Thank god the "Smoke Crack and Worship Satan" autosig is back.

 

1. How did the tax breaks wreck the economy, in your opinion?

2. What qualifies as rich?

3. What percentage of the total tax burden should the rich bear relative to their income and the total tax burden?

 

Useful data:

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/graphics.cfm

the basic question goes unanswered: if tax cuts lead to job creation, why did unemployment go in the crapper and stay there for 3 years despite no real change in taxes?

 

i'm hardly an economic historian, but it seems like big tax cuts did go hand-in-hand with an orgy of real-estate speculation which did eventual resulted in the meltdown of '08 that still hasn't worked itself out today.

 

Distortions to the tax code were important, but don't overlook the significance of interest rate distortions. Interest rates are an extremely important factor in determining what kind of things people invest in.

 

When central banks drive the interest rate below it's natural level, it fools societies into thinking that they're richer than they actually are and they spend more on consumption goods than they would otherwise, instead of investing it in something productive.

 

An interest-rate distortion fueled borrowing binge that goes into financing a bunch of McMansions, luxury condos, SUV's, vacations, and fancy home furnishings and other unproductive assets and ends in a big hangover when the bill comes due is perfectly consistent with a long period of economic contraction and joblessness afterwards.* Toss in tax subsidies that favor a borrowing a ton of money to consume more and the boom-bust effect is even worse.

 

Even if you had a tax code that maximized savings, investment, and production instead of borrowing and consumption (we've got the mostly the opposite), it'd still be possible for interest rate distortions to negate some or all of the growth effects arising from changes in tax policy.

 

Consume less than you produce and plow the savings into investments that enhance productivity and you get richer. Consume more than you produce and cover the difference with borrowing and you get poorer. True for individuals and families, true for tribes, chiefdoms, nations, and big gaggles of nations with a common currency.

 

 

*Doesn't seem like your baliwick to wander off into the theoretical weeds but what we've been through matches Austrian Business Cycle Theory Pretty Well, but if you're interested follow the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

Democrats are on the same shit wagon, just look at the donations from the corporations: AT&T donated 3 mil to GOP and 2 mil to DNC in '08. The whole system of 2 party rule outlived itself about 40-50 years ago. My whole point is that the top earners are able to hide assets and earnings through numerous tax loop holes, same goes for private parties and for corporations. And I am sick and tired of hearing don't tax "job creators". while maybe they create jobs in India or China, they did rather piss job of creating them here. If corporations make billions of dollars a year, but don't pay any income tax (GE) i think there is something totally fuck here.

 

So you're in favor of a tax code with fewer deductions? Same here. Isn't that what came out of Bowles-Simpson and Regan-O'Neil. Would you support lower marginal rates in exchange for fewer loopholes?

[rob]

Would you support lower marginal rates in exchange for fewer loopholes?

 

sure (though not fewer loopholes, but ALL of them) -- and only if you increased the long-term capitol gains tax as well. 15% on an unlimited amount of income is RETARDED

 

A massively simplified tax code without any deductions, loopholes or subsidies in exchange for lowered rates across the boards sounds pretty good to me.

 

[Jim]

When John Dillinger was asked why he robbed banks, he replied "Because that's where the money is".

 

I think you mean congressional candidates - or Willie Sutton.

[pink]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rep-john-fleming-field-criticism-over-600k-income-153305241.html

GOP argument is you can't tax "job creators". They had all sorts of tax brakes for the past 10 years in the form of bush era tax cuts- so wtf are these jobs? surely not here. so if with all the tax brakes they pretty much destroyed the economy what makes the teabaggers think they will start creating them now?

 

 

tax really, really, really un-rich music in climbing videos

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Would you support lower marginal rates in exchange for fewer loopholes?

 

sure (though not fewer loopholes, but ALL of them) -- and only if you increased the long-term capitol gains tax as well. 15% on an unlimited amount of income is RETARDED

 

A massively simplified tax code without any deductions, loopholes or subsidies in exchange for lowered rates across the boards sounds pretty good to me.

 

He wants you to kiss your mortgage deduction and child tax credit good bye.

[112]

He wants you to kiss your mortgage deduction and child tax credit good bye.

I sure do! Don't forget medical and dental expenses as well. As Rob stated: ALL OF THEM. If anything, make people request assistance in the same lines as the poor.

[ivan]

When central banks drive the interest rate below it's natural level, it fools societies into thinking that they're richer than they actually are and they spend more on consumption goods than they would otherwise, instead of investing it in something productive.

but weren't the same guys who said cutting taxes would create jobs also sayign that super low interest rates were good, that it would end the recession before that and keep everybody buying shit and thereby keep everybody employed?

[prole]

When central banks drive the interest rate below it's natural level, it fools societies into thinking that they're richer than they actually are and they spend more on consumption goods than they would otherwise, instead of investing it in something productive.

but weren't the same guys who said cutting taxes would create jobs also sayign that super low interest rates were good, that it would end the recession before that and keep everybody buying shit and thereby keep everybody employed?

 

Interest rates as post-9/11 crisis management tool?

 

[video:youtube]

[j_b]

An interest-rate distortion fueled borrowing binge that goes into financing a bunch of McMansions, luxury condos, SUV's, vacations, and fancy home furnishings and other unproductive assets and ends in a big hangover when the bill comes due is perfectly consistent with a long period of economic contraction and joblessness afterwards.

 

Repeating drivel ad-infinitum doesn't make it true even if blaming stupidity and lust for consumer items proves to be effective demagoguery. Despite my numerous attempts at getting you to do so, you still have to answer adequately EWarren's study of middle class spending showing that large increases in prices of non-discretionary items like health care, housing in good school districts, local regressive taxes, child care, 2nd car for 2nd wage earner , etc account for spending outpacing income (and we won't even discuss the 30+ year long race to the bottom wage that you keep cheering).