Hayes: We Are No Longer Able To Tax The Very Rich In Our Country

[Sallow]

Show me when tax increases and spending in a high unemployment economy has hurt.

1938 ? FDR stopped his New Deal "Fiscal Stimulus", for "austerity" (or "Fiscal Consolidation", i.e. balanced budget). Taxes increased, and the economy recessed. UE increased nearly 5%.

your turn ? When has hiking taxes helped ?

It was the austerity that caused the majority of the problem..not the tax hikes.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'll bet that none of the wingnuts in this thread clicked the OP link and watched the clip.

Of course not.

They are depending on my synopsis, which really isn't a synopsis at all..but an addendum.

They really are not interested in debating, or even hearing any other viewpoints that contradict their FOXNEWS worldview.

 

[Widdekind]

you are assuming that wealth accumulation among the wealthy is ethical and legal. In many (I'd hazard to say most) cases, it's not. And much of that is due to government corruption. Lobbyists have been able to "buy" legislators that weaken laws and gut regulatory agencies. The recent economic meltdowns are stunning examples of this. Even in the system that they created..and that favors them..they screw up. Thus leaving people with much less means to clean up the mess. There were no attachments to personal wealth by people taking big risks, by in large...they kept their big bonus and cash salaries..while everyone else paid.

privately-owned businesses can distribute their own money, any way they want; even as you could give as much, or as little, as you wanted, to your friends & family, on their birthdays (say). If some business gives big bonuses to some employees, that is their gain, and nobody else's loss. Now, if those same employees engage(d) in crime, intentionally defrauding customers or investors; then they would presumably be held accountable. Are not investors demanding money back, from banks, and winning?

a nation filled with tax payers..that pay for the very infrastructure that makes a successful business possible.

According to statistics from the CBO, and cited by economist Greg Mankiw, net Federal taxes are negative, for the bottom 60% of incomes. Ignoring state & local taxes, over half of US households receive more in welfare, than they pay in Federal taxes. And, the "infrastructure" to which you refer:

• inter-state highways
• inter-net

were Federal "We the People" programs. Seemingly, you are advocating personal "me myself & i" welfare, instead -- funded by "(you ought-and-should show) gratitude taxes", on the only people, still actually funding the very Federal programs you praise. Poor people are not paying for the "infrastructure that makes businesses successful". Only rich people (typically, business managers) are paying net Federal taxes, funding those good-for-business Public programs. Prima facie, "nobody else cares" about US businesses, "as long as they get their dole".

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/07/progressivity-of-taxes-and-transfers.html​

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

Waiting for a wingnut to defend this Senate Republican action.

 

[Sallow]

you are assuming that wealth accumulation among the wealthy is ethical and legal. In many (I'd hazard to say most) cases, it's not. And much of that is due to government corruption. Lobbyists have been able to "buy" legislators that weaken laws and gut regulatory agencies. The recent economic meltdowns are stunning examples of this. Even in the system that they created..and that favors them..they screw up. Thus leaving people with much less means to clean up the mess. There were no attachments to personal wealth by people taking big risks, by in large...they kept their big bonus and cash salaries..while everyone else paid.

privately-owned businesses can distribute their own money, any way they want; even as you could give as much, or as little, as you wanted, to your friends & family, on their birthdays (say). If some business gives big bonuses to some employees, that is their gain, and nobody else's loss. Now, if those same employees engage(d) in crime, intentionally defrauding customers or investors; then they would presumably be held accountable. Are not investors demanding money back, from banks, and winning?

a nation filled with tax payers..that pay for the very infrastructure that makes a successful business possible.

According to statistics from the CBO, and cited by economist Greg Mankiw, net Federal taxes are negative, for the bottom 60% of incomes. Ignoring state & local taxes, over half of US households receive more in welfare, than they pay in Federal taxes. And, the "infrastructure" to which you refer:

• inter-state highways
• inter-net

were Federal "We the People" programs. Seemingly, you are advocating personal "me myself & i" welfare, instead -- funded by "(you ought-and-should show) gratitude taxes", on the only people, still actually funding the very Federal programs you praise. Poor people are not paying for the "infrastructure that makes businesses successful". Only rich people (typically, business managers) are paying net Federal taxes, funding those good-for-business Public programs. Prima facie, "nobody else cares" about US businesses, "as long as they get their dole".

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/07/progressivity-of-taxes-and-transfers.html​

To your points:

1. That depends entirely on regulators to catch. At this point..regulators are not funded adequately. Hence you get cataclysmic events that happen like clockwork. And no one being held accountable. You haven't at all addressed the point that risk is socialized and profit is private.

2. Which again..goes back to the huge gulf between executive and employee compensation. 400:1. People are making so little, that even a Conservative President so fit to cut their taxes. That's not good or healthy. Or do you think it's healthy that a handful of people in this nation have absolute control over most of it's wealth?

 

[Widdekind]

It was the austerity that caused the majority of the problem..not the tax hikes.

"austerity" means increasing taxes, and decreasing spending, to balance government budgets. Taxing a weak, and recovering, economy in 1938, pushed it back into recession.

US Federal income taxes decreased in 1964, 1981, 1986, and 2002. In the early 1980s, the US economy was in recession. Arguably, tax cut in 1981, helped speed the recovery, over the next couple of years. In all other cases, tax cuts quickly caused unemployment rates to decrease by about -2%. According to Okun's Law, for the US economy, decreasing UE rates by -1%, generates +2% of output (real GDP) growth. So, every time tax cuts occurred in a healthy economy, UE rates decreased -2%, and production increased. Tax cuts generated jobs, spurred production, and made more people more money:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=8VB
Buy prints of my Top Marginal Tax Rates graph​

 

[Widdekind]

risk is socialized and profit is private...

People are making so little

People are not making "little". Real wages, adjusted for inflation, are higher today, than they've been in decades. People may be making "little compared to" the next guy. But complaining about other people making money shows Envy, and is not legitimate; especially so, during a "Great Recession", when everybody 'ought-and-should' want everybody else, amongst "We the People", to make as much money as possible.

As to bailouts, risk seems to be socialized. Some banks are being sued, for defrauding investors. And, how does raising taxes, either help, or have anything whatsoever to do, with 2008? The recession was caused... by income taxes?

Perhaps 2008 could have been averted, with better regulation. Taxes are another matter, entirely. And increasing income taxes, on high income earners (lawyers, doctors, managers, realtors, and bankers), would not address the real issues, of easy credit, bad loans, inaccurate loan ratings, i.e. oversight & regulation. Taxes are not directly relevant.

Rampant speculation, and lenders exploiting the Public trust (and loan guarantees), is "bad"; but does not warrant "and so, raise taxes".

 

[chanel]

Raising taxes on the 1 percent will pay for about 11 hrs of federal spending. Raising taxes on the 5 percent will pay for about 8 days. Who will they come for next? Are people really this naïve?

 

[MikeK]

Brilliant. The recession is officially over. What we have now is UNEMPLOYMENT. So, you have problems with federal tax increases. Show me when tax increases and spending in a high unemployment economy has hurt. Show me when tax decreases in a high unemployment economy have helped. I have asked this question of cons multiple times with no answer. How about you, Widde

Expect either no answer (as usual) to your straightforward question or, in this example, another pseudo-academic snow-job complete with formulas that seek to deny the obvious.

 

[MikeK]

According to the Inside Job study guide

financial markets are important and valuable. It is good for companies to be able to borrow money easily and at low cost, just as it is good for us to be able to invest our money instead of stuffing it under our mattresses

Banks (financial markets) are the "heart" of the economy, re-circulating money (from savings, back into the stream of spending) like blood being re-circulated back to the body. When that "heart" stops -- as in Balance Sheet Recessions, when savings are not reborrowed -- then the economy enters recession. Inexpertly, the re-cycling & re-circulation of money, from savings, back into spending in the economy, is the most important part, of the economy -- without which the economy has a "heart attack":

savings (S) ---> spending (Y = C + I + G + NX)​

Stereotypically, Republicans advocate "private sector investment", whereby savings (S) are borrowed by businesses, for investments (I) in expanded operations:

S ---> I​

whereas Democrats advocate "Public sector welfare", whereby savings (S) are taxed by governments (T), for "progressive" Public programs, e.g. welfare for poor people (who then spend the money for food, clothing, and other goods & services, of personal consumption expenditures, C):

S ---> T ---> C​

Alternative to that "dole" approach, the "New Deal" approach, of Fiscal Stimulus, mimics the "private sector" solution, with governments as "Big Borrowers", for large-scale Public Investments (I):

S ---> I​

Large-scale Public Investment in infrastructure (roads, buildings, dams) during the New Deal under FDR; and on the internet during Reagan-era deficit spending; recycled & recirculated savings, back into spending in the economy, for productive-and-profitable Public Investments, by borrowing, not by taxing. Taxing never helps, and only hinders, economic growth. Borrowing savings, back into spending in the economy, for productive-and-profitable investments (private or Public) always helps, and never hinders, economic growth. All of the above are ways, of taking "stationary" money out of savings, and "moving" the money back into spending, in the economy. "Consensual" borrowing-based investment (private or Public) has had a better track-record, for long term growth & sustainability, than "non-consensual" tax-based welfare, for personal consumption expenditures. In analogy, the former is like manufacturing fishing poles (capital) and teaching people (human capital) how to fish; the latter is like giving them (money for) fish. Only the former is sustainable in the long term.

Successful Public Investment programs, based on borrowing savings, in the past; do not logically justify Public welfare programs, based on taxing savings, in the present. The only similarity, between borrowing-based Public Investment (Fiscal Stimulus), and taxation-based Public assistance (welfare), is that both involve Government. In analogy, the former is like an "apple", and the latter is like an "orange", that "both come from the same grocery store". In further analogy, Pres. Obama and Senator-candidate Warren (seemingly) suggesting that successful Public Investment programs, from generations ago; automatically mandate "gratitude to Government", and hiking taxes, today, for welfare programs; is like selling "oranges" today, by reminding store customers that "apples" from weeks & months ago were good.

The successful, past, Public Investment programs, to which prominent Democrats (seemingly) draw attention, were funded differently (revenue side, borrowing vs. taxing), and spent differently (expenditure side, Public Investments by "We the People" vs. personal welfare for millions of "me myself & i's"), than the welfare programs, to which they, then and thereby, seem to promote.



EDIT:

At present, the rate of personal savings is about a half trillion dollars (per year), whilst businesses save about one and a half trillion dollars (per year). Thus, most re-investment, of savings, is done by businesses, with their own retained earnings. Still, a half trillion dollars per year is allot of money; is about 4% of GDP; could decrease the UE rate by about 2% (according to Okun's Law), if borrowed and spent wisely. Inexpertly, much of aggregate personal savings would be accumulated by wealthier, higher-income earners. If so, then they could make an important minor contribution to the economy as a whole.

"If you can't dazzle them with duplicitous, doctrinaire horseshit, baffle them with bountiful bloviation and bombastic bullshit." (Mark Twain)

 

[MikeK]

Show me when tax increases and spending in a high unemployment economy has hurt.

1938 ? FDR stopped his New Deal "Fiscal Stimulus", for "austerity" (or "Fiscal Consolidation", i.e. balanced budget). Taxes increased, and the economy recessed. UE increased nearly 5%.

your turn ? When has hiking taxes helped ?

The period with the highest tax rate is also the period of our greatest prosperity and productivity. The effect didn't occur immediately because the damage done to the economy by the bankers and the Wall Street cartels was so great it took time to repair.

Note the inverse effect as taxes are decreased.

And the same circumstances exist today.

 

[Katzndogz]

My husbands last paycheck ( and we consider ourselves lower mid class these days because we abandoned the high life of the corporate world personal choice if you've ever lived it and left it you will know what I mean) was $2,443.06 two week time period.

Now right from the get go the Fed tax on this is $470.02

Why do they get that money? What the hell did they do for that almost 500 freaking dollars out of my husbands two weeks of labor did they earn?

And why does anyone in any country put up with this shit?

Because the rest of us realize that the roads, bridges, airports, sports stadiums, police, firemen, sanitationmen, teachers, legal clerks and a host of other services are worth "putting up with".

As are elevator operators for button controlled elevators, calligraphy writers, and people whose sole job is the soak off the Crystal Springs label on water bottles and slap on a City label.

 

[MikeK]

...you are assuming that wealth accumulation among the wealthy is ethical and legal. In many (I'd hazard to say most) cases, it's not...

That attitude's a ticket to failure.

Marx hated humanity, was unable to support himself, and also had many followers who also hated people and lived off others. The problem is when these people attack the rest of us, but fortunately we're in the overwhelming majority and we're pretty good at maintaining order.

Sallow's "attitude" is simply the truth and Marx's ideology has nothing to do with it. Marx's thinking was influenced by economic circumstances which in no way resemble ours. Marx was a communist. We are not seeking to espouse communist principles. So your comparison is irrelevant.

 

[MikeK]

risk is socialized and profit is private...

People are making so little

People are not making "little". Real wages, adjusted for inflation, are higher today, than they've been in decades. People may be making "little compared to" the next guy. But complaining about other people making money shows Envy[...]

I wouldn't have expected you to resort to the "envy" nonsense. But since you have you should understand why you do it. It's called projection.

There always has been a wealthy upper class in America. But during times when the Nation's wealth resources have been equitably distributed no one paid any attention to the rich. So the expressed idea that envy is the motivation behind the rising anti-excessive wealth atmosphere is propaganda which only the one-dimensional, or envious, mind is receptive to.

Projection: The homosexual male believes all men find other men sexually attractive. The same projective mechanism gives rise to the notion that resentment of excessive wealth is universally born of envy (in the Biblical sense of the word). But while it is natural for anyone to long for the comforts and conveniences available from wealth, without having specific provocation to dislike or harbor ill will toward the wealthy in general or wealthy individuals the average (normal) person has no such disposition.

A disinction must be made between ordinary wealth and excessive wealth. Ordinary wealth enables one to enjoy all the ordinary luxuries money can buy; a fine home and furnishings, the best cars, clothing, vacations, medical care, tuitions, idle leisure, etc. Excessive wealth affords all of those things in redundant abundance -- while retaining a massive hoarded redundancy that equates to power. The only possible motivation to acquire and to hoard a wholly redundant mass of personal assets is greed, which is a detestable characteristic.

 

[Widdekind]

The period with the highest tax rate is also the period of our greatest prosperity and productivity.

the US economy is 30x larger today, than in 1960. Real wages are as high, or higher, than ever. Taking (other) people's money cannot be good, for the economy. If you can vote yourself other people's money, then that might be good for the "econo-me(-myself-and-i)".

your arguments seemingly are "those Americans are evil, so take their money away -- oh, and give some of it to me".

A disinction must be made between ordinary wealth and excessive wealth. Ordinary wealth enables one to enjoy all the ordinary luxuries money can buy; a fine home and furnishings, the best cars, clothing, vacations, medical care, tuitions, idle leisure, etc. Excessive wealth affords all of those things in redundant abundance -- while retaining a massive hoarded redundancy that equates to power. The only possible motivation to acquire and to hoard a wholly redundant mass of personal assets is greed, which is a detestable characteristic.

you are being Slanderous, Accusatory, and Wrathful.

Also, how do you know what "excessively" wealthy people do with their money. Are you being serious. You seriously think that they "hoard" money? Wealthy people are rich... because they don't know what to do with money? American politics seriously boils down, to "they are evil, give me their money' ?

 

[Rshermr]

One day some people might find the solution is not with the rich who have more than they do, the solution is with they themselves changing their own work ethic, and reckless spending habits.

Typical con dogma. Love the rich, hate the poor. Any proof to your work ethic statement? Of course not, you are a con, and you believe what you are told because you want to.

 

[Rshermr]

The period with the highest tax rate is also the period of our greatest prosperity and productivity.

the US economy is 30x larger today, than in 1960. Real wages are as high, or higher, than ever. Taking (other) people's money cannot be good, for the economy. If you can vote yourself other people's money, then that might be good for the "econo-me(-myself-and-i)".

your arguments seemingly are "those Americans are evil, so take their money away -- oh, and give some of it to me".

A disinction must be made between ordinary wealth and excessive wealth. Ordinary wealth enables one to enjoy all the ordinary luxuries money can buy; a fine home and furnishings, the best cars, clothing, vacations, medical care, tuitions, idle leisure, etc. Excessive wealth affords all of those things in redundant abundance -- while retaining a massive hoarded redundancy that equates to power. The only possible motivation to acquire and to hoard a wholly redundant mass of personal assets is greed, which is a detestable characteristic.

you are being Slanderous, Accusatory, and Wrathful.

Also, how do you know what "excessively" wealthy people do with their money. Are you being serious. You seriously think that they "hoard" money? Wealthy people are rich... because they don't know what to do with money? American politics seriously boils down, to "they are evil, give me their money' ?

Really, really ignorant post. It is not about wealthy. It IS about income distribution. As GDP grows, who gets the benefits. Today, we see very small benefits going to the middle class and below. But very high benefits going to the wealthy.
Now, you could find all sorts of stats that prove what I just said. Or you could simply take the con dogma and go forward, as you are wont to do.
Open minds operating in the real world have no problem understanding that sticking money in foreign banks is not a good thing. But I am sure you will agree with con dogma that it is no problem. All of which makes you totally irrelevant.

 

[Widdekind]

One day some people might find the solution is not with the rich who have more than they do, the solution is with they themselves changing their own work ethic, and reckless spending habits.

Typical con dogma. Love the rich, hate the poor. Any proof to your work ethic statement? Of course not, you are a con, and you believe what you are told because you want to.

you know you're not legitimate, right?

Zero wealth, in the history of humanity, has been produced, without work.

And, in the whole history of humanity, humans have (collectively) acquired zero wealth, without (somebody somewhere) doing work, to produce something.

you seriously seem to be advocating employing government, via voting for Laws (and the police & military thereby implicitly invoked to back those Laws), to "plunder" O.P.M. That is not economically legitimate

 

[Widdekind]

Really, really ignorant post. It is not about wealthy. It IS about income distribution. As GDP grows, who gets the benefits. Today, we see very small benefits going to the middle class and below. But very high benefits going to the wealthy.
Now, you could find all sorts of stats that prove what I just said. Or you could simply take the con dogma and go forward, as you are wont to do.
Open minds operating in the real world have no problem understanding that sticking money in foreign banks is not a good thing. But I am sure you will agree with con dogma that it is no problem. All of which makes you totally irrelevant.

i don't take spoon-fed dogma. you're the one trying to feed me dogma. you have no legitimate numbers, no facts, and no logic backing you. But you claim to be qualified to "wield" government, voting for Laws & taxes, that take money from other US citizens, for your own self

i guess that is the end of our conversation (?)