Let Capitalism Work! Tax the Rich!

[auditor0007]

Fact is that according to many on the right. Tax cuts do shit to create jobs. Once it's pointed out that the rich has had 10+ years of tax cuts and no jobs many say it's because of lack of certainty or some other unmeasurable excuse. So tax cuts alone do not work we have stroke their backs and tell them everything will be ok. Then they might possibly, probably consider creating jobs.

These tax cuts are nothing more than a giveaway based on hopes.

The Bush Administration experienced an average UE rate of well under 6%, sometimes just slightly over 4%. There was tremendous job creation through that period.
When Obama took office the rate was 7.4%. That was the lowest point of his career.

So you are simply lying.

Bush kept unemployment low by creating a massive bubble in the housing market. He alone was not responsible for the housing bubble, but he must take some of the blame along with many others. But the fact is that without the housing bubble, Bush's entire presidency would have been spent in recession.

 

[auditor0007]

Agian, and I really feel like a broken record here, there are plenty of people waiting in line to be the next 'burger king' or whatever.

There won't be if your policy of looting the wealthy is enacted. Staring a business takes capital (money) and you would have government confiscate all the money available for such purposes. Furthermore, you would take away the incentive for anyone to start such a business since you would tax away all their profits.

Your entire argument is based on a fallacy that we need them, that society will just fall apart if stop serving rich people.

Treating rich people the same as everyone else is not "serving" them. The fact is that we do need rich people. America's productive capital has to be owned by someone. Otherwise the government has to own it, and we already know that arrangement is a disaster.



People earning a million a month don't spend it all on caviar and champagne, dolt. The invest the bulk of it. That means they use it create jobs. Tax that money away and you destroy all the jobs that might have been created.

Well I unlike you do not think there is a shortage of people trying to grow there business into something big but hits brickwall after brickwall of red tape and barriers to entry and operation.

That's because you're a Marxist moron.

Eliminate them and promote upward mobility in both business and people, watch how trivial 'to big to fail' gets.

You're like the stupid king who has executed every single person who has been his finance minister and then wonders why he can't find a qualified person for the job.

Talk about stupid; you continue to spew the same stupid line. "Tax the rich and they won't create any jobs". It's all bullshit and has been proven to be bullshit. Companies are sitting on over $2 trillion and they aren't creating any jobs. And you want to give them more? You're an idiot who listens to AM radio way too much. We've already reduced tax rates to the lowest level in nearly 80 years for the wealthy, and guess what? We're in a near fucking Depression, that's what. Where are all those jobs your rich friends were supposed to create for everyone? 15 million Americans would like to know.

At least if we taxed more, the money could be put back into the private sector. That is what happens with tax dollars in case you didn't realize it. Tax dollars don't just go to this big entity and disappear. And it really doesn't matter what the money is spent on; one way or another it ends up back in the private sector, which leads to more money flowing through the economy, and more jobs being created. That does not mean we should funnel all money through the government. But money that is sitting stagnant and not contributing to our growth, to me is fair game.

 

[editec]

IF we want to pay the national debt off?

We have to tax the people who HAVE the money.

But attempting to pay down the national debt NOW is a foolish policy to advance.

 

[WatertheTree]

Well ive said it a few times already in this thread, and everyone is so quick to repeat the mantra to me, but none will address the fallacy.

All you sheeple are convinced that we need these douchbags. As if there is not an endless line of competition who is being suppressed by the government. Tax the rich! If they dont want to play in the market then say goodbye by helping a smaller business that does want to play ball.

We should be encouraging economic growth in the middle and lower classes while taxing the concentrations of money in the money supply. What we currently do is encourage economic growth in the rich, and tax everyone lower.

How sad you people are to not see what is so obvious.

The issue would be that taxing the rich would have the opposite effect of what you are trying to accomplish. Under what logical theory does taking more money from people that are in the best position to provide jobs and compensation lead to higher compensation and and more jobs?

It will only cause the economy to freeze if we continue to repress the people under the 10%. If government worked for the 90% as hard as they worked for the 10% then you would see upward mobility and the holes left by the pouting rich will be filled with new people willing to be a rich fat cat at the expense of more taxes.

My logical theory is a radical one, I hope your ready for it. Its called competition. Competition for the rich. We have the inequality today that we do because we have been shielding the rich from competition and taxation.

 

[WatertheTree]

How about the more money the "rich" have equals the more they can invest equals more jobs..

Not to mention wealth isn't finite - its infinite under the capitalist model - or at least our monetary system.

Think about it.

A person gets up and goes to work.... That person just created wealth that wasn't there the previous day..

I don't know why capitalism is so hard to grasp..

Most morons treat the economy like its a bag of M&M's and there is not enough to share with everyone and some kid has 10 while others are left with one or none... That is NOT how capitalism works - capitalism is the fucking chocolate factory where they make the M&M's - there are as much as you want but you have to make them...

Thats what we have banks for, and thats what we have investors for. If rich people dont want to work then investors can invest in people that do. Nothing will change, investors will still want to get paid. If the banks dont want to lend then its time for the government to direct flow of new money to banks that will. Rich people need us, we dont need them. What we need is sovereign money and a tax system that serves the needs of the country not a tax system that serves the rich.

Good god people, who among us can even speculate how fast the GDP would soar of we eliminated all taxes on small and medium business, cut the taxes on big business in half, and then tripled the taxes on rich peoples income and giving the benefits to the middle class?

This is after all pretty much the exact opposite of what we have been doing for the last 50 years. You know, back in the good times when we were prosperous.

Good god people, who among us can even speculate how fast the GDP would soar of we eliminated all taxes on small and medium business, cut the taxes on big business in half, and then tripled the taxes on rich peoples income and giving the benefits to the middle class?

Let's see, triple the tax on rich people's income.....3 times 35% = 105%.
And give the benefits to the middle class.
If we give the middle class 105% of rich people's income, how much money will that be?

Well your figures are pretty simplistic, thats ok weve all come to expect that from you.

Your not taking into account the loopholes, the lower rates for capital gains, the tax shelters etc. Im not going to sit here and claim to be an accountant or an economist or even claim to know details on either one. Either way, taxes should be raised substantially on these people. Using your own method of calculation I would say they need to be doubled.

 

[WatertheTree]

The common mantra amongst just about anyone that knows the economy is that Capatalism is good because it shoots productivity through the roof. This is true, allow people the chance to make there own fate and they are highly motivated to make something of themselves.

Also the common mantra amonst most neocons and people that are pushing for tax cuts for the rich is that it will create more jobs. The way to create more jobs is for rich people to get to work. To invest that money and expand there business and to hire people. They arent going to get any richer unless they work harder! They arent going to get richer unless they deserve it!

Instead of trying to give them everything they want, why dont we start taxing them harder, to give them an incentive to work?? This really isnt that radical of an idea, its something these same people have been doing to the working class of people. Paying them less so they work harder.

Can anyone explain to me why giving rich people everything they want, and allowing them to gain wealth and riches beyond measure, will create more jobs?? Especially considering that is counterproductive to the basic rules of capitalism??

Or is our economic model better represented by capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich?

Ummm math and basic human nature would be my answer. Why would I work more if the 'reward' is that more of what I earn is going to be taken away. At some point I'm going to decide the little extra money you're going to let me keep for the extra work I'm going to have to do to get it, simply isn't worth it.

Want proof. Look at historical tax revenue as a percent of GDP sometime. Loosely GDP can basically be considered the income of the country. Despite all the different changes to our tax code, the huge Reagan and Bush cuts, etc. Tax revenue as a percent of GDP has only fluctuated about 2-3 percentage points. It averages around 16-17% of GDP most of the time. That means no matter what government tries to do to the tax code they're always going to collect about the same amount relative to GDP. Why? Because peole react when their financial situation changes. When you start squeezing people, they react and modify their spendig accordingly. So okay, we can raise taxes on the rich, but to what end? Government isn't going to have any more money to work with. You just want to stick it to the rich i guess. But when there's no obvious benefit it makes you look jealous and petty.

Agian, I agree with this theory. But its all based on a fallacy that there are a limited number of people that want to get rich. This is simply not true, there is only a limited number of rich people.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Agian, and I really feel like a broken record here, there are plenty of people waiting in line to be the next 'burger king' or whatever.

There won't be if your policy of looting the wealthy is enacted. Staring a business takes capital (money) and you would have government confiscate all the money available for such purposes. Furthermore, you would take away the incentive for anyone to start such a business since you would tax away all their profits.



Treating rich people the same as everyone else is not "serving" them. The fact is that we do need rich people. America's productive capital has to be owned by someone. Otherwise the government has to own it, and we already know that arrangement is a disaster.



People earning a million a month don't spend it all on caviar and champagne, dolt. The invest the bulk of it. That means they use it create jobs. Tax that money away and you destroy all the jobs that might have been created.



That's because you're a Marxist moron.

Eliminate them and promote upward mobility in both business and people, watch how trivial 'to big to fail' gets.

You're like the stupid king who has executed every single person who has been his finance minister and then wonders why he can't find a qualified person for the job.

Talk about stupid; you continue to spew the same stupid line. "Tax the rich and they won't create any jobs". It's all bullshit and has been proven to be bullshit. Companies are sitting on over $2 trillion and they aren't creating any jobs. And you want to give them more? You're an idiot who listens to AM radio way too much. We've already reduced tax rates to the lowest level in nearly 80 years for the wealthy, and guess what? We're in a near fucking Depression, that's what. Where are all those jobs your rich friends were supposed to create for everyone? 15 million Americans would like to know.

At least if we taxed more, the money could be put back into the private sector. That is what happens with tax dollars in case you didn't realize it. Tax dollars don't just go to this big entity and disappear. And it really doesn't matter what the money is spent on; one way or another it ends up back in the private sector, which leads to more money flowing through the economy, and more jobs being created. That does not mean we should funnel all money through the government. But money that is sitting stagnant and not contributing to our growth, to me is fair game.

We've already reduced tax rates to the lowest level in nearly 80 years for the wealthy

The top tax rate was 28% in 1988.


And it really doesn't matter what the money is spent on; one way or another it ends up back in the private sector, which leads to more money flowing through the economy, and more jobs being created.

So we could tax the rich and spend $1 trillion a year to have people dig holes and fill them back in. A job is a job, right? We could have 0% unemployment. It's all good, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thats what we have banks for, and thats what we have investors for. If rich people dont want to work then investors can invest in people that do. Nothing will change, investors will still want to get paid. If the banks dont want to lend then its time for the government to direct flow of new money to banks that will. Rich people need us, we dont need them. What we need is sovereign money and a tax system that serves the needs of the country not a tax system that serves the rich.

Good god people, who among us can even speculate how fast the GDP would soar of we eliminated all taxes on small and medium business, cut the taxes on big business in half, and then tripled the taxes on rich peoples income and giving the benefits to the middle class?

This is after all pretty much the exact opposite of what we have been doing for the last 50 years. You know, back in the good times when we were prosperous.

Good god people, who among us can even speculate how fast the GDP would soar of we eliminated all taxes on small and medium business, cut the taxes on big business in half, and then tripled the taxes on rich peoples income and giving the benefits to the middle class?

Let's see, triple the tax on rich people's income.....3 times 35% = 105%.
And give the benefits to the middle class.
If we give the middle class 105% of rich people's income, how much money will that be?

Well your figures are pretty simplistic, thats ok weve all come to expect that from you.

Your not taking into account the loopholes, the lower rates for capital gains, the tax shelters etc. Im not going to sit here and claim to be an accountant or an economist or even claim to know details on either one. Either way, taxes should be raised substantially on these people. Using your own method of calculation I would say they need to be doubled.

Well your figures are pretty simplistic

Simplistic? I used your figures.
So 105% tax on the rich would give how much to the middle class?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The rich pay the majority of federal income taxes; they do not pay the majority of taxes. This is something so many of you fail to understand. You honestly believe the rich are being soaked when in fact, they are barely paying an equitable percentage based on their earnings, when all taxes are included. And yes, I believe they should be paying more. And yes, it is in their best interest to pay more. That doesn't mean we should tax them into oblivion, but they should pay substantially more.

Look at it this way; the person who makes barely enough to keep food on the table and a roof over his head really isn't gaining much from close to a trillion dollars in defense spending. However, a wealthy person who has his money tied up in companies throughout the world has much more to lose, so all that military spending is worth a lot more to the rich person. That's a very basic example, but it's true.

The rich pay the majority of state income taxes, city income taxes, property taxes, and various excise taxes. Which taxes do they not pay? Please provide something other than wishful thinking.

Seriously, don't you ever research anything before you open your mouth? We are talking about percentage of taxes based on income, not dollar amounts. Of course someone who earns $1 million per year who pays on average 7% in state taxes will pay more dollars than the person earning $25,000 paying 11% in state taxes. But the person earning $25,000 is paying a much higher rate, and they can least afford to pay those taxes. But please, continue with your rebuttal.

CHART: Poverty Is Up, But The Poor Are Paying The Most Taxes | FierceReason.com

Rich people pay higher rates too.

 

[Bern80]

IF we want to pay the national debt off?

We have to tax the people who HAVE the money.

But attempting to pay down the national debt NOW is a foolish policy to advance.

How very convenient. You are aware there is more than one way to pay down debt, correct?

 

[Bern80]

Well ive said it a few times already in this thread, and everyone is so quick to repeat the mantra to me, but none will address the fallacy.

All you sheeple are convinced that we need these douchbags. As if there is not an endless line of competition who is being suppressed by the government. Tax the rich! If they dont want to play in the market then say goodbye by helping a smaller business that does want to play ball.

We should be encouraging economic growth in the middle and lower classes while taxing the concentrations of money in the money supply. What we currently do is encourage economic growth in the rich, and tax everyone lower.

How sad you people are to not see what is so obvious.

The issue would be that taxing the rich would have the opposite effect of what you are trying to accomplish. Under what logical theory does taking more money from people that are in the best position to provide jobs and compensation lead to higher compensation and and more jobs?

It will only cause the economy to freeze if we continue to repress the people under the 10%. If government worked for the 90% as hard as they worked for the 10% then you would see upward mobility and the holes left by the pouting rich will be filled with new people willing to be a rich fat cat at the expense of more taxes.

My logical theory is a radical one, I hope your ready for it. Its called competition. Competition for the rich. We have the inequality today that we do because we have been shielding the rich from competition and taxation.

Part of this I agree with. Crony capitalism, that is the back door deals between corporations and the government, need to stop and yes they do need to learn to fend for themselves. That is a bit different than suggesting we jack their taxes through the roof as you are suggesting. That won't help. Sticking it to them isn't going to help the 90%. If you want to really help the middle class, there are ways to do that. But you seem a bit more interesed in sticking it to the rich then you do actually helping the poor.

 

[editec]

IF we want to pay the national debt off?

We have to tax the people who HAVE the money.

But attempting to pay down the national debt NOW is a foolish policy to advance.

How very convenient.

No. In fact it is very INconvenient.

Sadly economic reality often is rather inconvenient.

You are aware there is more than one way to pay down debt, correct?

Yes. An economy is ENTIRELY a manmade concept.

ERgo there are an infinite number of ways that one can approach nearly every economic issue facing us.

But some ways are better than others.

Agreed?

 

[Bern80]

IF we want to pay the national debt off?

We have to tax the people who HAVE the money.

But attempting to pay down the national debt NOW is a foolish policy to advance.

How very convenient.

No. In fact it is very INconvenient.

Sadly economic reality often is rather inconvenient.

You are aware there is more than one way to pay down debt, correct?

Yes. An economy is ENTIRELY a manmade concept.

ERgo there are an infinite number of ways that one can approach nearly every economic issue facing us.

But some ways are better than others.

Agreed?

Sooooo, how about instead of taxing people who are not responsible for creating the debt in order to pay it down, our government makes some actual hard decisions about what it needs to be doing. We could still cut tax revenues significantly but have enough to continue to pay down the debt. I get the basics of how debt can be paid down; bring in more or spend less. The problem with bring in more is that is a morally reprehensible solution. The rich are not responsible for the debt and it's morally bankrupt to make them pay for it.

 

[WatertheTree]

How very convenient.

No. In fact it is very INconvenient.

Sadly economic reality often is rather inconvenient.

You are aware there is more than one way to pay down debt, correct?

Yes. An economy is ENTIRELY a manmade concept.

ERgo there are an infinite number of ways that one can approach nearly every economic issue facing us.

But some ways are better than others.

Agreed?

Sooooo, how about instead of taxing people who are not responsible for creating the debt in order to pay it down, our government makes some actual hard decisions about what it needs to be doing. We could still cut tax revenues significantly but have enough to continue to pay down the debt. I get the basics of how debt can be paid down; bring in more or spend less. The problem with bring in more is that is a morally reprehensible solution. The rich are not responsible for the debt and it's morally bankrupt to make them pay for it.

are you kidding me!? The rich are entirely responsible for the the debt! The people are not even represented in washington.

Who has profited from this debt, the rich people. Who suffers, the people.

Some people are just plain stupid.

 

[Bern80]

are you kidding me!? The rich are entirely responsible for the the debt! The people are not even represented in washington.

Who has profited from this debt, the rich people. Who suffers, the people.

Some people are just plain stupid.

Yes. Apparently some people are pretty stupid. The rich decided to go fight a bunch of needless wars? The rich decided to raid social security? The rich decided to give more of their money to ever more government entitlement programs? When you come to reality we can have a real conversation.

 

[WatertheTree]

are you kidding me!? The rich are entirely responsible for the the debt! The people are not even represented in washington.

Who has profited from this debt, the rich people. Who suffers, the people.

Some people are just plain stupid.

Yes. Apparently some people are pretty stupid. The rich decided to go fight a bunch of needless wars? The rich decided to raid social security? The rich decided to give more of their money to ever more government entitlement programs? When you come to reality we can have a real conversation.

Everyone knows the score, I dont need to debate the obvious with a servant to power who wants to argue over the sky being blue.

 

[Bern80]

are you kidding me!? The rich are entirely responsible for the the debt! The people are not even represented in washington.

Who has profited from this debt, the rich people. Who suffers, the people.

Some people are just plain stupid.

Yes. Apparently some people are pretty stupid. The rich decideeyd to go fight a bunch of needless wars? The rich decided to raid social security? The rich decided to give more of their money to ever more government entitlement programs? When you come to reality we can have a real conversation.

Everyone knows the score, I dont need to debate the obvious with a servant to power who wants to argue over the sky being blue.

Okay score board guy. Show me how the rich made congress spend more money than they took in. Show me why the rich have some vested financial interest in fighting wars overseas. Show me it's in their interest to take from the SS fund. The things I have mentioned are just a few reasons we are in the debt we are in. All of them are the result of financially undiscplined government. You're going to say the rich get all kinds of breaks from government. Yes they do. If you think that has contributed to even a fraction of our debt, you're a fucking idiot.

 

[ClosedCaption]

This thread is funny. Basically we should tax the rich less and they will magically create jobs. Greed does not exist in this world. The more money the rich keep the more jobs they will create and who gives a dam that they are doing shit RIGHT NOW with all their profits. The GOP just says "give them more and we promise they'll create jobs this time"

Shiiiiiiii..Bush said "fool me once shame on...we won't be fooled again"

 

[Full-Auto]

This thread is funny. Basically we should tax the rich less and they will magically create jobs. Greed does not exist in this world. The more money the rich keep the more jobs they will create and who gives a dam that they are doing shit RIGHT NOW with all their profits. The GOP just says "give them more and we promise they'll create jobs this time"

Shiiiiiiii..Bush said "fool me once shame on...we won't be fooled again"

If you view it in such simplistic terms it becomes quite easy to see your confusion.

 

[JimH52]

That's essantially the model we have right now.

I don't suscribe to your solution for that, right now, though.

Increasing taxes in a deflationary balance sheet depression is a bad idea.

I think we need to shrink government and issue huge tax cuts on the middle class. I think we need to shift taxes onto the rich. If the current rich dont dont want to play ball cause its not profitable enough then fuckem. I am sure there are plenty of middle class people that would appreciate a larger income, even if the government keeps more of it. Small business taxes should be eliminated. Big business taxes should be increased. We have no equality because our government does not promote it!

Just because I advocate a tax system based on promoting equality does not mean that I do not support ending government spending, or tax cuts for small business.

Yeah i think I understand where you're coming from.

I just don't think that rasing taxes, not even on the super rich right now is a good idea.


I also don't think cutting government(s) spending is a good idea, either.

The notion that taxes can be FAIR, in a society where incomes are not also FAIR is the childish notion of right wing cranks.

According to what I hear on FOX..uuugghh..the Dems on the Super Committee are proposing tax increases. I expect that they are trying to offset the expected cuts in SS and Medicare that are coming. The GOP is insisting that cuts to the social safety net occur. I think it is only fair that if the poor have to suffer in order to right our economic ship that the super rich should also pay.

It has been documented that the super wealthy and the huge corporations are sitting on piles of cash. That trickles down to the middle and lower class by reducing the available jobs. A tax on the super wealthy and eliminating loopholes for corporation would level the playing field. They should be given a choice. Either use the cash hords to invest in jobs or the US government will take away some of the perks that enabled you to amass the money. In turn, the additional tax revenue could be used for public service jobs and to repair our failing infrastructure....That is basically what Obama's job plan was aiming to do. But the last thing on earth that the GOP wants to see is an improved economy as we approach the 2012 elections. So, they will kill any jobs bill.