None of you are rich. Why are you defending billionaires?

[asterism]

WHAT "additional revenue"? The main argument against raising taxes in a recession is that there will be LESS revenue, not more, because raising taxes suppresses the economy.

That is what the unholy trinity of Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity have been telling us, and what the water-carrying Tories believe. But the economic events of the past three decades clearly shows them to be as wrong as two left feet.

The idea that taxing those who are holding the bulk of America's wealth resources will suppress employment is pure nonsense. When the operator of a business, whether a locksmith shop or an automobile manufacturer, perceives an opportunity for expansion and sets about to hire new employees the consequent expenditure is an operating cost which does not appear in the profit or assets margin.

Employees are operating expenses. There is absolutely no reason why apprehension about taxes should discourage an employer from expanding if an opportunity seems worthwhile. The fact that the most productive and prosperous period in American history occurred during the time when the upper level of the progressive tax rate was ninety-one percent should not be ignored.

What time period is that?

 

[Vanquish]

Assuming MikeK means 1951-63, that does happen to be the flattest part of the chart. But you have to ask the question if "productive and prosperous" is explained by compensation.

If average household income fits that bill...perhaps he's right.

Anyone have a chart that compares total income (of all kinds for all people) historically? That could tell a totally different story.

 

[asterism]

Assuming MikeK means 1951-63, that does happen to be the flattest part of the chart. But you have to ask the question if "productive and prosperous" is explained by compensation.

If average household income fits that bill...perhaps he's right.

Anyone have a chart that compares total income (of all kinds for all people) historically? That could tell a totally different story.

How? The incomes are way up compared to then.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yes, screw the working man.

Same old Republican bullshit.

Define "working man".

Essentially it means the ordinary wage earner as opposed to the capitalist who derives income from the labor of others and/or from the dividends paid by capital investment. Apart from its most fundamental definition the term assumed a quasi-political meaning during the union movement of the thirties and forties when the American Middle Class rose to prominence and acquired power by accumulating fair wealth in return for its labor.

Through the imposition of supply side economics the wealth of the middle class has been systematically redistributed to a neo-aristocracy commonly referred to as the super-rich. Thus, as Chris has stated, the working man has been and is being screwed by the corporatist influence on (bribery of) our legislative body.

I was hoping you'd show a little integrity and use your own words.
Working...To perform a task for compensation. That means ANY task.
Man. Male of the species homo sapiens
BTW genius....When people perform a task whether it be for themselves or an employer and use that compensation for their sustenance, by definition are capitalists.
you people are not liberals. You people are not progressives.
You people are socialists. You want the work of others to be taken away for your use.
There is no other explanation or reason for your desire to place confiscatory taxes.
The producers are over taxed now. Government cannot get it's fiscal house in order. And you people have the gall to petition government to take more.
Not one more dime. Let the feds learn to not spend more than the government takes in.
Slash spending. Slash federal employment. Rework Medicare and social security so that politicians cannot touch one nickel of that money. Get rid of the bureaucrats that run entitlement programs like fiefdoms. Government must stop throwing our money down a rat hole.

 

[Vanquish]

The contention was that prosperity can happen even with high taxes, right?

The blue chart (equating prosperity with compensation) shows a weak rise during the period of high taxes.

The red chart (equating prosperity with average household income) shows a sharp rise during the period of high taxes and a lesser rise in the most recent 20 years.

I'm not saying I agree with either position. It could be said that the effect of high taxes took awhile to be seen.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why do rich people hate the left?

One stupid question deserves another.

How much is John Kerry worth? Nancy Pelosi? congress is full of million and billionairs Why do liberals hate certain rich people but forget about their own?

I suppose I qualify in your view as a Liberal but I don't believe I'm the only Liberal who is suspicious and wary of all wealthy politicians. While I feel it would be unfair to bar them from serving I do believe they should be required to post an annual net worth statement and publicly reveal the sources of any and all income. And the FBI should field a special unit dedicated to investigating all suspected conflicts of interest.

The problem is if it were possible to enact such controls we might as well go all the way and impose laws to prohibit any "contributions" to any elected official by anyone for any reason.

Oh please..Quit speaking double talk..
If you were able to vote for Kerry, you would. You're a lib. He's a democrat and a lib...Case fucking closed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

WHAT "additional revenue"? The main argument against raising taxes in a recession is that there will be LESS revenue, not more, because raising taxes suppresses the economy.

That is what the unholy trinity of Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity have been telling us, and what the water-carrying Tories believe. But the economic events of the past three decades clearly shows them to be as wrong as two left feet.

Your deranged obsession with talk show hosts is of no interest to me, and no relevance to the discussion. I stated a basic economic fact, as recognized by multitudes of credible professional economists on BOTH sides of the political spectrum. Stick to basic economic fact, or shut the fuck up.

There is no "economic event" of ANY decade that proves that increasingly higher taxes spur economic growth, rather than strangling it by encouraging people to engage in LESS taxable behavior. If you'd like to prove me wrong, rather than just making vague blanket statements and idiotically expecting that I would believe anything you say, go ahead.

The idea that taxing those who are holding the bulk of America's wealth resources will suppress employment is pure nonsense.

Did I SAY "will suppress employment"? No? That would probably be why you didn't provide an actual quote, preferring instead to just TELL us what you think I said and hoping that I'm as stupid as you and wouldn't notice. Unfortunately for that plan, I could undergo a lobotomy and still have a higher IQ.

Next time, have the cojones to actually provide my quote, and then address WHAT I SAID, you chickenshit loser.

When the operator of a business, whether a locksmith shop or an automobile manufacturer, perceives an opportunity for expansion and sets about to hire new employees the consequent expenditure is an operating cost which does not appear in the profit or assets margin.

Yes, business owners operate in a vacuum, totally oblivious to external factors like the economy, tax rates, changing tax laws, government regulations. All they see is, "Ooh, I can expand, let's go spend money and hire people!"

Have you always been a dumbfuck?

Employees are operating expenses. There is absolutely no reason why apprehension about taxes should discourage an employer from expanding if an opportunity seems worthwhile. The fact that the most productive and prosperous period in American history occurred during the time when the upper level of the progressive tax rate was ninety-one percent should not be ignored.

Wow, what a bunch of irrelevant twaddle. Thank you for totally wasting my time and bandwidth to say a lot of garbage that had fuck-all to do with the post you were putatively responding to. Were you hoping to literally bore me to death, and thus avoid ever having to address anything relevant, or were you just hoping if you blew enough smoke up my ass, it would obscure how little you have to say?

Perhaps now you could go back, quote my post, and respond to what's in it. Or I suppose you could just admit defeat and run away with your tail between your legs. Whichever.

 

[bripat9643]

Assuming MikeK means 1951-63, that does happen to be the flattest part of the chart. But you have to ask the question if "productive and prosperous" is explained by compensation.

If average household income fits that bill...perhaps he's right.

Anyone have a chart that compares total income (of all kinds for all people) historically? That could tell a totally different story.

The vertical axis of your chart is "income per tax unit." In other words, income per family. Families have gotten much smaller since the 50s, so the chart presents a misleading picture. A lot of fmailies now consist of single mothers and divorced fathers. That scews the data significantly in the downward direction. Income per person is up sharply.

As usual, the libtard posts propaganda rather than facts.

 

[Dr Grump]

It seems to me that all this is is class warfare. "let's tax the millionaire" that's fine, but why? It can't be help the deficit because there simply is not enough cash amung the "rich" to make a difference. Why are we raising taxes in a resession? It doesn't matter on who ... Just answer the question "why are we raising taxes in a resession?"

Because the additional revenue will help to pay down the deficit and facilitate a federal jobs program.

Now, tell us why we shouldn't raise taxes on the richest Americans in a recession?

WHAT "additional revenue"? The main argument against raising taxes in a recession is that there will be LESS revenue, not more, because raising taxes suppresses the economy.

I realize that Obama has sold you liberal parrots on renaming "tax increases" as "revenue increases", but that's not actually how it works. Yes, all of the government's revenue comes from taxes, but that does NOT make "tax increase" and "revenue increase" synonymous.

You morons never seem to figure out that you're not dealing with blank, emotionless computer models; you're dealing with flesh-and-blood humans, who react negatively to being told, "Keep working your ass off, but get less out of it". They stop engaging in taxable activities, and start hiding their money where the government can't get it. The result is, inevitably, higher tax rates and LOWER tax revenues.

Take luxury taxes as an example. Liberals actually managed to push through a luxury tax on yacht-buying some time back. What could be more perfect? Only rich people buy yachts, after all. So we'll make those smug, spoiled bastards pay more for their decadent wealth, right?

Predictably - to everyone but liberals - the result was that the wealthy just stopped buying yachts, or started buying them in other countries. And, of course, the liberals have forgotten that while rich people BUY yachts, they aren't the ones who BUILD them. No, that was done by a lot of nice, blue-collar workers in the middle class. I say "was", because quite a few of them lost their jobs when their companies' customer base dried up and moved offshore.

No matter how much you shitstain liberals want to believe that anyone who makes over $200,000 a year is a Paris Hilton-style useless celebutante who can be smacked around and financially drained without consequence, it's never going to become true. Like it or not, we ARE all connected economically, and we DO need them just as much as they need us.

And wrong isn't going to become right no matter how hard you try to justify it.

There's so much drivel in this post it's hard to know where to lay down the paper napkins to absorb the spittle.....

 

[Mr.Nick]

Assuming MikeK means 1951-63, that does happen to be the flattest part of the chart. But you have to ask the question if "productive and prosperous" is explained by compensation.

If average household income fits that bill...perhaps he's right.

Anyone have a chart that compares total income (of all kinds for all people) historically? That could tell a totally different story.

The vertical axis of your chart is "income per tax unit." In other words, income per family. Families have gotten much smaller since the 50s, so the chart presents a misleading picture. A lot of fmailies now consist of single mothers and divorced fathers. That scews the data significantly in the downward direction. Income per person is up sharply.

As usual, the libtard posts propaganda rather than facts.

The self sustainable family unit has grown smaller, however the non-sustainable family has grown larger (welfare fucks) and they depend on government to fund every part of their lives.

 

[flacaltenn]

The bottom 50% of Americans control 2.5% of the wealth...

fine chris if you think people should give me why don't you lead by example and be the first to give more?

I have done nothing but give my entire life.

And I will continue to do so.

I hope that you are aware Chris -- that this pie chart appears to based on sheer crap.. If you have ANY evidence of WHERE the data came from, how it was analyzed, or even what it really means ----- Please go to http://www.usmessageboard.com/4180468-post1.html and explain it to me....

For instance, you can live in a $600K home, drive a Bimmer and have a "net wealth" close to zero...

 

[Gadawg73]

WHAT "additional revenue"? The main argument against raising taxes in a recession is that there will be LESS revenue, not more, because raising taxes suppresses the economy.

That is what the unholy trinity of Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity have been telling us, and what the water-carrying Tories believe. But the economic events of the past three decades clearly shows them to be as wrong as two left feet.

The idea that taxing those who are holding the bulk of America's wealth resources will suppress employment is pure nonsense. When the operator of a business, whether a locksmith shop or an automobile manufacturer, perceives an opportunity for expansion and sets about to hire new employees the consequent expenditure is an operating cost which does not appear in the profit or assets margin.

Employees are operating expenses. There is absolutely no reason why apprehension about taxes should discourage an employer from expanding if an opportunity seems worthwhile. The fact that the most productive and prosperous period in American history occurred during the time when the upper level of the progressive tax rate was ninety-one percent should not be ignored.

"the consequent expenditure is an operating cost and does not appear in the profit or assets margin"
You do not have a fucking clue!
Employees are ALWAYS the biggest expense in most all companies.
Expenses are the BIGGEST factor in whether you make a profit or not.
Are you really this ignorant?

 

[Gadawg73]

Sending more cash to WAshington when they refuse to get their spending in order is outrageous and irresponsible.
Who here claims that current spending is NOT out of control?

 

[Trajan]

Class Warfare!!!!!

Class Warfare started before Republicans apologized to BP.

It started before the Bush Tax cuts for billionaires.

It started before business and the Chamber of Commerce began giving to Republicans 9 to 1 over Democrats.

It began before Republicans created subsidies for oil companies.

Class Warfare began before medical bills became the number one cause of bankruptcy.

It was before corporations, with Republican help, moved millions of jobs to China.

It was before Republicans practiced voter suppression in Midwestern state.

I think it's been around for awhile.

in answer to your question which you seem to ask every 2 weeks or so, because; I don't dwell on envy, jealousy and what I don't have, I get motivated and employ ambition, work and thrift in turn to get what I want for me and mine.

the helpless, I will help and feel a responsibility for.

the clueless like you? ever hear the saying;" those that do survive are the only ones worth surviving"?

 

[Gadawg73]

When I see someone attempt to break into my neighbor's home and steal their belongings I make every effort to stop them.
Same with the government trying to steal cash from billionaires.

 

[BDBoop]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...tives-hate-welfare-hint-it-s-about-steak.html

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Because we're not petty, hand-wringing, covetous little looters.

.....Nor THINKERS, to any great degree.....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y]9.12 DC TEA PARTY - MARCH FOOTAGE WITH INTERVIEWS - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevga9jUC48]9.12 DC TEA PARTY - INTERVIEW B-ROLL - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht8PmEjxUfg]Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" Rally - Interviews With Participants - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFerRGB7nYM]Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" Rally - Interview B-Roll - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8suVjclu8Zo]Can't Fix Stupid - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Sending more cash to WAshington when they refuse to get their spending in order is outrageous and irresponsible.
Who here claims that current spending is NOT out of control?

 

[Intense]

Hey Shaman, if you won a 50 Million Dollar State Lottery, at what percentage should you be taxed?

If OddBall won a 50 Million Dollar State Lottery, at what percentage should he be taxed?

 

[Intense]

Sending more cash to WAshington when they refuse to get their spending in order is outrageous and irresponsible.
Who here claims that current spending is NOT out of control?

I think He was trying to spend like Democrats to get the Populist Vote.

Stupid, huh.