Republicans: why raising taxes on the wealthy is good for the economy

[The Rabbi]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

There is so much error and distortion packed into these statements that it's hard to know where to begin. I'll just provide a few bullet points in reply, followed by some links:

* The post-WWII tax rates on the rich came with enormous loopholes that enabled the rich to shield most of their money.

* After WWII, Congress slashed federal spending.

* Clinton raised some taxes on the rich, but only moderately--he still kept them far below the pre-Reagan rates.

* Clinton also cut taxes on the rich--he signed one of the biggest capital gains tax cuts in our history.

* The Bush tax cuts were followed by huge INCREASES in federal tax revenue. And any assessment of the economy under Bush must factor in the huge impact of the 9/11 attacks on the financial market and the two historically catastrophic hurricanes.

* Citing Germany as a positive example of liberal economic policy in action is erroneous. Germany's corporate tax rate is 30% lower than ours! Germany has severe tort laws, which save them billions of dollars (marks) per year (yet liberals in America fight tort reform tooth and nail). Germany put the hammer to labor costs and labor unions in the 1990s, and those reforms have paid huge dividends. If you think Scott Walker is the devil for imposing some modest restrictions on labor unions, you should research what the German government did to labor unions to get labor costs under control. Germany has not allowed the reckless deficits that have led us to an $18 trillion national debt. Germany has run relatively small deficits and balanced its budget in 2014. Germany's national debt has NEVER gone over 80% of GDP (do you know what our debt-to-GDP ration is? Hint: It's over 100%.).

* If you want to talk about a country that has followed most of the same economic policies that Democrats advocate, let's talk about Japan. Let's start with Barack Obama-san - WSJ and RealClearMarkets - Japan s Lost Decade Argues Against Obama s Policies .

Taxes Spending and the Economy

Germany's corporate tax rate is not the issue. Even so, ours is the highest in the world because up until a year ago we had the highest GDP.
s.

THat's so stupid it's almost worthy of being a sig line, to memorialize your incessant ignorance and stupidity.

 

[The Rabbi]

The right is so blinded by keeping as much of their income as they can they fail to see the importance of revenue. They don't even realize it makes them mooches for not wanting to cough up money to pay for public schools, infrastructure, and our badass military.

90% of the revenue goes to provide sustenance for ticks on the ass of society.

A grand total of 70 billion is spent on food stamps per year.

You're lying. As usual.
Federal Food Stamp Program Spent Record 80.4B in FY 2012 CNS News

And you're retarded as usual. That was in 2012 moron. Republicans cut the funding since then.

You are a boob. An ignoramus. A moron. A retard.
The budget for SNAP is $82.3B, funding was restored.
Appropriations Committee Releases the Fiscal Year 2015 Agriculture Appropriations Bill Committee on Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives

And btw that doesnt include WIC and probably a dozen other programs aimed at feeding the terminally obese in this country.

 

[Billy000]

The right is so blinded by keeping as much of their income as they can they fail to see the importance of revenue. They don't even realize it makes them mooches for not wanting to cough up money to pay for public schools, infrastructure, and our badass military.

90% of the revenue goes to provide sustenance for ticks on the ass of society.

A grand total of 70 billion is spent on food stamps per year.

You're lying. As usual.
Federal Food Stamp Program Spent Record 80.4B in FY 2012 CNS News

And you're retarded as usual. That was in 2012 moron. Republicans cut the funding since then.

You are a boob. An ignoramus. A moron. A retard.
The budget for SNAP is $82.3B, funding was restored.
Appropriations Committee Releases the Fiscal Year 2015 Agriculture Appropriations Bill Committee on Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives

Oh come on. You didn't know that. You googled it and then found out. Idiot.

 

[Billy000]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

There is so much error and distortion packed into these statements that it's hard to know where to begin. I'll just provide a few bullet points in reply, followed by some links:

* The post-WWII tax rates on the rich came with enormous loopholes that enabled the rich to shield most of their money.

* After WWII, Congress slashed federal spending.

* Clinton raised some taxes on the rich, but only moderately--he still kept them far below the pre-Reagan rates.

* Clinton also cut taxes on the rich--he signed one of the biggest capital gains tax cuts in our history.

* The Bush tax cuts were followed by huge INCREASES in federal tax revenue. And any assessment of the economy under Bush must factor in the huge impact of the 9/11 attacks on the financial market and the two historically catastrophic hurricanes.

* Citing Germany as a positive example of liberal economic policy in action is erroneous. Germany's corporate tax rate is 30% lower than ours! Germany has severe tort laws, which save them billions of dollars (marks) per year (yet liberals in America fight tort reform tooth and nail). Germany put the hammer to labor costs and labor unions in the 1990s, and those reforms have paid huge dividends. If you think Scott Walker is the devil for imposing some modest restrictions on labor unions, you should research what the German government did to labor unions to get labor costs under control. Germany has not allowed the reckless deficits that have led us to an $18 trillion national debt. Germany has run relatively small deficits and balanced its budget in 2014. Germany's national debt has NEVER gone over 80% of GDP (do you know what our debt-to-GDP ration is? Hint: It's over 100%.).

* If you want to talk about a country that has followed most of the same economic policies that Democrats advocate, let's talk about Japan. Let's start with Barack Obama-san - WSJ and RealClearMarkets - Japan s Lost Decade Argues Against Obama s Policies .

Taxes Spending and the Economy

Germany's corporate tax rate is not the issue. Even so, ours is the highest in the world because up until a year ago we had the highest GDP.
s.

THat's so stupid it's almost worthy of being a sig line, to memorialize your incessant ignorance and stupidity.

No you just sore because you know I'm right.

 

[The Rabbi]

90% of the revenue goes to provide sustenance for ticks on the ass of society.

A grand total of 70 billion is spent on food stamps per year.

You're lying. As usual.
Federal Food Stamp Program Spent Record 80.4B in FY 2012 CNS News

And you're retarded as usual. That was in 2012 moron. Republicans cut the funding since then.

You are a boob. An ignoramus. A moron. A retard.
The budget for SNAP is $82.3B, funding was restored.
Appropriations Committee Releases the Fiscal Year 2015 Agriculture Appropriations Bill Committee on Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives

Oh come on. You didn't know that. You googled it and then found out. Idiot.

You're still wrong. You also have access to Google. You're still stupid.

 

[Billy000]

90% of the revenue goes to provide sustenance for ticks on the ass of society.

A grand total of 70 billion is spent on food stamps per year.

You're lying. As usual.
Federal Food Stamp Program Spent Record 80.4B in FY 2012 CNS News

And you're retarded as usual. That was in 2012 moron. Republicans cut the funding since then.

You are a boob. An ignoramus. A moron. A retard.
The budget for SNAP is $82.3B, funding was restored.
Appropriations Committee Releases the Fiscal Year 2015 Agriculture Appropriations Bill Committee on Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives

And btw that doesnt include WIC and probably a dozen other programs aimed at feeding the terminally obese in this country.

You do know the bulk on food stamps are veterans and people from poor red states right?

 

[The Rabbi]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

There is so much error and distortion packed into these statements that it's hard to know where to begin. I'll just provide a few bullet points in reply, followed by some links:

* The post-WWII tax rates on the rich came with enormous loopholes that enabled the rich to shield most of their money.

* After WWII, Congress slashed federal spending.

* Clinton raised some taxes on the rich, but only moderately--he still kept them far below the pre-Reagan rates.

* Clinton also cut taxes on the rich--he signed one of the biggest capital gains tax cuts in our history.

* The Bush tax cuts were followed by huge INCREASES in federal tax revenue. And any assessment of the economy under Bush must factor in the huge impact of the 9/11 attacks on the financial market and the two historically catastrophic hurricanes.

* Citing Germany as a positive example of liberal economic policy in action is erroneous. Germany's corporate tax rate is 30% lower than ours! Germany has severe tort laws, which save them billions of dollars (marks) per year (yet liberals in America fight tort reform tooth and nail). Germany put the hammer to labor costs and labor unions in the 1990s, and those reforms have paid huge dividends. If you think Scott Walker is the devil for imposing some modest restrictions on labor unions, you should research what the German government did to labor unions to get labor costs under control. Germany has not allowed the reckless deficits that have led us to an $18 trillion national debt. Germany has run relatively small deficits and balanced its budget in 2014. Germany's national debt has NEVER gone over 80% of GDP (do you know what our debt-to-GDP ration is? Hint: It's over 100%.).

* If you want to talk about a country that has followed most of the same economic policies that Democrats advocate, let's talk about Japan. Let's start with Barack Obama-san - WSJ and RealClearMarkets - Japan s Lost Decade Argues Against Obama s Policies .

Taxes Spending and the Economy

Germany's corporate tax rate is not the issue. Even so, ours is the highest in the world because up until a year ago we had the highest GDP.
s.

THat's so stupid it's almost worthy of being a sig line, to memorialize your incessant ignorance and stupidity.

No you just sore because you know I'm right.

I know you're an idiot. And stupid. And ignorant. You just proved it right there in what I quoted.

 

[Billy000]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

There is so much error and distortion packed into these statements that it's hard to know where to begin. I'll just provide a few bullet points in reply, followed by some links:

* The post-WWII tax rates on the rich came with enormous loopholes that enabled the rich to shield most of their money.

* After WWII, Congress slashed federal spending.

* Clinton raised some taxes on the rich, but only moderately--he still kept them far below the pre-Reagan rates.

* Clinton also cut taxes on the rich--he signed one of the biggest capital gains tax cuts in our history.

* The Bush tax cuts were followed by huge INCREASES in federal tax revenue. And any assessment of the economy under Bush must factor in the huge impact of the 9/11 attacks on the financial market and the two historically catastrophic hurricanes.

* Citing Germany as a positive example of liberal economic policy in action is erroneous. Germany's corporate tax rate is 30% lower than ours! Germany has severe tort laws, which save them billions of dollars (marks) per year (yet liberals in America fight tort reform tooth and nail). Germany put the hammer to labor costs and labor unions in the 1990s, and those reforms have paid huge dividends. If you think Scott Walker is the devil for imposing some modest restrictions on labor unions, you should research what the German government did to labor unions to get labor costs under control. Germany has not allowed the reckless deficits that have led us to an $18 trillion national debt. Germany has run relatively small deficits and balanced its budget in 2014. Germany's national debt has NEVER gone over 80% of GDP (do you know what our debt-to-GDP ration is? Hint: It's over 100%.).

* If you want to talk about a country that has followed most of the same economic policies that Democrats advocate, let's talk about Japan. Let's start with Barack Obama-san - WSJ and RealClearMarkets - Japan s Lost Decade Argues Against Obama s Policies .

Taxes Spending and the Economy

Germany's corporate tax rate is not the issue. Even so, ours is the highest in the world because up until a year ago we had the highest GDP.
s.

THat's so stupid it's almost worthy of being a sig line, to memorialize your incessant ignorance and stupidity.

No you just sore because you know I'm right.

I know you're an idiot. And stupid. And ignorant. You just proved it right there in what I quoted.

You are so transparent lol. If you found it so stupid you wouldn't waste any time in explaining why it's stupid. What are you waiting for, you degenerate?

 

[The Rabbi]

A grand total of 70 billion is spent on food stamps per year.

You're lying. As usual.
Federal Food Stamp Program Spent Record 80.4B in FY 2012 CNS News

And you're retarded as usual. That was in 2012 moron. Republicans cut the funding since then.

You are a boob. An ignoramus. A moron. A retard.
The budget for SNAP is $82.3B, funding was restored.
Appropriations Committee Releases the Fiscal Year 2015 Agriculture Appropriations Bill Committee on Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives

And btw that doesnt include WIC and probably a dozen other programs aimed at feeding the terminally obese in this country.

You do know the bulk on food stamps are veterans and people from poor red states right?

Deflection is also not a river in Egypt.

 

[percysunshine]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

.
Note to Billy; The IRS has modified the definition of the word 'rich' to include you.

Welcome to the party.

.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is so much error and distortion packed into these statements that it's hard to know where to begin. I'll just provide a few bullet points in reply, followed by some links:

* The post-WWII tax rates on the rich came with enormous loopholes that enabled the rich to shield most of their money.

* After WWII, Congress slashed federal spending.

* Clinton raised some taxes on the rich, but only moderately--he still kept them far below the pre-Reagan rates.

* Clinton also cut taxes on the rich--he signed one of the biggest capital gains tax cuts in our history.

* The Bush tax cuts were followed by huge INCREASES in federal tax revenue. And any assessment of the economy under Bush must factor in the huge impact of the 9/11 attacks on the financial market and the two historically catastrophic hurricanes.

* Citing Germany as a positive example of liberal economic policy in action is erroneous. Germany's corporate tax rate is 30% lower than ours! Germany has severe tort laws, which save them billions of dollars (marks) per year (yet liberals in America fight tort reform tooth and nail). Germany put the hammer to labor costs and labor unions in the 1990s, and those reforms have paid huge dividends. If you think Scott Walker is the devil for imposing some modest restrictions on labor unions, you should research what the German government did to labor unions to get labor costs under control. Germany has not allowed the reckless deficits that have led us to an $18 trillion national debt. Germany has run relatively small deficits and balanced its budget in 2014. Germany's national debt has NEVER gone over 80% of GDP (do you know what our debt-to-GDP ration is? Hint: It's over 100%.).

* If you want to talk about a country that has followed most of the same economic policies that Democrats advocate, let's talk about Japan. Let's start with Barack Obama-san - WSJ and RealClearMarkets - Japan s Lost Decade Argues Against Obama s Policies .

Taxes Spending and the Economy

Germany's corporate tax rate is not the issue. Even so, ours is the highest in the world because up until a year ago we had the highest GDP.
s.

THat's so stupid it's almost worthy of being a sig line, to memorialize your incessant ignorance and stupidity.

No you just sore because you know I'm right.

I know you're an idiot. And stupid. And ignorant. You just proved it right there in what I quoted.

You are so transparent lol. If you found it so stupid you wouldn't waste any time in explaining why it's stupid. What are you waiting for, you degenerate?

You understand the corporate tax rate is totally unrelated to the GDP, right? There is no, zero, causal relationship.

 

[Billy000]

Germany's corporate tax rate is not the issue. Even so, ours is the highest in the world because up until a year ago we had the highest GDP.
s.

THat's so stupid it's almost worthy of being a sig line, to memorialize your incessant ignorance and stupidity.

No you just sore because you know I'm right.

I know you're an idiot. And stupid. And ignorant. You just proved it right there in what I quoted.

You are so transparent lol. If you found it so stupid you wouldn't waste any time in explaining why it's stupid. What are you waiting for, you degenerate?

You understand the corporate tax rate is totally unrelated to the GDP, right? There is no, zero, causal relationship.

You're such an idiot. Why else would the corporate tax rate be the highest in the world?

You really try too hard don't you? You have the maturity of a young adolescent who can't stand being wrong. You'll say anything. No wonder you're such a bigoted fucktard.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Funny thing is...

Infrastructure, science, r&d = 3-4% of our entire budget. Yet they hate it because it helps Americans.

We can have the safest water on the planet
Clean air
New exciting advancements that amaze the world!
The best weather warning!! For everyone.
We're relied on for cures for disease and our cdc's abilities to fight it all over the fucking world.
We all know how strong that earthquake is
We the united states has explored every planet and soon pluto!
We know at least 2,000 extrasolar planets. Are knowledge of our universe has expanded like never before in 2 million years of human history!
Our children want to become scientist, etc.
We build dams, bridges, that at one time were the best on earth!

Yes, let's attack 4% of the goddamn budget. You fucking retarded fools. I beg nations like haiti to have the sense we have shown over our history and you wish to copy them.

 

[JoeNormal]

You understand that speaking fees and a book advance are not consulting for several companies, right? Tell me you're not that stupid and you admit you pulled the first part out of your ass.

You're some kind of special retard aren't you. You take issue with the word 'probably' and then accuse me of pulling facts out of my ass. I've actually got better things to do than research for a throw away question. So tell me why it matters. The pertinent point is that she made $12 million and probably only took home 7 of it. You seem to think the taxes would discourage her from working. Why should she bother? Do you think for $7 million, you could show up? She apparently considers it worth her time.

So I caught you slinging lies and it's my fault? Im the retard here? No, no, son. You throw shit around because you dont have a clue what the reality is.
And the reality is that high income people have a lot of discretion in how much they earn and how they distribute that over the calender. You cannot refute it because it is simply fact.

And in this case, what difference does that discretion make?

Rabbi? Still there? It must make some major difference considering the level of importance you put on it. Are you furiously Googling so as not to lose face?

You're kidding me, right? Unlike you I dont need to Google everything. I learned it at one time.
What difference does it make? I already told you what difference it makes. Are you that stupid you can't keep track of the conversation?

Sounds like you're talking out of your ass again.

Speaking of which, how's that constipation treating you today?

 

[Kosh]

THat's so stupid it's almost worthy of being a sig line, to memorialize your incessant ignorance and stupidity.

No you just sore because you know I'm right.

I know you're an idiot. And stupid. And ignorant. You just proved it right there in what I quoted.

You are so transparent lol. If you found it so stupid you wouldn't waste any time in explaining why it's stupid. What are you waiting for, you degenerate?

You understand the corporate tax rate is totally unrelated to the GDP, right? There is no, zero, causal relationship.

You're such an idiot. Why else would the corporate tax rate be the highest in the world?

You really try too hard don't you? You have the maturity of a young adolescent who can't stand being wrong. You'll say anything. No wonder you're such a bigoted fucktard.

The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

The far left always shows they do not understand anything beyond their programmed religious propaganda..

 

[The Rabbi]

THat's so stupid it's almost worthy of being a sig line, to memorialize your incessant ignorance and stupidity.

No you just sore because you know I'm right.

I know you're an idiot. And stupid. And ignorant. You just proved it right there in what I quoted.

You are so transparent lol. If you found it so stupid you wouldn't waste any time in explaining why it's stupid. What are you waiting for, you degenerate?

You understand the corporate tax rate is totally unrelated to the GDP, right? There is no, zero, causal relationship.

You're such an idiot. Why else would the corporate tax rate be the highest in the world?

You really try too hard don't you? You have the maturity of a young adolescent who can't stand being wrong. You'll say anything. No wonder you're such a bigoted fucktard.

Seriously? Really?
Suriname and Angola have among the highest corporate tax rates in the world. They hardly have the highest GDP.
I havent been wrong in any discussion with you yet. You OTOH cant help yourlesf from posting the most stupid, ignorant crap you pull out of your ass. ANd then deflecting when caught on it.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're some kind of special retard aren't you. You take issue with the word 'probably' and then accuse me of pulling facts out of my ass. I've actually got better things to do than research for a throw away question. So tell me why it matters. The pertinent point is that she made $12 million and probably only took home 7 of it. You seem to think the taxes would discourage her from working. Why should she bother? Do you think for $7 million, you could show up? She apparently considers it worth her time.

So I caught you slinging lies and it's my fault? Im the retard here? No, no, son. You throw shit around because you dont have a clue what the reality is.
And the reality is that high income people have a lot of discretion in how much they earn and how they distribute that over the calender. You cannot refute it because it is simply fact.

And in this case, what difference does that discretion make?

Rabbi? Still there? It must make some major difference considering the level of importance you put on it. Are you furiously Googling so as not to lose face?

You're kidding me, right? Unlike you I dont need to Google everything. I learned it at one time.
What difference does it make? I already told you what difference it makes. Are you that stupid you can't keep track of the conversation?

Sounds like you're talking out of your ass again.

Speaking of which, how's that constipation treating you today?

Sounds like someone incapable of following the discussion, much less adding anything, much less refuting anything I write.

 

[JoeNormal]

So I caught you slinging lies and it's my fault? Im the retard here? No, no, son. You throw shit around because you dont have a clue what the reality is.
And the reality is that high income people have a lot of discretion in how much they earn and how they distribute that over the calender. You cannot refute it because it is simply fact.

And in this case, what difference does that discretion make?

Rabbi? Still there? It must make some major difference considering the level of importance you put on it. Are you furiously Googling so as not to lose face?

You're kidding me, right? Unlike you I dont need to Google everything. I learned it at one time.
What difference does it make? I already told you what difference it makes. Are you that stupid you can't keep track of the conversation?

Sounds like you're talking out of your ass again.

Speaking of which, how's that constipation treating you today?

Sounds like someone incapable of following the discussion, much less adding anything, much less refuting anything I write.

I have no problem following cogent, mature adults. (That's not you.). Maybe if you could manage to carry on a real conversation you could become a legend in someone else's mind besides you own. I think it would be the funniest thing in the world to see the pathetic life you must lead - free from the burden of friends.

 

[Londoner]

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

The economy requires sufficient funds on both the supply side and the demand side.
During the postwar years, we erred on the "Demand" side. Our tax, labor and trade policies were designed to put more money in the pockets of lower and middle class Americans. The wealthy were taxed at a much higher rate, and extra the revenue went to infrastructure, technological advances (which came in large degree through Cold War military spending) and a whole network of programs designed to reduce the middle class cost of living, e.g., affordable college. There was also a strong support for unions, which served to keep wages and benefits high. There was an alliance - albeit an uneasy one - between capital and labor. The result was that middle class Americans participated in the most robust economic growth this nation has ever seen.

And so yes, postwar policies gave the non-wealthy massive purchasing power. And guess what happens when consumers have more spendin' money? Investment capital pours in from everywhere to capture those consumer dollars. It's called a virtuous cycle. Indeed, the capitalist is forced to add jobs and innovate because consumers have a ton of extra money with which to buy whatever is produced. This also creates more competition because the market can support multiple suppliers across different consumer niches.

But the great postwar boom stalled in 1973 when we started to see high inflation and high unemployment (stagflation). This crisis, precipitated by what looks like a very strategic oil shock, breathed life into the once-obscure Supply Side movement, which held that high taxes and high labor costs created a disincentive to invest. (This makes sense, e.g., if my potential profits are usurped by high labor costs and high taxes, than I have less incentive to invest)

So we listened to the Supply Side movement and elected Reagan who curbed the excesses of the Welfare State and restored profit margins. He waged war on unions and made it easier for capital to flee expensive US labor for cheap labor markets around the globe. This is when we started to see the shift of production to China and other parts of the 3rd world.

Of course this had the effect of lowering American wages. In addition to the loss of good jobs (to sweatshops in China and Taiwan), Reagan waged war against the broad policy structure that boosted middle class purchasing power. To make up for lost jobs, Reagan lorded over the most aggressive expansion of credit in American history. Essentially, he replaced wage-based spending with debt-based consumption. The low wage structure boosted profits and temporarily spurred investment. Indeed, the steroidal expansion of credit repaired our 70s malaise and restored consumption to postwar levels. It was called Morning in America. And the economy grew at an impressive clip. But now the middle class has finally bumped into its borrowed-against future... and the nation is too indebted and lacks the job base and wage structure to consume at the needed levels to sustain economic growth.

The middle class feels less secure than at any time in history. Meaning: the jobs are gone and they are increasingly fleeced by government protected monopolies. Welcome to the rentier class that Adam Smith and Karl Marx warned about.

Now, the only jobs that come back to the USA are ones that underbid the 3rd world.

In short the game is over.

You can't sustain long term economic growth by replacing wages with credit (debt). Unless the middle class is solvent enough to consume, we will continue to see a very crisis ridden form of capitalism. But this has always been a flaw of capitalism. In its drive to lower the cost of production, capitalism cannibalizes its consumers by lowering their wages. And then it tries to make up for lost wages and slashed benefits by making it easier for strapped consumers to go further and further into debt. This always ends poorly.

 

[Wyatt earp]

They are subsidized by the government. They are increasing government dependence. You that dumb? If you want small government then business needs to support workers, not government.

They subsidize the government. How stupid are you? If WalMart didnt pay wages the gov't would foot the bill for these people. How is hiring someone increasing gov't dependence? You sound like a retard.

Ok so they are making billions each year. Without employees they make nothing. They could pay employees enough they aren't on welfare and government gets smaller. You prefer however they are on welfare. You must be a communist.

And where do Walmart employees spend their foodstamp money? At walmart.

Yeah,....So do a lot of unionized workers.....

Not as many as you think. Better deals at meijers and Kroger's. So not the smart ones. And if they are smart enough to get themselves a fair share of the profits theyre probably smart with their money.

Now I know you are not very bright we have Bi lo and Food lion down here in Arizona they have frys to compete with Walmart