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

[Brain357]

We would be paying anyway.

Would we? Or would there be some other company that takes Walmarts place and pays more? Why should the Waltons make billions off tax subsidized workers?

They don't. They make it off selling stuff.

The Waltons do more to attempt to get people out of low paying jobs than any government program out there.

Yes they could pay more and take a lot of people off welfare, but they don't. Instead they make their billions and let the tax payers cover the difference.

If they paid more they would hire better employees and the ones they have now would have no job. Typical heartless bastard of a liberal. You make choices over the lives of others using someone else's money and smugly pat yourself on the back while they pay the price for your arrogance.

They never realize this one. Or the other one where sooner or later its cheaper to replace the workers with automation.

Paying someone $15 an hour for labor only worth $5 an hour is a losing proposition.

Yes automation would be great for walmart. Unemploy a bunch of their customers and replace with automation. Automation doesn't make for a very good customer.

 

[kaz]

We would be paying anyway.

Would we? Or would there be some other company that takes Walmarts place and pays more? Why should the Waltons make billions off tax subsidized workers?

They don't. They make it off selling stuff.

The Waltons do more to attempt to get people out of low paying jobs than any government program out there.

Yes they could pay more and take a lot of people off welfare, but they don't. Instead they make their billions and let the tax payers cover the difference.

If they paid more they would hire better employees and the ones they have now would have no job. Typical heartless bastard of a liberal. You make choices over the lives of others using someone else's money and smugly pat yourself on the back while they pay the price for your arrogance.

You are arguing for government dependence and calling me a liberal? You must be joking right?

Strawman

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why is it the ONLY factor liberals consider is taxes when it comes to economic growth?
You dumb fucks always talk about post WWII and pretend like the only thing that's changed since then are the tax rates.

Ps. The op is a moron.

One of the post WWII conditions that was much more positive is that the top tier earned a much smaller wage differential than the lower classes. Back then, conspicuous consumption seemed to be in somewhat bad taste. No longer. Now these greedy mutherfuckers don't care it they take home 1000x the average and don't mind if they have to outsource everyone under them to do it.

If I had my way, there would be a maximum wage of 20x the average in that company. The top dogs could make as much as they wanted but they'd have to raise the tide for everybody to do it.

I always liked this liberal idea, last I read they were trying it in some California City

It would help out small companies compete Against the giants

 

[martybegan]

Would we? Or would there be some other company that takes Walmarts place and pays more? Why should the Waltons make billions off tax subsidized workers?

They don't. They make it off selling stuff.

The Waltons do more to attempt to get people out of low paying jobs than any government program out there.

Yes they could pay more and take a lot of people off welfare, but they don't. Instead they make their billions and let the tax payers cover the difference.

If they paid more they would hire better employees and the ones they have now would have no job. Typical heartless bastard of a liberal. You make choices over the lives of others using someone else's money and smugly pat yourself on the back while they pay the price for your arrogance.

They never realize this one. Or the other one where sooner or later its cheaper to replace the workers with automation.

Paying someone $15 an hour for labor only worth $5 an hour is a losing proposition.

Yes automation would be great for walmart. Unemploy a bunch of their customers and replace with automation. Automation doesn't make for a very good customer.

But its better than paying someone $15 an hour for $5 an hour work.

 

[kaz]

We would be paying anyway.

Would we? Or would there be some other company that takes Walmarts place and pays more? Why should the Waltons make billions off tax subsidized workers?

So if they take the jobs at Walmart, that means they can't make more. So if Walmart doesn't hire them, how are they going to live at all? You really hate low end workers, you want to deny them employment entirely.

If walmart doesn't hire them the Waltons make no money.

No, the Waltons would hire people worth whatever your arbitrary minimum wage is and the ones they hire now would have no job and you would have not been the one who pays the price for your arrogance.

Right because making slightly more is going to just drive in the better people. Are you really this dumb?

No, I'm an employer and you're not, so I know what I'm talking about and you have no idea what you are talking about.

For low end workers? Hell yeah, you go up a few bucks and you get way better workers. And no, paying more doesn't improve the quality of the ones not worth it. You have to replace them.

 

[martybegan]

Would we? Or would there be some other company that takes Walmarts place and pays more? Why should the Waltons make billions off tax subsidized workers?

So if they take the jobs at Walmart, that means they can't make more. So if Walmart doesn't hire them, how are they going to live at all? You really hate low end workers, you want to deny them employment entirely.

If walmart doesn't hire them the Waltons make no money.

No, the Waltons would hire people worth whatever your arbitrary minimum wage is and the ones they hire now would have no job and you would have not been the one who pays the price for your arrogance.

Right because making slightly more is going to just drive in the better people. Are you really this dumb?

No, I'm an employer and you're not, so I know what I'm talking about and you have no idea what you are talking about.

For low end workers? Hell yeah, you go up a few bucks and you get way better workers. And no, paying more doesn't improve the quality of the ones not worth it. You have to replace them.

They just don't get it. When you offer more money that the labor is worth, you get people who realize they can do the job with one hand tied behind their back, and STILL do it better than the people they just replaced. Its still a losing proposition for the owner, unless the $15 an hour people are so much better that they replace multiple $5 workers.

 

[kaz]

Would we? Or would there be some other company that takes Walmarts place and pays more? Why should the Waltons make billions off tax subsidized workers?

They don't. They make it off selling stuff.

The Waltons do more to attempt to get people out of low paying jobs than any government program out there.

Yes they could pay more and take a lot of people off welfare, but they don't. Instead they make their billions and let the tax payers cover the difference.

If they paid more they would hire better employees and the ones they have now would have no job. Typical heartless bastard of a liberal. You make choices over the lives of others using someone else's money and smugly pat yourself on the back while they pay the price for your arrogance.

They never realize this one. Or the other one where sooner or later its cheaper to replace the workers with automation.

Paying someone $15 an hour for labor only worth $5 an hour is a losing proposition.

Yes automation would be great for walmart. Unemploy a bunch of their customers and replace with automation. Automation doesn't make for a very good customer.

So seriously, you think hiring your lowest end customers is a way to improve your profits? And you call yourself "brain?" Talk about an antonym.

 

[kaz]

So if they take the jobs at Walmart, that means they can't make more. So if Walmart doesn't hire them, how are they going to live at all? You really hate low end workers, you want to deny them employment entirely.

If walmart doesn't hire them the Waltons make no money.

No, the Waltons would hire people worth whatever your arbitrary minimum wage is and the ones they hire now would have no job and you would have not been the one who pays the price for your arrogance.

Right because making slightly more is going to just drive in the better people. Are you really this dumb?

No, I'm an employer and you're not, so I know what I'm talking about and you have no idea what you are talking about.

For low end workers? Hell yeah, you go up a few bucks and you get way better workers. And no, paying more doesn't improve the quality of the ones not worth it. You have to replace them.

They just don't get it. When you offer more money that the labor is worth, you get people who realize they can do the job with one hand tied behind their back, and STILL do it better than the people they just replaced. Its still a losing proposition for the owner, unless the $15 an hour people are so much better that they replace multiple $5 workers.

Yes, it's not economically efficient so everyone suffers. But relatively, everyone's costs go up so the Waltons have the same slice of the pie, it's just a smaller pie. The millions of workers brain axed get no pie

 

[Flash]

Raising taxes on Americans is never good for anything except to put money into the hands of power hungry bureaucrats, elected by greedy special interest groups.

This idea that it is better for the filthy incompetent corrupt government to spend the money made by Americans than the people that actually made it is absolutely one of the most stupid ideas ever created by mankind.

 

[Jarhead]

Why should the rich pay so little? At a time when infrastructure is going to crap, our educational system is falling apart and we're losing ground in science. You support doing nothing.

I've come to the conclusion that the super rich are nothing more than traitors and parasites on our society if this is what they wish for it.

either you have a reading comprehension issue, you are intentionally diverting from my point, or I am not articulating my point properly.
Lets assume the latter.
Those jobs are not for adults. They are for 16 year olds...they are for college students who need a part time job for beer money.....
The issue is that 35 year old fathers of 4 are taking those jobs.

Don't blame the waltons for that.

So the largest employer in the country has jobs for children only? Maybe we do need to nationalize Walmart, you communists might be right.

actually, the minimum wage jobs ARE for children. The waltons pay their supervisors and managers very nice salaries because they need adults for those jobs.

Pay attention....I described earlier the career path in retail.

So the largest employer in the country requires the government subsidize wages while the owners make billions.

Walmart is not being subsidized.

The people who refuse to do what it takes to pay their own bills are being subsidized.

If one MW wage job is not enough to pay your bills you have the option of getting a second job or improving your skill set or learning a new skill set so as to get a better paying job.

That's the way it works. People who refuse to do this are the ones that deserve your contempt

So even though they have a job, you still want them on welfare? Interesting.

No. I don't want those who have families taking a job that puts them on welfare.

Stock boys do not make the retailers billions. You fire that stock boy and hire a temp, the company will still make billions. You replace that temp with a 16 year old inexperienced individual, the company will still make billions. You replace that stock boy with a robot, and the co9mpany will still make billions.

You fire the buyer of home goods who has a great knack for making solid wholesale deals and has the ability to monitor consumer trends when determining what to stock the shelves with, and the company may suffer. That is why that buyer makes money that puts him/her well above the poverty line.

I will say it again....

Our problem is not that we do not pay low level DISPENSIBLE people enough money to go off welfare.

Our problem is that we have adults; family men and women with children taking low level jobs that do not warrant "living wages"

It is not a financial issue. It is a social issue.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why should the rich pay so little? At a time when infrastructure is going to crap, our educational system is falling apart and we're losing ground in science. You support doing nothing.

I've come to the conclusion that the super rich are nothing more than traitors and parasites on our society if this is what they wish for it.

actually, the minimum wage jobs ARE for children. The waltons pay their supervisors and managers very nice salaries because they need adults for those jobs.

Pay attention....I described earlier the career path in retail.

So the largest employer in the country requires the government subsidize wages while the owners make billions.

Walmart is not being subsidized.

The people who refuse to do what it takes to pay their own bills are being subsidized.

If one MW wage job is not enough to pay your bills you have the option of getting a second job or improving your skill set or learning a new skill set so as to get a better paying job.

That's the way it works. People who refuse to do this are the ones that deserve your contempt

So even though they have a job, you still want them on welfare? Interesting.

Where did I say that?

It's not the employers responsibility to get a person off welfare. It's the person's responsibility.

You are all for people being irresponsible.

Well you sound like thats what you are saying. The Waltons make billions each year so they could pay them enough to get off welfare. But you prefer they make billions for the waltons and remain on welfare. Sounds like you love government dependence.

It's not Walmart's fault people are on welfare.

So why on earth should they be responsible for getting people off welfare?

And the government loves government dependence which is why it is so easy to get on the dole. it has nothing to do with Walmart you just want to make a couple rich guys the scapegoats for other people's own failings

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nor am I expecting them to make millions, just enough to not collect welfare. The waltons are making billions each year off these people so they obviously have value. I don't want them collecting welfare and prefer Walmart pays them enough. Do you like some of the others on here prefer they collect welfare and grow the size of government? Do you prefer the Waltons make billions while government dependance grows? Are you a communist like the others?

Government dependence has grown because it's easier than ever to get on the dole.

Make it harder to suck on the government tit and people will be forced be responsible for themselves which iswhat they should have been doing all along

Progressives are shocked when they provide for people who make mistakes in life, and then MORE people keep making the same mistake.

When the government pays for a behavior, it encourages it.

And I am shocked that the Waltons are so greedy that they make billions and pay workers so little they are on welfare. I'm shocked that so many of you are communist and prefer the government pays the workers rather than the billionaire waltons.

Envy is and ugly thing, and you are full of it.

You are also full of bullshit, so you have that going for you as well.

Envy is being a real fiscal conservative? I had no idea. Sorry I'm not a communist like you, but government dependence isn't good.

if you were a fiscal conservative you would be talking about government spending and waste not what one company pays its unskilled workers

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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."

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s,

Bill Clinton raised taxes on everybody.

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.

George Bush cut taxes for everybody.
And crediting Clinton's higher taxes for the Internet Boom is something only a moron would do.
And there's Billy with the 000 IQ.

 

[kaz]

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."

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s,

Bill Clinton raised taxes on everybody.

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.

George Bush cut taxes for everybody.
And crediting Clinton's higher taxes for the Internet Boom is something only a moron would do.
And there's Billy with the 000 IQ.

Liberals are simpletons, they think you can pick one thing and assume that was the only thing that drove the economy

 

[Brain357]

Why should the rich pay so little? At a time when infrastructure is going to crap, our educational system is falling apart and we're losing ground in science. You support doing nothing.

I've come to the conclusion that the super rich are nothing more than traitors and parasites on our society if this is what they wish for it.

So the largest employer in the country requires the government subsidize wages while the owners make billions.

Walmart is not being subsidized.

The people who refuse to do what it takes to pay their own bills are being subsidized.

If one MW wage job is not enough to pay your bills you have the option of getting a second job or improving your skill set or learning a new skill set so as to get a better paying job.

That's the way it works. People who refuse to do this are the ones that deserve your contempt

So even though they have a job, you still want them on welfare? Interesting.

Where did I say that?

It's not the employers responsibility to get a person off welfare. It's the person's responsibility.

You are all for people being irresponsible.

Well you sound like thats what you are saying. The Waltons make billions each year so they could pay them enough to get off welfare. But you prefer they make billions for the waltons and remain on welfare. Sounds like you love government dependence.

It's not Walmart's fault people are on welfare.

So why on earth should they be responsible for getting people off welfare?

And the government loves government dependence which is why it is so easy to get on the dole. it has nothing to do with Walmart you just want to make a couple rich guys the scapegoats for other people's own failings

Because they employ them obviously. Unlike you I'm not big government. Either the employer or the government have to do it. I prefer the employer. You communists prefer the gov.

 

[Brain357]

Government dependence has grown because it's easier than ever to get on the dole.

Make it harder to suck on the government tit and people will be forced be responsible for themselves which iswhat they should have been doing all along

Progressives are shocked when they provide for people who make mistakes in life, and then MORE people keep making the same mistake.

When the government pays for a behavior, it encourages it.

And I am shocked that the Waltons are so greedy that they make billions and pay workers so little they are on welfare. I'm shocked that so many of you are communist and prefer the government pays the workers rather than the billionaire waltons.

Envy is and ugly thing, and you are full of it.

You are also full of bullshit, so you have that going for you as well.

Envy is being a real fiscal conservative? I had no idea. Sorry I'm not a communist like you, but government dependence isn't good.

if you were a fiscal conservative you would be talking about government spending and waste not what one company pays its unskilled workers

I am talking about spending, welfare moron. Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

 

[kaz]

Unlike you I'm not big government

Self awareness isn't your bag...

Either the employer or the government have to do it. I prefer the employer. You communists prefer the gov.

So you raise the minimum wage, they get fired as Walmart hires better workers, and you have accomplished what for them exactly?

 

[SAYIT]

The high income earners pay over 100% of income taxes in this country. The bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income tax at all. Who is the moocher here?

Hey rabbit, I am one of those "high earners" that pays taxes. You are one of those that get the EIC or worse, you earn no payroll to tax at all.

I sure as hell don't need an asshole like you worrying about my taxes. Maybe you could try and get a job and contribute to the country. Buy paying SOME taxes.

Yanno Zeke, if you feel you are not being taxed enough on your "high" earnings or that our federal gov't needs more cash to waste, feel free to donate some or all of what you make. Problem solved!

 

[Brain357]

Unlike you I'm not big government

Self awareness isn't your bag...

Either the employer or the government have to do it. I prefer the employer. You communists prefer the gov.

So you raise the minimum wage, they get fired as Walmart hires better workers, and you have accomplished what for them exactly?

Really, they are going to find better workers for what is still very low pay? You are joking right?

 

[Wyatt earp]

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."

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s,

Bill Clinton raised taxes on everybody.

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.

George Bush cut taxes for everybody.
And crediting Clinton's higher taxes for the Internet Boom is something only a moron would do.
And there's Billy with the 000 IQ.

I love this shit, only a moron wouldn't have known we went into a mini recession in late 1999