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

[kaz]

They'll replace the poor ones with unsubsidized ones.
Will government payments to the fired "subsidized" workers increase or decrease? Why?

Really how much will they be paying now? Where will they find these reacements?

Oh, Obama is providing plenty of unemployed workers who want jobs.

BTW, the monetary value of the labor pool is a normal distribution. We are talking about the lowest end of the bell curve. There are plenty of workers who would meet WalMart's needs available. If that was not true, WalMart could not pay what they do.

 

[Brain357]

WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

Yes they stay in business a real long time without the employees.

True but irrelevant. If they pay more, they can hire better workers. If you are happy with a $30 toaster and government passes a law that toasters can't be sold for less than $50, are you going to pay $50 for a $30 toaster that suits your needs or are you going to buy the best toaster you can get for $50 since you have to pay that?

You really are an idiot, you can't even grasp or respond to the point being made. You just keep repeating your strawman.

You can't seem to get there aren't all these workers out there willing to work just above collecting welfare. It's the same people.

 

[kaz]

WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

For one that wouldn't happen. And two, somebody would take the place of Walmart and hire them.

So none of these other companies are stepping forward and hiring those employees now for what Wal Mart pays them. However, if companies have to pay them more and they get fired by Wal Mart, the companies that won't pay them what WalMart pays them now will step in and pay them more than what WalMart pays them now.



Um...and you call yourself "brain?" You forgot to add "dead" didn't you?

Dnt act like the Waltons making billions is doing the poor a favor.

Strawman. No one said WalMart is going it to do them a favor. You fundamentally don't understand Capitalism. But let's compare.

Walmart: In the interest of themselves and their employees, they hire lots of low end workers that can't support themselves whether WalMart hires them or not, so at least they are partially supporting themselves.

You: Interfere in the market and make the arrogant choice over other people's lives to deny low end workers any employment so they can't support themselves at all and harm the economy by driving up the cost for an employer who was paying full market wages.

You make choices over other people's lives and pay nothing for that choice you stick it on WalMart and get lots of low end workers fired. Then you pat yourself smugly on the back for your generosity.

Sorry but for a few dollars more new people aren't going to be rushing to work at Walmart.

The majority of workers? No. But workers who are a rung up from the ones they hire now? Hell yeah.

Again though I actually do this for a living and you gulp the self serving lies of lawyers, so obviously you know better.

 

[Brain357]

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

Lmao in what world is that?

God damn you liberals are total morons sometimes

You really aren't very smart.

Your not very rich or have balls

Oh really? Are you just going to keep saying stupid things?

what you want me to post pics now? Ok I will

Looks tiny.

 

[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

We were in recession from March 2001-Nov 2001.
So what's your point, moron?

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.

Lmao in what world is that?

God damn you liberals are total morons sometimes

You really aren't very smart.

Your not very rich or have balls

Oh really? Are you just going to keep saying stupid things?

It started late 1999 but you dumb fuck operators Didnt know it

 

[kaz]

WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

Yes they stay in business a real long time without the employees.

True but irrelevant. If they pay more, they can hire better workers. If you are happy with a $30 toaster and government passes a law that toasters can't be sold for less than $50, are you going to pay $50 for a $30 toaster that suits your needs or are you going to buy the best toaster you can get for $50 since you have to pay that?

You really are an idiot, you can't even grasp or respond to the point being made. You just keep repeating your strawman.

You can't seem to get there aren't all these workers out there willing to work just above collecting welfare. It's the same people.

No, it's not. Try managing a restaurant and hiring staff and you'll realize what a load of crap you are spewing.

 

[Brain357]

WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

For one that wouldn't happen. And two, somebody would take the place of Walmart and hire them.

So none of these other companies are stepping forward and hiring those employees now for what Wal Mart pays them. However, if companies have to pay them more and they get fired by Wal Mart, the companies that won't pay them what WalMart pays them now will step in and pay them more than what WalMart pays them now.



Um...and you call yourself "brain?" You forgot to add "dead" didn't you?

Dnt act like the Waltons making billions is doing the poor a favor.

Strawman. No one said WalMart is going it to do them a favor. You fundamentally don't understand Capitalism. But let's compare.

Walmart: In the interest of themselves and their employees, they hire lots of low end workers that can't support themselves whether WalMart hires them or not, so at least they are partially supporting themselves.

You: Interfere in the market and make the arrogant choice over other people's lives to deny low end workers any employment so they can't support themselves at all and harm the economy by driving up the cost for an employer who was paying full market wages.

You make choices over other people's lives and pay nothing for that choice you stick it on WalMart and get lots of low end workers fired. Then you pat yourself smugly on the back for your generosity.

Sorry but for a few dollars more new people aren't going to be rushing to work at Walmart.

The majority of workers? No. But workers who are a rung up from the ones they hire now? Hell yeah.

Again though I actually do this for a living and you gulp the self serving lies of lawyers, so obviously you know better.

Where will the people come from? If min wage is increased they will be making it where they work now. Why would they be rushing to Walmart to make the same they do now?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why do I need any thing bigger? Just a single 49 year old guy living in a 3 bedroom house On a lake?

 

[Brain357]

WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

Yes they stay in business a real long time without the employees.

True but irrelevant. If they pay more, they can hire better workers. If you are happy with a $30 toaster and government passes a law that toasters can't be sold for less than $50, are you going to pay $50 for a $30 toaster that suits your needs or are you going to buy the best toaster you can get for $50 since you have to pay that?

You really are an idiot, you can't even grasp or respond to the point being made. You just keep repeating your strawman.

You can't seem to get there aren't all these workers out there willing to work just above collecting welfare. It's the same people.

No, it's not. Try managing a restaurant and hiring staff and you'll realize what a load of crap you are spewing.

Yes there are a bunch of unemployed better workers willing to work for just over being able to collect welfare. Sure there are.

 

[Brain357]

Why do I need any thing bigger? Just a single 49 year old guy living in a 3 bedroom house On a lake?

Not surprised you are single.

 

[JoeNormal]

WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

Yes they stay in business a real long time without the employees.

True but irrelevant. If they pay more, they can hire better workers. If you are happy with a $30 toaster and government passes a law that toasters can't be sold for less than $50, are you going to pay $50 for a $30 toaster that suits your needs or are you going to buy the best toaster you can get for $50 since you have to pay that?

You really are an idiot, you can't even grasp or respond to the point being made. You just keep repeating your strawman.

What are all these slightly better workers doing right now?

 

[sealybobo]

You guys do it all the fucking time. Either that or take the tack on how unfair it is that some people have to pay more taxes than others.

Nope.
Mere assertion fallacy.
Rabbi Rules! Chewck my sig line.

Uh huh. So refresh my memory, why is it that you think lowering taxes would be desirable?

Because lower tax rates generally create incentives to work harder and keep more of the money you make. Higher income people working harder creates opportunities for lower income people to earn more. THis is pretty elemental. Except if you're stupid.

Are you saying rich people could be more productive if we would just stop taxing them so much?

The rich are doing great you idiot! My brother just bought some property because he's sitting on cash and banks aren't giving shit. He didn't start a business or hire anyone.

On the other hand the real estate guy made a commission.

All I know is my brother doesn't work 500 x harder than his employees but he does make 500x more. They need to give some of that to his employees. Why do the ceo's and vp"'s think they deserve all the spoils.

Didn't pirate captains share their booty with their crew?

Stop crying about what's fair. What works is what you should be asking. Spread the wealth. Its not socialism. They can still make 400x or 300x more than us but 500x doesn't aork.

What is someone holding a gun to your brothers head to keep the money? Why Don't your brother be like Jesus and give his money to his Employees? ,why Don't he donate it to the IRS? Why do liberals think you can Legistrate Morrality? Who decides what a person should make, the government ?

Finally pirates knew they had to share the loot otberwise they would end up dead, we have laws against that today.

Who decides how much taxes my brother pays? Our government does. Unfortunately the rich purchased our government so now they don't pay their fair share.

The rich know they too need to share or they might end up dead. Revolutions happen when the rich in a country get too greedy.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Sounds like a house slave who'll defend massa no matter what they do to us field slaves.

 

[kaz]

WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

For one that wouldn't happen. And two, somebody would take the place of Walmart and hire them.

So none of these other companies are stepping forward and hiring those employees now for what Wal Mart pays them. However, if companies have to pay them more and they get fired by Wal Mart, the companies that won't pay them what WalMart pays them now will step in and pay them more than what WalMart pays them now.



Um...and you call yourself "brain?" You forgot to add "dead" didn't you?

Dnt act like the Waltons making billions is doing the poor a favor.

Strawman. No one said WalMart is going it to do them a favor. You fundamentally don't understand Capitalism. But let's compare.

Walmart: In the interest of themselves and their employees, they hire lots of low end workers that can't support themselves whether WalMart hires them or not, so at least they are partially supporting themselves.

You: Interfere in the market and make the arrogant choice over other people's lives to deny low end workers any employment so they can't support themselves at all and harm the economy by driving up the cost for an employer who was paying full market wages.

You make choices over other people's lives and pay nothing for that choice you stick it on WalMart and get lots of low end workers fired. Then you pat yourself smugly on the back for your generosity.

Sorry but for a few dollars more new people aren't going to be rushing to work at Walmart.

The majority of workers? No. But workers who are a rung up from the ones they hire now? Hell yeah.

Again though I actually do this for a living and you gulp the self serving lies of lawyers, so obviously you know better.

Where will the people come from? If min wage is increased they will be making it where they work now. Why would they be rushing to Walmart to make the same they do now?

You're ignoring every answer and just keep repeating the same question. There are plenty for Walmart's needs. I had an endless stream of applicants for my low end positions. There are lots out there. You have to stop staring at your navel.

 

[Brain357]

For one that wouldn't happen. And two, somebody would take the place of Walmart and hire them.

So none of these other companies are stepping forward and hiring those employees now for what Wal Mart pays them. However, if companies have to pay them more and they get fired by Wal Mart, the companies that won't pay them what WalMart pays them now will step in and pay them more than what WalMart pays them now.



Um...and you call yourself "brain?" You forgot to add "dead" didn't you?

Dnt act like the Waltons making billions is doing the poor a favor.

Strawman. No one said WalMart is going it to do them a favor. You fundamentally don't understand Capitalism. But let's compare.

Walmart: In the interest of themselves and their employees, they hire lots of low end workers that can't support themselves whether WalMart hires them or not, so at least they are partially supporting themselves.

You: Interfere in the market and make the arrogant choice over other people's lives to deny low end workers any employment so they can't support themselves at all and harm the economy by driving up the cost for an employer who was paying full market wages.

You make choices over other people's lives and pay nothing for that choice you stick it on WalMart and get lots of low end workers fired. Then you pat yourself smugly on the back for your generosity.

Sorry but for a few dollars more new people aren't going to be rushing to work at Walmart.

The majority of workers? No. But workers who are a rung up from the ones they hire now? Hell yeah.

Again though I actually do this for a living and you gulp the self serving lies of lawyers, so obviously you know better.

Where will the people come from? If min wage is increased they will be making it where they work now. Why would they be rushing to Walmart to make the same they do now?

You're ignoring every answer and just keep repeating the same question. There are plenty for Walmart's needs. I had an endless stream of applicants for my low end positions. There are lots out there. You have to stop staring at your navel.

Sorry but I don't see it happening. And if Walmart attracts all these workers they Re coming from somewhere else that now needs to hire.

 

[kaz]

WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

Yes they stay in business a real long time without the employees.

True but irrelevant. If they pay more, they can hire better workers. If you are happy with a $30 toaster and government passes a law that toasters can't be sold for less than $50, are you going to pay $50 for a $30 toaster that suits your needs or are you going to buy the best toaster you can get for $50 since you have to pay that?

You really are an idiot, you can't even grasp or respond to the point being made. You just keep repeating your strawman.

What are all these slightly better workers doing right now?

I can't explain hiring to people who have no experience and no interest in learning. It's an entire economy, they are not in one place. They are all over. There is also a stream of new workers entering the work force and they will jump at a chance to work at walmart to gain experience to get a better job.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Lmao in what world is that?

God damn you liberals are total morons sometimes

You really aren't very smart.

Your not very rich or have balls

Oh really? Are you just going to keep saying stupid things?

what you want me to post pics now? Ok I will

Looks tiny.

Nope.
Mere assertion fallacy.
Rabbi Rules! Chewck my sig line.

Uh huh. So refresh my memory, why is it that you think lowering taxes would be desirable?

Because lower tax rates generally create incentives to work harder and keep more of the money you make. Higher income people working harder creates opportunities for lower income people to earn more. THis is pretty elemental. Except if you're stupid.

Are you saying rich people could be more productive if we would just stop taxing them so much?

The rich are doing great you idiot! My brother just bought some property because he's sitting on cash and banks aren't giving shit. He didn't start a business or hire anyone.

On the other hand the real estate guy made a commission.

All I know is my brother doesn't work 500 x harder than his employees but he does make 500x more. They need to give some of that to his employees. Why do the ceo's and vp"'s think they deserve all the spoils.

Didn't pirate captains share their booty with their crew?

Stop crying about what's fair. What works is what you should be asking. Spread the wealth. Its not socialism. They can still make 400x or 300x more than us but 500x doesn't aork.

What is someone holding a gun to your brothers head to keep the money? Why Don't your brother be like Jesus and give his money to his Employees? ,why Don't he donate it to the IRS? Why do liberals think you can Legistrate Morrality? Who decides what a person should make, the government ?

Finally pirates knew they had to share the loot otberwise they would end up dead, we have laws against that today.

Who decides how much taxes my brother pays? Our government does. Unfortunately the rich purchased our government so now they don't pay their fair share.

The rich know they too need to share or they might end up dead. Revolutions happen when the rich in a country get too greedy.

No you want to by electing democrats to steal from your brother, why? Do you want your brother poor like you and miserable as you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

Interesting claim. Let's test it.
WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

For one that wouldn't happen. And two, somebody would take the place of Walmart and hire them. Dnt act like the Waltons making billions is doing the poor a favor.

And two, somebody would take the place of Walmart and hire them.

Who said WalMart was going out of business?
They only fired the subsidized workers you were whining about.
Try again, pretend you have a brain this time.

WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

Yes they stay in business a real long time without the employees.

They'll replace the poor ones with unsubsidized ones.
Will government payments to the fired "subsidized" workers increase or decrease? Why?

Really how much will they be paying now? Where will they find these reacements?

Really how much will they be paying now? Where will they find these reacements?

That's not important.
Will government payments to the fired "subsidized" workers increase or decrease?

 

[kaz]

You're ignoring every answer and just keep repeating the same question. There are plenty for Walmart's needs. I had an endless stream of applicants for my low end positions. There are lots out there. You have to stop staring at your navel.

Sorry but I don't see it happening. And if Walmart attracts all these workers they Re coming from somewhere else that now needs to hire.

Well, someone with no experience running anything or hiring anyone doesn't see it. I must be wrong then.

 

[Brain357]

WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

Yes they stay in business a real long time without the employees.

True but irrelevant. If they pay more, they can hire better workers. If you are happy with a $30 toaster and government passes a law that toasters can't be sold for less than $50, are you going to pay $50 for a $30 toaster that suits your needs or are you going to buy the best toaster you can get for $50 since you have to pay that?

You really are an idiot, you can't even grasp or respond to the point being made. You just keep repeating your strawman.

What are all these slightly better workers doing right now?

I can't explain hiring to people who have no experience and no interest in learning. It's an entire economy, they are not in one place. They are all over. There is also a stream of new workers entering the work force and they will jump at a chance to work at walmart to gain experience to get a better job.

Yes lots of great workers are jumping at the chance to get paid very little at Walmart. That's a good one.