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

[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."

While I think our growing inequality is the reason for our slow economy, I'm not sure higher taxes on the rich are the way to fix that. What we need is a tax system that benefits businesses that pay living wages and employ here in the states. If a company pays little and/or imports everything they pay high taxes. If a company gives good wages and employs here in the states they get big tax breaks. Or maybe we do have to raise the minimum wage. I don't however think giving more money to the government is the way to do it.

Income Inequality is a non factor. In economic boom times and bust times alike, income inequality is a complaint/rallying cry from the Left. Artificial and arbitrary policies in and around income in the name of equality accomplishes nothing except to destroy a Middle Class and be cement a true 1 percent elite ruling class. I might be able to take the Left seriously when they call for more taxes if they came to the table with plans to cut waste and bloat. Instead, they come like drunken sailors whose credit card has been maxed out asking for more handouts and debt. They also refer to a "cut" when they ask for an increase but only receive a portion of the increase they requested; an increase nonetheless logical minds.

While I disagree with liberal ideas on how to fix the problem, it is really common sense that more inequality slows the economy.

Suppose you own a restaurant. The rich guy only eats 3 meals a day regardless of how much money he has. So you need lots of people who can afford to go out to eat. As inequality grows fewer can afford to go out and business slows.

Income inequality hurts economic growth researchers say - The Washington Post

Seriously you had to post an god damn obvious link even a 1st grader would know ? Hey why don't you send it Fed ex to Obama

 

[martybegan]

To start, but progressives would then need more money for something else, and would re-raise the taxes on the businesses without lifting the requirement for the living wage.

It's simple. We just don't trust you people to do the right thing.

Well we are leaving the Waltons to decide now and while they make billions, employees are on welfare. Greed wins. What I suggest would give them incentive to do the right thing. Clearly they won't do that on their own.

They have a business that provides products to people at reasonable prices, and employs people at the low to end range of the spectrum.

That isn't enough for you?

They are making billions while increasing government dependence. I think that is a problem. I guess you like big government.

You see creating dependence. I see people who would be on government assistance ANYWAY being given a chance to prove their work skills and get a better job that gets them off assistance entirely.

While the Waltons make billions off their labor? How generous of you. The government should not subsidize their labor.

The Walton's took the risk of starting the business, running it, and potentially having it fail if they fuck up. They are entitled to the profits. If you think you can do better vis a vis paying workers a better wage while doing the same thing, get off your ass and start up Brain-Mart.

 

[martybegan]

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."

Do liberals ever get tired of posting their favorite post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy?

It's not a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. It's a refutation of the right wing fallacy that lowering taxes always generates economic growth.

Red herring fallacy. No one claims lowering any tax will always produce growth.
Libs are stupid.

The real fallacy is that progs believe raising taxes on people richer than you automatically leads to less taxes paid by them personally, or more services for them personally, when in reality it mostly goes towards feeding the beast with some chickenfeed left over to be dispersed to the peasants.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So the 50% of the people that pay no federal income taxes are mooches?

You got it backwards dude. The 50% you claim pays no taxes are poor.

The very rich that pay significant taxes are greedy. And if they had their way, would mooch even more whenever they can. For instance, the ultra rich have convinced not very smart people like you, bear, rabbit and whatever other animal we have on here, that the rich are looking out for you. And if that could only keep most of their millions or billions of dollars, that their wealth would trickle down on your head like warm piss and make you feel so good.

Hope that helps with your confusion. But it's all bullshit. You should be an advocate for what you are; a middle class person with no chance to make it to the "ultra wealthy" class that you worship so regularly.

Your desire to confiscate the wealth of others is equally greedy.
You are not innocent.
And contrary to the progressive notion that upward mobility is impossible, everyone has the opportunity to advance themselves.
However, it is progressive/liberal forces in government that keep the thumb of government on each of us who do achieve.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And you calling out people like me for "worshiping" the rich is comical, considering your daily posts that are nothing but the written equivalent of you getting on your knees and slurping off big government any chance you get.

Hey fuckhead. You the dick sucker of the ultra wealthy and you know it.

But tell you what. Find a post where I say that I personally am receiving some sort of government benefit that YOU don't receive?

When you can't do that, please take my advice sincerely and go fuck yourself.

Ahh...17 posts and already a liberal has a meltdown.....Typical...

 

[thereisnospoon]

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."

Why in the Hell should taxes be further lowered on the fuckin' middle class?

Middle class voted these fuckers into office for the past 50 years, watched as $20 trillion was borrowed to fund social programs aimed at ensuring domestic tranquillity, and now, they want off the hook for their fair share of the Great Society?

That is fucking bullshit.

When a country is $20 trillion in debt, EVERYONE needs their taxes raised, and if they have no money, they need to pay in labor.

We also spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined. I don't think either voting option has done much to lower spending.

Yes...But the military budget is less than a third of the budget earmarked for social spending.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

To start, but progressives would then need more money for something else, and would re-raise the taxes on the businesses without lifting the requirement for the living wage.

It's simple. We just don't trust you people to do the right thing.

Well we are leaving the Waltons to decide now and while they make billions, employees are on welfare. Greed wins. What I suggest would give them incentive to do the right thing. Clearly they won't do that on their own.

They have a business that provides products to people at reasonable prices, and employs people at the low to end range of the spectrum.

That isn't enough for you?

They are making billions while increasing government dependence. I think that is a problem. I guess you like big government.

You see creating dependence. I see people who would be on government assistance ANYWAY being given a chance to prove their work skills and get a better job that gets them off assistance entirely.

While the Waltons make billions off their labor? How generous of you. The government should not subsidize their labor.

...and you're familiar with Obama's Commerce Secretary???????

 

[thereisnospoon]

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."

Righties will not agree but you are 100% correct.

FDR said and did this after ww2 and conservatives will not admit it worked. It did. The rich are sitting on too much money.

What others do with their wealth is none of your business.
This is so typical of you lefties. You see what others have and feel entitled to a portion of it..Greed

 

[Brain357]

Well we are leaving the Waltons to decide now and while they make billions, employees are on welfare. Greed wins. What I suggest would give them incentive to do the right thing. Clearly they won't do that on their own.

They have a business that provides products to people at reasonable prices, and employs people at the low to end range of the spectrum.

That isn't enough for you?

They are making billions while increasing government dependence. I think that is a problem. I guess you like big government.

You see creating dependence. I see people who would be on government assistance ANYWAY being given a chance to prove their work skills and get a better job that gets them off assistance entirely.

While the Waltons make billions off their labor? How generous of you. The government should not subsidize their labor.

The Walton's took the risk of starting the business, running it, and potentially having it fail if they fuck up. They are entitled to the profits. If you think you can do better vis a vis paying workers a better wage while doing the same thing, get off your ass and start up Brain-Mart.

Yes they can profit what they want if they aren't subsidized by the government. But since they are increasing the size of government it is a problem. How about the government takes over Walmart? That is the next step.

 

[martybegan]

And you calling out people like me for "worshiping" the rich is comical, considering your daily posts that are nothing but the written equivalent of you getting on your knees and slurping off big government any chance you get.

Hey fuckhead. You the dick sucker of the ultra wealthy and you know it.

But tell you what. Find a post where I say that I personally am receiving some sort of government benefit that YOU don't receive?

When you can't do that, please take my advice sincerely and go fuck yourself.

Ahh...17 posts and already a liberal has a meltdown.....Typical...

Sometimes its almost too easy.

 

[Brain357]

Well we are leaving the Waltons to decide now and while they make billions, employees are on welfare. Greed wins. What I suggest would give them incentive to do the right thing. Clearly they won't do that on their own.

They have a business that provides products to people at reasonable prices, and employs people at the low to end range of the spectrum.

That isn't enough for you?

They are making billions while increasing government dependence. I think that is a problem. I guess you like big government.

You see creating dependence. I see people who would be on government assistance ANYWAY being given a chance to prove their work skills and get a better job that gets them off assistance entirely.

While the Waltons make billions off their labor? How generous of you. The government should not subsidize their labor.

...and you're familiar with Obama's Commerce Secretary???????

Nope. Do I think Obama is doing anything to fix the problem? No.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The real point is that all these big old taxes on the rich mostly go to making government bigger, giving more worthless drones (usually friends of the wealthy) cushy government jobs,and not reducing YOUR taxes ONE FUCKING CENT. The government hands out a little chicken feed to the poor to keep their votes firmly statist, and in the end, the money still isn't enough, and they have to COME AFTER OUR MONEY, because that's where most of it is.

And you are too fucking dense to see that, because all you have on your one track mind, is FUCK THE RICH.

Your post is nonsense. As usual.

So if we don't tax the rich more, us in the middle class will see our taxes go up. That's what you said.

But if we tax the rich more, the middle class will still see their taxes increased. That's what you implied.
So therefore we shouldn't tax the rich any more. Weird.

But tell me something you might be able to answer; why do you care that someone earning 50 million a year, why would you care if their income tax rates went up? What's it to you? And to be clear, I don't give a fuck it the ultra wealthy pay 50% tax rates.

If I had seen the gains in net worth and income that the ultra wealthy have seen, I would EXPECT that my taxes would go up. And yours to IF you had the kind of gains the ultra wealthy have had.

No..What the OP stated is that when taxes are increased on the upper incomes, the net result is everyone who is a taxpayers ends up footing the bill.

 

[martybegan]

They have a business that provides products to people at reasonable prices, and employs people at the low to end range of the spectrum.

That isn't enough for you?

They are making billions while increasing government dependence. I think that is a problem. I guess you like big government.

You see creating dependence. I see people who would be on government assistance ANYWAY being given a chance to prove their work skills and get a better job that gets them off assistance entirely.

While the Waltons make billions off their labor? How generous of you. The government should not subsidize their labor.

The Walton's took the risk of starting the business, running it, and potentially having it fail if they fuck up. They are entitled to the profits. If you think you can do better vis a vis paying workers a better wage while doing the same thing, get off your ass and start up Brain-Mart.

Yes they can profit what they want if they aren't subsidized by the government. But since they are increasing the size of government it is a problem. How about the government takes over Walmart? That is the next step.

The services were already there and paid for. They would be there even more without low level jobs like those provided by wal-mart. Again, they are a stepping stone to getting off government aid entirely.

And your last statement just shows you are a communist fuckwad who needs to FOAD.

 

[Brain357]

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."

Why in the Hell should taxes be further lowered on the fuckin' middle class?

Middle class voted these fuckers into office for the past 50 years, watched as $20 trillion was borrowed to fund social programs aimed at ensuring domestic tranquillity, and now, they want off the hook for their fair share of the Great Society?

That is fucking bullshit.

When a country is $20 trillion in debt, EVERYONE needs their taxes raised, and if they have no money, they need to pay in labor.

We also spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined. I don't think either voting option has done much to lower spending.

Yes...But the military budget is less than a third of the budget earmarked for social spending.

Are you suggesting it's a small amount?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So extending the absurd logic of the OP, the government that takes all the money has the best economy.

And that's never come close to working, not one single time

 

[The Rabbi]

The real point is that all these big old taxes on the rich mostly go to making government bigger, giving more worthless drones (usually friends of the wealthy) cushy government jobs,and not reducing YOUR taxes ONE FUCKING CENT. The government hands out a little chicken feed to the poor to keep their votes firmly statist, and in the end, the money still isn't enough, and they have to COME AFTER OUR MONEY, because that's where most of it is.

And you are too fucking dense to see that, because all you have on your one track mind, is FUCK THE RICH.

Your post is nonsense. As usual.

So if we don't tax the rich more, us in the middle class will see our taxes go up. That's what you said.

But if we tax the rich more, the middle class will still see their taxes increased. That's what you implied.
So therefore we shouldn't tax the rich any more. Weird.

But tell me something you might be able to answer; why do you care that someone earning 50 million a year, why would you care if their income tax rates went up? What's it to you? And to be clear, I don't give a fuck it the ultra wealthy pay 50% tax rates.

If I had seen the gains in net worth and income that the ultra wealthy have seen, I would EXPECT that my taxes would go up. And yours to IF you had the kind of gains the ultra wealthy have had.

No..What the OP stated is that when taxes are increased on the upper incomes, the net result is everyone who is a taxpayers ends up footing the bill.

Zeke's brain became too addled with Blatz for me to waste time on him anymore. He's just another mean greedy failed piece of shit wanting to hurt people more successful than he is.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Progressives think the Government IS the economy.

You can't debate with people off in the trillions column

How anyone can think any taxes should be lowered when we are $20 trillion in debt boggles my mind.

Because throughout our modern history, higher tax rates net result in lower revenues.
That's a fact.

 

[JoeNormal]

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."

Do liberals ever get tired of posting their favorite post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy?

It's not a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. It's a refutation of the right wing fallacy that lowering taxes always generates economic growth.

Red herring fallacy. No one claims lowering any tax will always produce growth.
Libs are stupid.

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.

 

[Brain357]

They are making billions while increasing government dependence. I think that is a problem. I guess you like big government.

You see creating dependence. I see people who would be on government assistance ANYWAY being given a chance to prove their work skills and get a better job that gets them off assistance entirely.

While the Waltons make billions off their labor? How generous of you. The government should not subsidize their labor.

The Walton's took the risk of starting the business, running it, and potentially having it fail if they fuck up. They are entitled to the profits. If you think you can do better vis a vis paying workers a better wage while doing the same thing, get off your ass and start up Brain-Mart.

Yes they can profit what they want if they aren't subsidized by the government. But since they are increasing the size of government it is a problem. How about the government takes over Walmart? That is the next step.

The services were already there and paid for. They would be there even more without low level jobs like those provided by wal-mart. Again, they are a stepping stone to getting off government aid entirely.

And your last statement just shows you are a communist fuckwad who needs to FOAD.

Actually you seem to be the communist. You approve of government dependency. You think it's great the Waltons make billions while their employees are government subsidized. Sounds like a communist to me. I'm the one who wants smaller government.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Then suggest it to them. Don't use government to force them to do it.

That's why i would give them the choice. Pay employees well and pay low taxes. Pay employees poorly and pay high taxes. Would be their option.

To start, but progressives would then need more money for something else, and would re-raise the taxes on the businesses without lifting the requirement for the living wage.

It's simple. We just don't trust you people to do the right thing.

Well we are leaving the Waltons to decide now and while they make billions, employees are on welfare. Greed wins. What I suggest would give them incentive to do the right thing. Clearly they won't do that on their own.

They have a business that provides products to people at reasonable prices, and employs people at the low to end range of the spectrum.

That isn't enough for you?

They are making billions while increasing government dependence. I think that is a problem. I guess you like big government.

They are producing jobs in that local area, whats.the alternative? No jobs and 100% welfare?