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

[Jarhead]

My God...I just read that article that Billy linked us to. Uh....Billy.....that article pretty much says what the left has been saying for years....it does not cite facts....it simply offers an old and tired theory.
And likewise, the right has a theory that says if the wealthy are not overtaxed, they are likely to use their disposable income to purchase and invest...thus stimulating the economy.
Nothing new here.

Did you just crawl out from under a rock?

 

[Jarhead]

Simply because we can use the money to build infrastructure, fund our science programs and support the best r&d! Plus, we can pay our police better The right wants something for nothing, while kissing the 1% ass.

This is a good fundraiser idea. Have the 1% at a convention where adoring right wing working stiffs can stand in line and pay good money to kiss their asses. Have wi fi available so right wing posters on this site don't have to be absent from posting too long.

we don't kiss the asses of the 1%. We admire their success and strive to achieve the success they worked hard to achieve.

Folks like you are jealous of the 1%. That is quite obvious.

 

[sealybobo]

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

Sure it is. Pay your fucking taxes and give us back our government.

High inome people pay over 100% of income taxes. How about YOU pay some fucking taxes and quit whining, kay?

They need to pay more because the middle class can't be squeezed anymore stupid.

We need the money. Pay your taxes

The middle class arent paying any income taxes, dum-dum. That's the problem. No representation without taxation!

You're gonna have a very hard time convincing us we need to pay more so the rich can get richer.

You'd have an easier time convincing a rape victim that they are enjoying it.

 

[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.

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?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Sure it is. Pay your fucking taxes and give us back our government.

High inome people pay over 100% of income taxes. How about YOU pay some fucking taxes and quit whining, kay?

They need to pay more because the middle class can't be squeezed anymore stupid.

We need the money. Pay your taxes

The middle class arent paying any income taxes, dum-dum. That's the problem. No representation without taxation!

You're gonna have a very hard time convincing us we need to pay more so the rich can get richer.

You'd have an easier time convincing a rape victim that they are enjoying it.

Youre right. I can never convince you that you are a cheat, a welch, a sponge on society because you refuse to pay your fair share of income tax.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Bullshit. You love yourself some government dick.

Slurp Slurp Slurp.

 

[sealybobo]

Hey, lets clear up something right now...That Walmart= welfare collecting employees is a bunch of nonsense.

WalMart subsidizes the government by providing income to people who otherwise would be totally dependent on government for livelihood.

Yet they can make the Waltons billions. Sorry but no thanks communist.

WalMart hires people and pays them wages. What is communist about that? The opposite.

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.

So exactly how would you enforce a law where companies have to pay their employees more so they are no longer on the government dole? Answer....government would enforce that law.....so it seems your reason for having a law is to decrease government while the law actually increases government in a different area.
No gain....jut more government intervention.
So your idea fails.

Making a new law isnt growing government. We make new laws every day. That's what governments do.

The GOP spent the last 30 years making your life worse through their bad tax laws that hurt you financially. Is that growing the government? No. So neither will it be if we undo those laws.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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."

FYI taxes on ALL incomes were much higher not just those on the rich.

In fact when the top tax bracket was 90% the lowest bracket was 20% and an income of 40K put you in the 50% bracket so be careful what you wish for

 

[sealybobo]

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.

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.

Trickle down doesn't work. And your thinking is flawed.

 

[martybegan]

WalMart hires people and pays them wages. What is communist about that? The opposite.

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.

Let me explain. Walmart pays below poverty wages. Their employees get foodstamps. Then they spend the foodstamps at Walmart.

Understand now?

Let me explain: WalMart hires people and pays them wages. If they didnt hire them, they'd be unemployed and drawing unemployment or welfare in addition to food stamps.
Understand now?

If Walmart doesn't hire them the Waltons make no money. So how about they pay enough they aren't on welfare?

Again, if it is so easy get off your ass and start a business that follows your model.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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.

Trickle down doesn't work. And your thinking is flawed.

Since you dont know what trickle down means you are merely talking out of your ass.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No one claims that lowering taxes is the only thing needed to generate economic growth.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

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.

Trickle down doesn't work. And your thinking is flawed.

Letting people keep more of their own money always works.

 

[bripat9643]

The US and Russia are now the only conservative countries left in the world and their economies are the ones which are struggling. The oligarchs are fine, the rest, not so much.

And yet the Rabbit and others continue to cling to failed Republican economic policies.

Canada now has the fastest growing middle class in the world and yet our taxes are so much higher than yours.

Much of Canada's wealth is tied to ONE industry....Petroleum. The other is real estate.
Two things...The Canadian govt never monitized its debt. The other is the Canadian govt did not interfere with housing and real estate.

Canada also has a lot of hydro power that it sells to the states along the border.

 

[bripat9643]

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 federal government doesn't subsidize their labor.

 

[danielpalos]

Hey, lets clear up something right now...That Walmart= welfare collecting employees is a bunch of nonsense.

WalMart subsidizes the government by providing income to people who otherwise would be totally dependent on government for livelihood.

Yet they can make the Waltons billions. Sorry but no thanks communist.

WalMart hires people and pays them wages. What is communist about that? The opposite.

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.

So exactly how would you enforce a law where companies have to pay their employees more so they are no longer on the government dole? Answer....government would enforce that law.....so it seems your reason for having a law is to decrease government while the law actually increases government in a different area.
No gain....jut more government intervention.
So your idea fails.

Simple, in a nut shell and through propaganda and rhetoric manufactured for that legal purpose; supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost. For some on the left, that means employing socialism to merely Use capitalism for all of its worth through full employment of resources in any given market, as a bailout.

In one alternative, we could use existing legal and physical infrastructure to bailout those who are unemployed, with unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. The supply side economics paradigm of better governance at lower cost suggests that we should solve for as many social dilemmas as possible at the same time. Thus, we should be solving for simple poverty to end the cost of our exorbitantly expensive War on Poverty, and correcting for the deleterious effects of capitalism's laissez-fare laziness regarding its, Natural Rate of Unemployment.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

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?

I live in NYS.....I pay 8.5% tax on every item I buy. During tax year 2013 my wife and I paid over 25K in state tax. My real estate tax is over 12K. I don't complain, I just pay. So far this winter, I lost one wheel and tire to a pothole and my son threw his alignment out of whack in another pothole. To date, both potholes are still there. The county claims "no money"...
However, the DPW has the exact staff with their annual increases in place as they have had for the last 3 years.
The county courthouse was completely redone this year...with all new furniture, moving sidewalks, etc....with, of course, added parking that now costs 25 cents for 15 minutes (it used to be free)......
I say lower taxes if I am not going to get the services my taxes are collected for. Seems the tax money is being spent in the wrong places.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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?

I live in NYS.....I pay 8.5% tax on every item I buy. During tax year 2013 my wife and I paid over 25K in state tax. My real estate tax is over 12K. I don't complain, I just pay. So far this winter, I lost one wheel and tire to a pothole and my son threw his alignment out of whack in another pothole. To date, both potholes are still there. The county claims "no money"...
However, the DPW has the exact staff with their annual increases in place as they have had for the last 3 years.
The county courthouse was completely redone this year...with all new furniture, moving sidewalks, etc....with, of course, added parking that now costs 25 cents for 15 minutes (it used to be free)......
I say lower taxes if I am not going to get the services my taxes are collected for. Seems the tax money is being spent in the wrong places.

In New York it goes towards the retirements of the workers, due to funding fuck-ups the past 2 decades.

Also, a minor correction, you don't pay sales tax on food and clothes under $125.00.

 

[JoeNormal]

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.

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.

That's a fairy tale. At some point, gaining more wealth becomes nothing more than a game and I've never heard of anyone quitting or even retiring early because they had to pay taxes. They'd be more likely to retire early if they met their financial goals sooner because they were able to skip on taxes.