Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[danielpalos]

I make a motion we simply end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

 

[hadit]

Except you won't get that much. They are not stupid and will not sit still, allowing you to take that much more, Cletus.

Weird, is there someplace else as safe and growing like the US economy? Where are they going to take the money? lol

Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away. That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to. People adjust and move things around. I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's. All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work. And the wealthy didn't care at all. Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.

Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?

7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)

OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP


PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL

Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab. The economy would have been even better without them.

Lol, I thought the right wing meme was it was Reagan's 16 year miracle that Clinton rode?

Right, the boom Reagan made possible. Good catch.

 

[bripat9643]

Weird, is there someplace else as safe and growing like the US economy? Where are they going to take the money? lol

Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away. That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to. People adjust and move things around. I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's. All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work. And the wealthy didn't care at all. Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.

Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?

7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)

OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP



PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL

Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab. The economy would have been even better without them.

Lol, I thought the right wing meme was it was Reagan's 16 year miracle that Clinton rode?

Right, the boom Reagan made possible. Good catch.

Most of those companies like Microsoft were started during the Reagan administration with junk bonds, something the left vilified as if they were Kryptonite.

 

[danielpalos]

not any more; even over-the-counter stocks are good for fun and practice, now.

 

[Dad2three]

Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away. That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to. People adjust and move things around. I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's. All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work. And the wealthy didn't care at all. Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.

Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?

7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)

OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP



PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL

Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab. The economy would have been even better without them.

Lol, I thought the right wing meme was it was Reagan's 16 year miracle that Clinton rode?

Right, the boom Reagan made possible. Good catch.

Most of those companies like Microsoft were started during the Reagan administration with junk bonds, something the left vilified as if they were Kryptonite.

Microsoft junk bonds? lol

Source?

But yes Ronnie gave US Drexel Burnham

 

[Dad2three]

Weird, is there someplace else as safe and growing like the US economy? Where are they going to take the money? lol

Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away. That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to. People adjust and move things around. I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's. All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work. And the wealthy didn't care at all. Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.

Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?

7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)

OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP


PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL

Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab. The economy would have been even better without them.

Lol, I thought the right wing meme was it was Reagan's 16 year miracle that Clinton rode?

Right, the boom Reagan made possible. Good catch.

Right, how can we forget Ronnie's miracle was responsible for Clinton's fiscally responsible governance that not a single GOP voted for in 1993 but Dubya's/GOP's 8 years of policy ended Jan 20th, 2009 *shaking head*

 

[bripat9643]

Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?

7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)

OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP



PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL

Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab. The economy would have been even better without them.

Lol, I thought the right wing meme was it was Reagan's 16 year miracle that Clinton rode?

Right, the boom Reagan made possible. Good catch.

Most of those companies like Microsoft were started during the Reagan administration with junk bonds, something the left vilified as if they were Kryptonite.

Microsoft junk bonds? lol

Source?

But yes Ronnie gave US Drexel Burnham

Drexel Burnham funded hundreds of high tech startups. You should be thankful it existed.

 

[bripat9643]

Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away. That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to. People adjust and move things around. I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's. All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work. And the wealthy didn't care at all. Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.

Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?

7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)

OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP


PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL

Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab. The economy would have been even better without them.

Lol, I thought the right wing meme was it was Reagan's 16 year miracle that Clinton rode?

Right, the boom Reagan made possible. Good catch.

Right, how can we forget Ronnie's miracle was responsible for Clinton's fiscally responsible governance that not a single GOP voted for in 1993 but Dubya's/GOP's 8 years of policy ended Jan 20th, 2009 *shaking head*

ROFL! A Republican Congress is what you should be thankful for. That's the only thing that forced Clinton to be "responsible."

 

[Andylusion]

Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol

In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.

• All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.

• The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.

• In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.

• The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).

• The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).

Dumb2three this is from your source, not mine...

Yep Bubba, The ANTI Tax Foundation showing the BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICA went from 18% of the pie in 1980 to 11% today, an AVERAGE of less than $15,000 PER FAMILY, a drop of nearly $5,000 PER FAMILY since Reaganomics. Go figure the ANTI Tax Foundation sticks with the 46% of federal tax burden, the income tax, lol

Let's make sure the BOTTOM half US step up and pay more right? lol

Guess what???

Right now as we speak Grover Norquist has a plan to never increase any tax rate and what he and several other key Republicans are really shooting for is a flat tax. Think about it....the rich will get a 20%-25% cut in taxes while average people draw an increase in their federal taxes. If you count payroll tax, sales tax, property tax, federal excise tax, gasoline tax, auto registration, driver's license, fishing license, boat registration, fees on every monthly bill like electricity and water an ordinary American worker is already taxed at a higher percentage rate than the rich.
When a big wig is drawing a million a year $0.40 a gallon tax on gasoline don't amount to shit. To the poor bastard working for minimum wage and having to drive 20 miles both ways to his work site That quickly adds up. But who's counting? Definitely not the rich folks.

The rich don't have payroll tax? Sales Tax? Property tax? Excise tax? No rich person pays gasoline tax? Auto Registration? Driver's License? Fishing license? Boat registration? Fees on every monthly bill like Electricity and Water?

See, it's posts like this, that show me you are operating on greed and envy, rather than facts.

When you operate on emotion and hate, and greed, and envy, then the normal response is 'the rich are getting tax cuts, while the poor have to pay more!'.

But that isn't reality at all.

You don't seem to understand that the super rich right now, many of them pay zero income tax at all.

Mark Zuckerberg, multi-billionaire.... total income tax bill.... $0. He pays zero income taxes. His yearly salary is $1. That's how much he is paid by Facebook as CEO.

Many of the super wealthy get paid relatively little.

Warren Buffet has a salary of just $100,000 a year.

Money is extremely fluid. There are infinite ways a rich person can move their money and assets around to avoid taxes. There are some super wealthy people who have more assets in other countries, than in the US.... to avoid taxes.

You can't imprison wealth. You can't stop it from moving around. You can't prevent it from leaving.

The whole reason Ronald Reagan opposed high taxes was because of his own experience. In the 1970s, the top marginal rate was 70%, and when Reagan earned enough to hit that top rate, he would just go to his ranch, and ride horses. Why earn another $10,000, to end up with $3,000?

Similarly, why would CEOs invest in creating new jobs and new products, if they are going to lose most of whatever they earn in taxes?

What the Republicans that are pushing a flat tax understand, is that people react to the incentives they are given. When you jack up taxes on the rich, they move to hide their money, which is easy to do, and impossible to stop. When France tried to put in place a wealth tax, the wealthy left the country.

With a flat tax, more wealthy would be willing to take their compensation in cash, and just pay the tax. Mark Zuckerberg would be more likely to take a cash salary, and pay the taxes on it.

See, under your plan, Zuckerberg pays zero tax.
Under our flat tax plan, Zuckerberg may pay a million to collect $9 Million in cash. (or whatever flat tax it happens to be).

And who knows.... perhaps with Zuckerberg having $9 million in cash, rather than stock options, maybe he might invest in a new venture that hires hundreds more people, and provides a new product or service that makes our lives better.

Under your system, that never happens.

 

[Andylusion]

Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth



Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?

There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.



Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.

Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth

"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that's funny!

The truth hurts.
Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective

I don't have a problem with 'inequality'. Quite frankly, people who refuse to work hard, should be poor.

Moreover, the prior link was full of mindless drivel and nonsense. That's why at the top of the page it said "Opinion", not "Fact".

 

[Andylusion]

You don't understand. Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme. It will only increase the debt. You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth. Same with the crew now in Washington. With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.

well then put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.

What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint? You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet. Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.

well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........

How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???

sadly some "jb creatpors" get government handouts to create jobs......and the jobs don't materialize.....or dont even offset the tax cuts handed out

First, it's hard to claim that job creators never create jobs. Every single job that exists in this country, only exists because of the super wealthy.

Even the self employed mechanic, wouldn't have a job, if it wasn't for the super wealthy that built the cars, the super wealthy that built the tools and supplies, and the super wealthy that created replacement parts.

Not even a home self-employed daycare, can run without the super wealthy that built the home they run the daycare out of.

So anyone who claims the rich didn't create jobs, is a liar.

Second, it is true that a tax break, or tax incentive, or whatever, doesn't automatically result in job creation.

There are only two reasons jobs are created. A: There is something that is profitable to do... B: and someone has the wealth to fund the startup.

Steve Jobs invested $10 Million dollars into a small company, and turned Pixar into a $10 billion dollar blockbuster movie producing business.

Now two things. A: *IF* Jobs did not have $10 Million because we taxed it away, then he would not have been able to invest in Pixar.

B: *IF* taxes and regulations has made Pixar unprofitable, he never would have invested his money into Pixar, even if he had the money.

Both are required. If there is something profitable to do, but you have no money, then you can't create jobs. If you have tons of money, but nothing profitable to invest in, then you don't create jobs.

Thirdly, even if both are true, job creation takes time. You people on the left, act like if you pass a tax cut in May, that by July millions of jobs should pop into existence.

Just securing investors into a business can take years. Planing out the building project can take years.

Jobs invested in Pixar, in 1986, and yet didn't really turn a profit until 1995 with Toy Story.

Most big employment projects take time. The average new auto plant, requires 3 years to complete, and a year to start producing product. But that's simply the build time. That doesn't include the years previously spent, coming up with the product, designing the assembly line, finding and setting up supply chains.

You guys seem to act like, if you pass a tax cut, that next month, every company should announce hiring. But in reality the company that hired 200 workers last week, in some cases started being planned 5 to 10 years ago.

Lastly, I will say that one thing I'm against, is any 'temporary' tax incentives or credits, or whatever.

People on both sides, seem to love the idea of short term tax relief, as if somehow you are going to 'trick' the wealthy into hiring people, and then slap taxes on them the following year when they least expect it.

In reality, the wealthy are not so easily duped. Do you really think that such temporary measures, like cash for clunkers, resulted in many new jobs created? Do you think that a dealership is going to hire on new staff, for what they know will be a short term boast in sales, and then have to lay off that staff later when the sales crash again, and then have to pay unemployment compensation for the employees they let go?

Of course not. No one is going to do something that is only profitable while done under a temporary tax break.

On the side, we have companies that jump around from tax break to tax break. We had a company here in central Ohio, that got a 10-year tax abatement. After 10-years, they got Hilliard to give them a tax abatement. After 10 more years, they moved to Dublin which gave them a tax abatement.

The company will not have paid tax on their headquarters for 30 years now. Would it not have been better to just lower the tax rates, and have them pay the lower tax rates for 30 years?

But instead, you jack up taxes, and companies leave, then offer tax abatements, so they never pay any tax.

 

[hadit]

Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away. That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to. People adjust and move things around. I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's. All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work. And the wealthy didn't care at all. Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.

Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?

7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)

OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP


PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL

Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab. The economy would have been even better without them.

Lol, I thought the right wing meme was it was Reagan's 16 year miracle that Clinton rode?

Right, the boom Reagan made possible. Good catch.

Right, how can we forget Ronnie's miracle was responsible for Clinton's fiscally responsible governance that not a single GOP voted for in 1993 but Dubya's/GOP's 8 years of policy ended Jan 20th, 2009 *shaking head*

Like I said, it would have been even better without Bubba's wealth grab.

 

[hadit]

Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?

7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)

OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP


PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL

Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab. The economy would have been even better without them.

Lol, I thought the right wing meme was it was Reagan's 16 year miracle that Clinton rode?

Right, the boom Reagan made possible. Good catch.

Right, how can we forget Ronnie's miracle was responsible for Clinton's fiscally responsible governance that not a single GOP voted for in 1993 but Dubya's/GOP's 8 years of policy ended Jan 20th, 2009 *shaking head*

ROFL! A Republican Congress is what you should be thankful for. That's the only thing that forced Clinton to be "responsible."

Yup. Without them his vaunted "triangulation" would never had occurred and he would have been in full on democrat spend mode.

 

[hadit]

well then put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.

What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint? You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet. Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.

well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........

How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???

sadly some "jb creatpors" get government handouts to create jobs......and the jobs don't materialize.....or dont even offset the tax cuts handed out

First, it's hard to claim that job creators never create jobs. Every single job that exists in this country, only exists because of the super wealthy.

Even the self employed mechanic, wouldn't have a job, if it wasn't for the super wealthy that built the cars, the super wealthy that built the tools and supplies, and the super wealthy that created replacement parts.

Not even a home self-employed daycare, can run without the super wealthy that built the home they run the daycare out of.

So anyone who claims the rich didn't create jobs, is a liar.

Second, it is true that a tax break, or tax incentive, or whatever, doesn't automatically result in job creation.

There are only two reasons jobs are created. A: There is something that is profitable to do... B: and someone has the wealth to fund the startup.

Steve Jobs invested $10 Million dollars into a small company, and turned Pixar into a $10 billion dollar blockbuster movie producing business.

Now two things. A: *IF* Jobs did not have $10 Million because we taxed it away, then he would not have been able to invest in Pixar.

B: *IF* taxes and regulations has made Pixar unprofitable, he never would have invested his money into Pixar, even if he had the money.

Both are required. If there is something profitable to do, but you have no money, then you can't create jobs. If you have tons of money, but nothing profitable to invest in, then you don't create jobs.

Thirdly, even if both are true, job creation takes time. You people on the left, act like if you pass a tax cut in May, that by July millions of jobs should pop into existence.

Just securing investors into a business can take years. Planing out the building project can take years.

Jobs invested in Pixar, in 1986, and yet didn't really turn a profit until 1995 with Toy Story.

Most big employment projects take time. The average new auto plant, requires 3 years to complete, and a year to start producing product. But that's simply the build time. That doesn't include the years previously spent, coming up with the product, designing the assembly line, finding and setting up supply chains.

You guys seem to act like, if you pass a tax cut, that next month, every company should announce hiring. But in reality the company that hired 200 workers last week, in some cases started being planned 5 to 10 years ago.

Lastly, I will say that one thing I'm against, is any 'temporary' tax incentives or credits, or whatever.

People on both sides, seem to love the idea of short term tax relief, as if somehow you are going to 'trick' the wealthy into hiring people, and then slap taxes on them the following year when they least expect it.

In reality, the wealthy are not so easily duped. Do you really think that such temporary measures, like cash for clunkers, resulted in many new jobs created? Do you think that a dealership is going to hire on new staff, for what they know will be a short term boast in sales, and then have to lay off that staff later when the sales crash again, and then have to pay unemployment compensation for the employees they let go?

Of course not. No one is going to do something that is only profitable while done under a temporary tax break.

On the side, we have companies that jump around from tax break to tax break. We had a company here in central Ohio, that got a 10-year tax abatement. After 10-years, they got Hilliard to give them a tax abatement. After 10 more years, they moved to Dublin which gave them a tax abatement.

The company will not have paid tax on their headquarters for 30 years now. Would it not have been better to just lower the tax rates, and have them pay the lower tax rates for 30 years?

But instead, you jack up taxes, and companies leave, then offer tax abatements, so they never pay any tax.

And then they whine about companies not paying taxes.

 

[David_42]

well then put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.

What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint? You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet. Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.

well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........

How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???

sadly some "jb creatpors" get government handouts to create jobs......and the jobs don't materialize.....or dont even offset the tax cuts handed out

First, it's hard to claim that job creators never create jobs. Every single job that exists in this country, only exists because of the super wealthy.

Even the self employed mechanic, wouldn't have a job, if it wasn't for the super wealthy that built the cars, the super wealthy that built the tools and supplies, and the super wealthy that created replacement parts.

Not even a home self-employed daycare, can run without the super wealthy that built the home they run the daycare out of.

So anyone who claims the rich didn't create jobs, is a liar.

Second, it is true that a tax break, or tax incentive, or whatever, doesn't automatically result in job creation.

There are only two reasons jobs are created. A: There is something that is profitable to do... B: and someone has the wealth to fund the startup.

Steve Jobs invested $10 Million dollars into a small company, and turned Pixar into a $10 billion dollar blockbuster movie producing business.

Now two things. A: *IF* Jobs did not have $10 Million because we taxed it away, then he would not have been able to invest in Pixar.

B: *IF* taxes and regulations has made Pixar unprofitable, he never would have invested his money into Pixar, even if he had the money.

Both are required. If there is something profitable to do, but you have no money, then you can't create jobs. If you have tons of money, but nothing profitable to invest in, then you don't create jobs.

Thirdly, even if both are true, job creation takes time. You people on the left, act like if you pass a tax cut in May, that by July millions of jobs should pop into existence.

Just securing investors into a business can take years. Planing out the building project can take years.

Jobs invested in Pixar, in 1986, and yet didn't really turn a profit until 1995 with Toy Story.

Most big employment projects take time. The average new auto plant, requires 3 years to complete, and a year to start producing product. But that's simply the build time. That doesn't include the years previously spent, coming up with the product, designing the assembly line, finding and setting up supply chains.

You guys seem to act like, if you pass a tax cut, that next month, every company should announce hiring. But in reality the company that hired 200 workers last week, in some cases started being planned 5 to 10 years ago.

Lastly, I will say that one thing I'm against, is any 'temporary' tax incentives or credits, or whatever.

People on both sides, seem to love the idea of short term tax relief, as if somehow you are going to 'trick' the wealthy into hiring people, and then slap taxes on them the following year when they least expect it.

In reality, the wealthy are not so easily duped. Do you really think that such temporary measures, like cash for clunkers, resulted in many new jobs created? Do you think that a dealership is going to hire on new staff, for what they know will be a short term boast in sales, and then have to lay off that staff later when the sales crash again, and then have to pay unemployment compensation for the employees they let go?

Of course not. No one is going to do something that is only profitable while done under a temporary tax break.

On the side, we have companies that jump around from tax break to tax break. We had a company here in central Ohio, that got a 10-year tax abatement. After 10-years, they got Hilliard to give them a tax abatement. After 10 more years, they moved to Dublin which gave them a tax abatement.

The company will not have paid tax on their headquarters for 30 years now. Would it not have been better to just lower the tax rates, and have them pay the lower tax rates for 30 years?

But instead, you jack up taxes, and companies leave, then offer tax abatements, so they never pay any tax.

I'll refute this post with one simple statement: who the hell do you think does the work? Certainly not the super wealthy.

 

[SAYIT]

well then put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.

What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint? You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet. Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.

well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........

How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???

sadly some "jb creatpors" get government handouts to create jobs......and the jobs don't materialize.....or dont even offset the tax cuts handed out

First, it's hard to claim that job creators never create jobs. Every single job that exists in this country, only exists because of the super wealthy.

Even the self employed mechanic, wouldn't have a job, if it wasn't for the super wealthy that built the cars, the super wealthy that built the tools and supplies, and the super wealthy that created replacement parts.

Not even a home self-employed daycare, can run without the super wealthy that built the home they run the daycare out of.

So anyone who claims the rich didn't create jobs, is a liar.

Second, it is true that a tax break, or tax incentive, or whatever, doesn't automatically result in job creation.

There are only two reasons jobs are created. A: There is something that is profitable to do... B: and someone has the wealth to fund the startup.

Steve Jobs invested $10 Million dollars into a small company, and turned Pixar into a $10 billion dollar blockbuster movie producing business.

Now two things. A: *IF* Jobs did not have $10 Million because we taxed it away, then he would not have been able to invest in Pixar.

B: *IF* taxes and regulations has made Pixar unprofitable, he never would have invested his money into Pixar, even if he had the money.

Both are required. If there is something profitable to do, but you have no money, then you can't create jobs. If you have tons of money, but nothing profitable to invest in, then you don't create jobs.

Thirdly, even if both are true, job creation takes time. You people on the left, act like if you pass a tax cut in May, that by July millions of jobs should pop into existence.

Just securing investors into a business can take years. Planing out the building project can take years.

Jobs invested in Pixar, in 1986, and yet didn't really turn a profit until 1995 with Toy Story.

Most big employment projects take time. The average new auto plant, requires 3 years to complete, and a year to start producing product. But that's simply the build time. That doesn't include the years previously spent, coming up with the product, designing the assembly line, finding and setting up supply chains.

You guys seem to act like, if you pass a tax cut, that next month, every company should announce hiring. But in reality the company that hired 200 workers last week, in some cases started being planned 5 to 10 years ago.

Lastly, I will say that one thing I'm against, is any 'temporary' tax incentives or credits, or whatever.

People on both sides, seem to love the idea of short term tax relief, as if somehow you are going to 'trick' the wealthy into hiring people, and then slap taxes on them the following year when they least expect it.

In reality, the wealthy are not so easily duped. Do you really think that such temporary measures, like cash for clunkers, resulted in many new jobs created? Do you think that a dealership is going to hire on new staff, for what they know will be a short term boast in sales, and then have to lay off that staff later when the sales crash again, and then have to pay unemployment compensation for the employees they let go?

Of course not. No one is going to do something that is only profitable while done under a temporary tax break.

On the side, we have companies that jump around from tax break to tax break. We had a company here in central Ohio, that got a 10-year tax abatement. After 10-years, they got Hilliard to give them a tax abatement. After 10 more years, they moved to Dublin which gave them a tax abatement.

The company will not have paid tax on their headquarters for 30 years now. Would it not have been better to just lower the tax rates, and have them pay the lower tax rates for 30 years?

But instead, you jack up taxes, and companies leave, then offer tax abatements, so they never pay any tax.

The irony (or hypocrisy) being that cities (mostly Dem run) and states offer these abatements - what some call "corporate welfare" - to attract the jobs so many rightly complain are needed. Once accomplished the very same voices then whine about "corporate welfare."

 

[hadit]

What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint? You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet. Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.

well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........

How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???

sadly some "jb creatpors" get government handouts to create jobs......and the jobs don't materialize.....or dont even offset the tax cuts handed out

First, it's hard to claim that job creators never create jobs. Every single job that exists in this country, only exists because of the super wealthy.

Even the self employed mechanic, wouldn't have a job, if it wasn't for the super wealthy that built the cars, the super wealthy that built the tools and supplies, and the super wealthy that created replacement parts.

Not even a home self-employed daycare, can run without the super wealthy that built the home they run the daycare out of.

So anyone who claims the rich didn't create jobs, is a liar.

Second, it is true that a tax break, or tax incentive, or whatever, doesn't automatically result in job creation.

There are only two reasons jobs are created. A: There is something that is profitable to do... B: and someone has the wealth to fund the startup.

Steve Jobs invested $10 Million dollars into a small company, and turned Pixar into a $10 billion dollar blockbuster movie producing business.

Now two things. A: *IF* Jobs did not have $10 Million because we taxed it away, then he would not have been able to invest in Pixar.

B: *IF* taxes and regulations has made Pixar unprofitable, he never would have invested his money into Pixar, even if he had the money.

Both are required. If there is something profitable to do, but you have no money, then you can't create jobs. If you have tons of money, but nothing profitable to invest in, then you don't create jobs.

Thirdly, even if both are true, job creation takes time. You people on the left, act like if you pass a tax cut in May, that by July millions of jobs should pop into existence.

Just securing investors into a business can take years. Planing out the building project can take years.

Jobs invested in Pixar, in 1986, and yet didn't really turn a profit until 1995 with Toy Story.

Most big employment projects take time. The average new auto plant, requires 3 years to complete, and a year to start producing product. But that's simply the build time. That doesn't include the years previously spent, coming up with the product, designing the assembly line, finding and setting up supply chains.

You guys seem to act like, if you pass a tax cut, that next month, every company should announce hiring. But in reality the company that hired 200 workers last week, in some cases started being planned 5 to 10 years ago.

Lastly, I will say that one thing I'm against, is any 'temporary' tax incentives or credits, or whatever.

People on both sides, seem to love the idea of short term tax relief, as if somehow you are going to 'trick' the wealthy into hiring people, and then slap taxes on them the following year when they least expect it.

In reality, the wealthy are not so easily duped. Do you really think that such temporary measures, like cash for clunkers, resulted in many new jobs created? Do you think that a dealership is going to hire on new staff, for what they know will be a short term boast in sales, and then have to lay off that staff later when the sales crash again, and then have to pay unemployment compensation for the employees they let go?

Of course not. No one is going to do something that is only profitable while done under a temporary tax break.

On the side, we have companies that jump around from tax break to tax break. We had a company here in central Ohio, that got a 10-year tax abatement. After 10-years, they got Hilliard to give them a tax abatement. After 10 more years, they moved to Dublin which gave them a tax abatement.

The company will not have paid tax on their headquarters for 30 years now. Would it not have been better to just lower the tax rates, and have them pay the lower tax rates for 30 years?

But instead, you jack up taxes, and companies leave, then offer tax abatements, so they never pay any tax.

I'll refute this post with one simple statement: who the hell do you think does the work? Certainly not the super wealthy.

Define work. Most likely, you incorrectly think it is not every person in the company.

 

[David_42]

Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth



Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?

There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.



Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.

Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth

"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that's funny!

The truth hurts.
Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective

I don't have a problem with 'inequality'. Quite frankly, people who refuse to work hard, should be poor.

Moreover, the prior link was full of mindless drivel and nonsense. That's why at the top of the page it said "Opinion", not "Fact".

Ridiculous, you're insulting billions of people worldwide, your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that material wealth is the only measure of hard work. What a sick thing to think. And it's wrong, considering I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint? You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet. Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.

well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........

How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???

sadly some "jb creatpors" get government handouts to create jobs......and the jobs don't materialize.....or dont even offset the tax cuts handed out

First, it's hard to claim that job creators never create jobs. Every single job that exists in this country, only exists because of the super wealthy.

Even the self employed mechanic, wouldn't have a job, if it wasn't for the super wealthy that built the cars, the super wealthy that built the tools and supplies, and the super wealthy that created replacement parts.

Not even a home self-employed daycare, can run without the super wealthy that built the home they run the daycare out of.

So anyone who claims the rich didn't create jobs, is a liar.

Second, it is true that a tax break, or tax incentive, or whatever, doesn't automatically result in job creation.

There are only two reasons jobs are created. A: There is something that is profitable to do... B: and someone has the wealth to fund the startup.

Steve Jobs invested $10 Million dollars into a small company, and turned Pixar into a $10 billion dollar blockbuster movie producing business.

Now two things. A: *IF* Jobs did not have $10 Million because we taxed it away, then he would not have been able to invest in Pixar.

B: *IF* taxes and regulations has made Pixar unprofitable, he never would have invested his money into Pixar, even if he had the money.

Both are required. If there is something profitable to do, but you have no money, then you can't create jobs. If you have tons of money, but nothing profitable to invest in, then you don't create jobs.

Thirdly, even if both are true, job creation takes time. You people on the left, act like if you pass a tax cut in May, that by July millions of jobs should pop into existence.

Just securing investors into a business can take years. Planing out the building project can take years.

Jobs invested in Pixar, in 1986, and yet didn't really turn a profit until 1995 with Toy Story.

Most big employment projects take time. The average new auto plant, requires 3 years to complete, and a year to start producing product. But that's simply the build time. That doesn't include the years previously spent, coming up with the product, designing the assembly line, finding and setting up supply chains.

You guys seem to act like, if you pass a tax cut, that next month, every company should announce hiring. But in reality the company that hired 200 workers last week, in some cases started being planned 5 to 10 years ago.

Lastly, I will say that one thing I'm against, is any 'temporary' tax incentives or credits, or whatever.

People on both sides, seem to love the idea of short term tax relief, as if somehow you are going to 'trick' the wealthy into hiring people, and then slap taxes on them the following year when they least expect it.

In reality, the wealthy are not so easily duped. Do you really think that such temporary measures, like cash for clunkers, resulted in many new jobs created? Do you think that a dealership is going to hire on new staff, for what they know will be a short term boast in sales, and then have to lay off that staff later when the sales crash again, and then have to pay unemployment compensation for the employees they let go?

Of course not. No one is going to do something that is only profitable while done under a temporary tax break.

On the side, we have companies that jump around from tax break to tax break. We had a company here in central Ohio, that got a 10-year tax abatement. After 10-years, they got Hilliard to give them a tax abatement. After 10 more years, they moved to Dublin which gave them a tax abatement.

The company will not have paid tax on their headquarters for 30 years now. Would it not have been better to just lower the tax rates, and have them pay the lower tax rates for 30 years?

But instead, you jack up taxes, and companies leave, then offer tax abatements, so they never pay any tax.

I'll refute this post with one simple statement: who the hell do you think does the work? Certainly not the super wealthy.

There are some people who LEAD, then there are those that can only FOLLOW. Those that lead usually have gone out of their way to educate themselves to be in the leadership position, while the follower, sits back and does enough just to get by. I am sick of libtards who sit in their basements complaining how unfair life is, while they type on plastics that come from OIL byproducts, brought out of the Earth by those willing to WORK hard to give not only the plastics but the energy they use to bitch on the electrical network. Go look at the USSR, where everyone was equal, the doctors and breadmakers all made the same wages, no one had anything to own, because everyone was equally poor and equally miserable. I didn't see anyone jumping over the wall to go INTO the Communist country, but millions were facing machine guns, and barbed wire, to get out of it. But they don't teach that in public education anymore.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth



Is it true that increasing taxes on the wealthy will always cause a reduction in economic growth? If we tax the wealthy at, say, 50 percent, and the reward from a new, innovative product is only $50 million instead of $100 million, would that reduce effort? Would you work any less for “only” $50 million?

There is likely a margin at which such a reduction in the reward for effort matters, a promise of $80,000 per year is a lot different from a promise of $40,000, but this can be overcome through progressive taxation. Taxes on the wealthiest households, even taxes that are quite large, are unlikely to have much of an effect, if any, on innovative activity.



Some types of taxes on the wealthy may even enhance economic growth. There is mounting evidence, for example, that too much inequality reduces growth, so taxes that are used to promote equality can also promote growth. In addition, economic growth can be increased through a large estate tax on the wealthiest households.

Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth

"Taxing the Wealthy Promotes Economic Growth"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that's funny!

The truth hurts.
Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective

I don't have a problem with 'inequality'. Quite frankly, people who refuse to work hard, should be poor.

Moreover, the prior link was full of mindless drivel and nonsense. That's why at the top of the page it said "Opinion", not "Fact".

Ridiculous, you're insulting billions of people worldwide, your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that material wealth is the only measure of hard work. What a sick thing to think. And it's wrong, considering I know people who work 3 jobs to barely make ends meet.

your narrow worldview is disgusting, your making the assumption that

The first "your" was correct. The second "your" should of been "you're". When it comes to worldview, at one time everyone was jealous of US because being a FREE country, we could reach for the sky and most of US achieved it(there were always a few, who sat back and bitched because they were too lazy to work) but many got complacent and were re-educated into thinking that communism was good. Now we are dealing with it with a sad sack president who has no clue to run a country, except into the ground. So here we are, many rich people fleeing America for greener pasture. Problem is when we go into WWIII, no place will be safe.