The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[U2Edge]

Republican comrade, please erase this thread. It shows that our greatest employment records happened when taxes were above 80% and 90% on the top earners. (LBJ, Truman and Ike).

But it gets worse comrade. The top five best employment years happened with higher tax rates, including Clinton. The first Low tax, "Reagan level" tax rate is not until number 6, with GWB. This contradicts our propaganda that only the lowest taxes yield the highest job growth.

Attention brain dead moron OP.

Please research the tax rates of LBJ, Truman, Eisenhower and Nixon ( and compare them to Bush and Reagan). Our greatest years happened during our highest taxes (far higher than Obama), when surplus wealth was taxed aggressively so we could create a more solvent middle class, one with unprecedented purchasing power.

(Hint: when the middle class has more spending money, capital has an incentive to invest)

Dear Republican Moron/Friend: please take this poll down at once. It proves that the Democrats are right about the relationship between taxes and demand-centered fiscal policy.

I think tax rates should be 80% to 90% for top earners. I believe in low taxes or tax credits for low and middle income earners because they make up the vast majority of consumers and its consumers that drive the economy and create jobs not the wealthy.

But regardless of ones tax philosophy or political party membership, this is a thread about the unemployment rate for Americans and what Americans had to deal with while each of the above Presidents was sitting in the White House. Simple as that.

Why would "top earners" continue to reside or even worse deign to start a business in an area that YOU controlled, U2? Do you really not get the concept that investment capital is going to flow to wherever it's income potential can be maximized? You COULD raise the tax on the wealthy to 80 or 90% but I can tell you without doubt what the result of that would be...you would see an exodus of capital headed elsewhere before that tax took effect! Now if your goal is to grow jobs elsewhere while our own unemployment rate continues to languish then by all means push for much higher taxes on "top earners".

Because they live there, they have family there, and they don't want to live in a country where they don't speak the language, live under a different set of laws, and don't have access to large amounts of land the way they do here. Tax rates are far from being the only reason for the rich to live in the United States.

Hell, you could move to parts of Somalia and not have to pay any taxes at all, let alone have to obey any laws. But I don't know any rich people that are fleeing to Somalia, do you?

Top Earners start businesses not because they have extra money on the side, but because they see the opportunity to make money from unmet demand. You start a business because of market conditions, where you notice there is high demand for a product or service. You don't start a business because you naively believe that if you BUILD IT, they will come!

 

[bedowin62]

In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.

But that was just the first of four years of trillion-plus deficits. The last three budgets fall squarely under Obama. And, during that time, the federal government ran up deficits of $1.3 trillion in 2010, $1.3 trillion in 2011, and about $1.2 trillion in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 — for a total of nearly $5.2 trillion in deficit spending.
===========================================================


FROM LEFT-LEANING FACTCHECK.ORG: "Obama's Deficit Dodge"

 

[bedowin62]

why are liberals such obtuse dunces?

so because we had great employment "records" when taxes on the top brackets were 80% or higher that means the records were BECAUSE of the confiscatory tax rates on the top brackets?

nothing else was different than today right idiot left-wing nutjobs?

and several hundred million CHINESE were still riding around on bicycles wearing gray pantsuits

idiots and hypocrites

 

[U2Edge]

And just for your edification? Jobs are created by an anticipation of profit by those with capital. If you take away that anticipated profit then you take away the incentive to invest in job creating ventures.

Where do you think the anticipation of profit comes from? It comes from watching what consumers do, what they buy. 80% of the economy is driven by consumers. Most consumers are lower to middle income. Those with Capital watch what low to middle income people are buying and then rush to try and fulfill unmet demand. It is the consumer that drives the economy and the market. Without the market, the wealthy can't make money, or more specifically, without the consumer the wealthy can't make money, start a new business, or have a new business succeed. The wealthy make their money from consumers and without the consumer, the wealthy would not be making any money.

Without fans buying their music and concert tickets, Bono and U2 would not be multi-millionaires, with houses and property on every continent in the world. U2 makes a great music. But the reason their rich is because of the market, a market where consumers pick the winners.

 

[bedowin62]

why didnt you sissified left-wing jerk-offs propose the huge tax rates you want on the tax highest tax brackets in the 2 years you controlled EVERYTHING?




that is the White House, Senate and House?
or the 4 years you controlled both chambers of Congress?
remember i'm saying proposed. did they even TRY?

when?

what pathetic little chumps and whiners libs are

 

[Oldstyle]

I think tax rates should be 80% to 90% for top earners. I believe in low taxes or tax credits for low and middle income earners because they make up the vast majority of consumers and its consumers that drive the economy and create jobs not the wealthy.

But regardless of ones tax philosophy or political party membership, this is a thread about the unemployment rate for Americans and what Americans had to deal with while each of the above Presidents was sitting in the White House. Simple as that.

Why would "top earners" continue to reside or even worse deign to start a business in an area that YOU controlled, U2? Do you really not get the concept that investment capital is going to flow to wherever it's income potential can be maximized? You COULD raise the tax on the wealthy to 80 or 90% but I can tell you without doubt what the result of that would be...you would see an exodus of capital headed elsewhere before that tax took effect! Now if your goal is to grow jobs elsewhere while our own unemployment rate continues to languish then by all means push for much higher taxes on "top earners".

Because they live there, they have family there, and they don't want to live in a country where they don't speak the language, live under a different set of laws, and don't have access to large amounts of land the way they do here. Tax rates are far from being the only reason for the rich to live in the United States.

Hell, you could move to parts of Somalia and not have to pay any taxes at all, let alone have to obey any laws. But I don't know any rich people that are fleeing to Somalia, do you?

Top Earners start businesses not because they have extra money on the side, but because they see the opportunity to make money from unmet demand. You start a business because of market conditions, where you notice there is high demand for a product or service. You don't start a business because you naively believe that if you BUILD IT, they will come!

Most of the very wealthy already own properties in different countries, U2. It isn't a choice between the US and Somalia and there are plenty of English speaking countries out there. You're naive to the extreme about the rich and how they function.

Once again...businesses are started with the anticipation of profit...high demand doesn't really mean anything if that demand can't be met with a product that nets a profit. As an example...demand for a $10,000 Ferrari would be through the roof but if the manufacturer lost money making that car it wouldn't matter if they were lined up around the block to buy it.

 

[Oldstyle]

What you propose with your tax increase is to take away the profit motive from the holders of capital to risk that capital. What you do is push them into "safe" investments like tax exempt bonds. That type of investment doesn't create jobs it simply protects capital...and protecting capital is what the rich DO!

 

[Oldstyle]

why didnt you sissified left-wing jerk-offs propose the huge tax rates you want on the tax highest tax brackets in the 2 years you controlled EVERYTHING?




that is the White House, Senate and House?
or the 4 years you controlled both chambers of Congress?
remember i'm saying proposed. did they even TRY?

when?

what pathetic little chumps and whiners libs are

Because someone who actually studied economics in college told them that by doing so they'd bring an already slow economy to a shuddering halt? Raising taxes is a great populist message to get votes from people who don't know better but actually DOING IT would mean that those people would understand how it affects economic growth.

 

[U2Edge]

Why would "top earners" continue to reside or even worse deign to start a business in an area that YOU controlled, U2? Do you really not get the concept that investment capital is going to flow to wherever it's income potential can be maximized? You COULD raise the tax on the wealthy to 80 or 90% but I can tell you without doubt what the result of that would be...you would see an exodus of capital headed elsewhere before that tax took effect! Now if your goal is to grow jobs elsewhere while our own unemployment rate continues to languish then by all means push for much higher taxes on "top earners".

Because they live there, they have family there, and they don't want to live in a country where they don't speak the language, live under a different set of laws, and don't have access to large amounts of land the way they do here. Tax rates are far from being the only reason for the rich to live in the United States.

Hell, you could move to parts of Somalia and not have to pay any taxes at all, let alone have to obey any laws. But I don't know any rich people that are fleeing to Somalia, do you?

Top Earners start businesses not because they have extra money on the side, but because they see the opportunity to make money from unmet demand. You start a business because of market conditions, where you notice there is high demand for a product or service. You don't start a business because you naively believe that if you BUILD IT, they will come!

Most of the very wealthy already own properties in different countries, U2. It isn't a choice between the US and Somalia and there are plenty of English speaking countries out there. You're naive to the extreme about the rich and how they function.

Once again...businesses are started with the anticipation of profit...high demand doesn't really mean anything if that demand can't be met with a product that nets a profit. As an example...demand for a $10,000 Ferrari would be through the roof but if the manufacturer lost money making that car it wouldn't matter if they were lined up around the block to buy it.

That's irrelevant, because the fact remains that the CONSUMER must be willing to buy the product or service for the Business owner to make any money period. Whether he produces something that is cost efficient for him is his problem, the consumer does not care about that. The Business owner is not going to open a shop in area where the demand is low for that product or service. Consumer demand drives what business owners do, period.

If the wealthy want to move or live in a different country that's fine. But most of the world lives in the third world and most of the rich live in the first world, where tax rates are typically higher.

Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Switzerland still have plenty of rich people despite their high tax rates. There are only so many places that are comfortable and safe from a rich person perspective to live in, around the world.

Yes, you'll lose some rich people, but most will stay, just as they did in the 1940s and 1950s when US tax rates for the top earners were around 80% to 90%. The United States did lots of great things when the tax rates were high and the standard of living for the middle class was still good. The United States ended the Great Depression, won World War II, and set up the world system that helped it to defend the world from Soviet Communism and prevent World War III.

 

[U2Edge]

What you propose with your tax increase is to take away the profit motive from the holders of capital to risk that capital. What you do is push them into "safe" investments like tax exempt bonds. That type of investment doesn't create jobs it simply protects capital...and protecting capital is what the rich DO!

Well, what happened in the 1940s and 1950s when tax rates were 80% to 90% on top earners. Did the rich put all their money into "safe" investments and stopped investing in business to try and make money? NO of course not.

When did McDonalds begin? McDonalds was started in the 1940s when the so called crushing rates of 80% to 90% tax rates should have squashed that idea flat according to you.

Lower tax rates for lower income and middle income people or tax credits is good and helps drive the economy, because at that level consumers spend what they earn. Lower and middle income people make up more than 90% of consumers as well.

The lower and Middle income people will buy more Bic Macs from McDonalds when you lower their taxes or give them a tax credit. But the wealthy 1% will not purchase any more Bic Macs in a single year if they get any sort of a tax cut.


Again, wealthy people take a risk with their capital when they see unmet demand in the market that they could fill and profit from. They see what consumers demand and rush to try and fulfill that demand in order to make a profit. If there is no demand, then they are not going to start up a business. Without demand, there is no business start up. Without the consumer, there is no business. That's the #1 driving factor, not the top income earners tax rate.

 

[U2Edge]

why didnt you sissified left-wing jerk-offs propose the huge tax rates you want on the tax highest tax brackets in the 2 years you controlled EVERYTHING?




that is the White House, Senate and House?
or the 4 years you controlled both chambers of Congress?
remember i'm saying proposed. did they even TRY?

when?

what pathetic little chumps and whiners libs are

Because someone who actually studied economics in college told them that by doing so they'd bring an already slow economy to a shuddering halt? Raising taxes is a great populist message to get votes from people who don't know better but actually DOING IT would mean that those people would understand how it affects economic growth.

Yep, those GDP growth rates were really slow during the 1940s and 1950s right? The growth rates were booming even though top earners were being taxed at 80% to 90% of their income. Most top earners stayed in the country because the market and the economy were strong and allowed money opportunities to make money.

 

[bedowin62]

why didnt you sissified left-wing jerk-offs propose the huge tax rates you want on the tax highest tax brackets in the 2 years you controlled EVERYTHING?




that is the White House, Senate and House?
or the 4 years you controlled both chambers of Congress?
remember i'm saying proposed. did they even TRY?

when?

what pathetic little chumps and whiners libs are

Because someone who actually studied economics in college told them that by doing so they'd bring an already slow economy to a shuddering halt? Raising taxes is a great populist message to get votes from people who don't know better but actually DOING IT would mean that those people would understand how it affects economic growth.

Yep, those GDP growth rates were really slow during the 1940s and 1950s right? The growth rates were booming even though top earners were being taxed at 80% to 90% of their income. Most top earners stayed in the country because the market and the economy were strong and allowed money opportunities to make money.

YAWN

again your premise seems to be that what was possible then can be done now simply because it was done then.

iditoic on its face

 

[Oldstyle]

Because they live there, they have family there, and they don't want to live in a country where they don't speak the language, live under a different set of laws, and don't have access to large amounts of land the way they do here. Tax rates are far from being the only reason for the rich to live in the United States.

Hell, you could move to parts of Somalia and not have to pay any taxes at all, let alone have to obey any laws. But I don't know any rich people that are fleeing to Somalia, do you?

Top Earners start businesses not because they have extra money on the side, but because they see the opportunity to make money from unmet demand. You start a business because of market conditions, where you notice there is high demand for a product or service. You don't start a business because you naively believe that if you BUILD IT, they will come!

Most of the very wealthy already own properties in different countries, U2. It isn't a choice between the US and Somalia and there are plenty of English speaking countries out there. You're naive to the extreme about the rich and how they function.

Once again...businesses are started with the anticipation of profit...high demand doesn't really mean anything if that demand can't be met with a product that nets a profit. As an example...demand for a $10,000 Ferrari would be through the roof but if the manufacturer lost money making that car it wouldn't matter if they were lined up around the block to buy it.

That's irrelevant, because the fact remains that the CONSUMER must be willing to buy the product or service for the Business owner to make any money period. Whether he produces something that is cost efficient for him is his problem, the consumer does not care about that. The Business owner is not going to open a shop in area where the demand is low for that product or service. Consumer demand drives what business owners do, period.

If the wealthy want to move or live in a different country that's fine. But most of the world lives in the third world and most of the rich live in the first world, where tax rates are typically higher.

Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Switzerland still have plenty of rich people despite their high tax rates. There are only so many places that are comfortable and safe from a rich person perspective to live in, around the world.

Yes, you'll lose some rich people, but most will stay, just as they did in the 1940s and 1950s when US tax rates for the top earners were around 80% to 90%. The United States did lots of great things when the tax rates were high and the standard of living for the middle class was still good. The United States ended the Great Depression, won World War II, and set up the world system that helped it to defend the world from Soviet Communism and prevent World War III.

You don't get it...do you? Demand is a given...you're not going to make something that people don't want but once you've determined that there is a demand for a product the next thing that any investor will look at is whether or not a profit will be derived from sales and if that profit is sufficient enough to risk capital. When you raise taxes on profits you discourage investment because the profit is now less while the risk remains the same.

Do you really think that high tax rates ended the Great Depression? That's an amusing concept.

The reason that the United States boomed following WWII is that we were the only remaining industrial power who hadn't been decimated by the war. Germany, Japan, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, Italy, France...all of these nation's infrastructures were in ruins at the end of that conflict whereas ours was untouched and operating a full throttle.

 

[Oldstyle]

why didnt you sissified left-wing jerk-offs propose the huge tax rates you want on the tax highest tax brackets in the 2 years you controlled EVERYTHING?




that is the White House, Senate and House?
or the 4 years you controlled both chambers of Congress?
remember i'm saying proposed. did they even TRY?

when?

what pathetic little chumps and whiners libs are

Because someone who actually studied economics in college told them that by doing so they'd bring an already slow economy to a shuddering halt? Raising taxes is a great populist message to get votes from people who don't know better but actually DOING IT would mean that those people would understand how it affects economic growth.

Yep, those GDP growth rates were really slow during the 1940s and 1950s right? The growth rates were booming even though top earners were being taxed at 80% to 90% of their income. Most top earners stayed in the country because the market and the economy were strong and allowed money opportunities to make money.

Once again you look at numbers and see something that doesn't correlate to our present circumstances. What was our competition for manufacturing in the 1940's and 1950's? A world either embroiled in war on their home soil or nations whose infrastructures were destroyed by the conflict that had just taken place. Our GDP growth rate was high because our competitors were handicapped.

Now compare that to now...

Our manufacturers need to compete with manufacturers in China, India and Brazil...countries with extremely low labor costs. It is now the US that is working with a handicap...but you want to ADD to that by lowering potential profits through higher taxes.

 

[paulitician]

Let's face it, if a Republican were in there with this same dismal record, all the Dem-Bots on this Board would be screeching for Impeachment 24/7. Their Dear Leader has accomplished little. The awful damage he's done, far outweighs any perceived achievements. We'll be living with his Massive Poverty, Massive Debt, and Massive Surveillance Monster for many decades to come. So for all the loyal Dem-Bots out there, just pretend he has an (R) by his name. Then get back to us.

 

[bedowin62]

What you propose with your tax increase is to take away the profit motive from the holders of capital to risk that capital. What you do is push them into "safe" investments like tax exempt bonds. That type of investment doesn't create jobs it simply protects capital...and protecting capital is what the rich DO!

Well, what happened in the 1940s and 1950s when tax rates were 80% to 90% on top earners. Did the rich put all their money into "safe" investments and stopped investing in business to try and make money? NO of course not.

When did McDonalds begin? McDonalds was started in the 1940s when the so called crushing rates of 80% to 90% tax rates should have squashed that idea flat according to you.

Lower tax rates for lower income and middle income people or tax credits is good and helps drive the economy, because at that level consumers spend what they earn. Lower and middle income people make up more than 90% of consumers as well.

The lower and Middle income people will buy more Bic Macs from McDonalds when you lower their taxes or give them a tax credit. But the wealthy 1% will not purchase any more Bic Macs in a single year if they get any sort of a tax cut.


Again, wealthy people take a risk with their capital when they see unmet demand in the market that they could fill and profit from. They see what consumers demand and rush to try and fulfill that demand in order to make a profit. If there is no demand, then they are not going to start up a business. Without demand, there is no business start up. Without the consumer, there is no business. That's the #1 driving factor, not the top income earners tax rate.

wow; seriously? another master if the obvious. demand is always present; as there are elastic and inelastic demands. Government has been really sh*tty at "creating" demand and not even so good at stimulating demand in the private sector; certainly not demand that lasts and is self-sustaining.

AGAIN; why doesnt; or bettter yet why didnt Democrats propose 80-90% tax rates for the top brackets if they're such a good idea and people of your mindset are so convinced no harm will result?

what an obtuse argument you make. you leave out so much. businesses nowadays are also straddled with a million regulations that didnt exist in the 1950 or 60s.
also the idea that the rich dont put money in the economy is patently absurd. do they build their own mansions? drive used volkswagons? eat only Ramen noodles? not hire nannies? landscapers? pool people? movers?.....etc


Welfare as we know it DIDNT EXIST. food stamps as we know them DIDNT EXIST EXCEPT FOR A TRIAL PERIOD FROM'39-43 AND IN THE EARLY 60S

why wouldnt rich people consume more "Big Macs" if you gave them a tax cut? you offer absolutely nothing to back up that statement. and why would poor people buy more Big Macs then they need to fill their stomachs? hmmmm interesting though? are you sure thats a good thing?

your posts are self-important garbage that leave out more than they inform

 

[U2Edge]

Most of the very wealthy already own properties in different countries, U2. It isn't a choice between the US and Somalia and there are plenty of English speaking countries out there. You're naive to the extreme about the rich and how they function.

Once again...businesses are started with the anticipation of profit...high demand doesn't really mean anything if that demand can't be met with a product that nets a profit. As an example...demand for a $10,000 Ferrari would be through the roof but if the manufacturer lost money making that car it wouldn't matter if they were lined up around the block to buy it.

That's irrelevant, because the fact remains that the CONSUMER must be willing to buy the product or service for the Business owner to make any money period. Whether he produces something that is cost efficient for him is his problem, the consumer does not care about that. The Business owner is not going to open a shop in area where the demand is low for that product or service. Consumer demand drives what business owners do, period.

If the wealthy want to move or live in a different country that's fine. But most of the world lives in the third world and most of the rich live in the first world, where tax rates are typically higher.

Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Switzerland still have plenty of rich people despite their high tax rates. There are only so many places that are comfortable and safe from a rich person perspective to live in, around the world.

Yes, you'll lose some rich people, but most will stay, just as they did in the 1940s and 1950s when US tax rates for the top earners were around 80% to 90%. The United States did lots of great things when the tax rates were high and the standard of living for the middle class was still good. The United States ended the Great Depression, won World War II, and set up the world system that helped it to defend the world from Soviet Communism and prevent World War III.

You don't get it...do you? Demand is a given...you're not going to make something that people don't want but once you've determined that there is a demand for a product the next thing that any investor will look at is whether or not a profit will be derived from sales and if that profit is sufficient enough to risk capital. When you raise taxes on profits you discourage investment because the profit is now less while the risk remains the same.

Do you really think that high tax rates ended the Great Depression? That's an amusing concept.

The reason that the United States boomed following WWII is that we were the only remaining industrial power who hadn't been decimated by the war. Germany, Japan, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, Italy, France...all of these nation's infrastructures were in ruins at the end of that conflict whereas ours was untouched and operating a full throttle.

Demand is NEVER a given. That's why business's often don't start up in economically depressed areas. That's why during recessions many business's shut down and there are not new ones to replace them. Why? Because the demand is no longer there.

Demand will be filled by someone, regardless of whether an investor is scared about is profit margins and does nothing. Someone else will take the risk and move into the market in order to meet the demand or at least try to.

As long as there is demand, someone will go into the market to try and meet it, regardless of the economic tax rates.

From 1940 to 1980, the tax rate for top earners never dropped below 70%. The economic results of that 40 year period show that this did not hurt the country or the economy. Instead, the country was still able to come out of the recession, win World War II, and create the greatest economic expansion in the history of the world, leading the United States to become a Super Power!

I'm not saying high tax rates caused that to happen, I'm saying high tax rates on top earners did NOT PREVENT that from happening.

The engine of the economy is the consumer. As long as there is a consumer to demand product and services, someone will come in to try and meet that demand, regardless of the tax rates on top earners. If that were not the case, all the economic growth and success in the United States from 1940 through 1980 would have been impossible.

Giving Tax breaks to top earners does not boost the economy. Why, because top earners only consume so much. Its the lower and middle classes that create the majority of the consumption. Consumption drives 80% of the economy, which is why lower taxes on low and middle income people benefit the economy, while lower taxes on the wealthy do little to nothing.

Give a low income person a tax break, they will purchase more Big Macs throughout the year. Give a top earner a tax break and they will consume the same number of Big Macs they did the year before, but not anymore. The top earner will not consume more from a tax break, and even if he did, the increase relative to the rest of the economy is minute. In contrast, the millions of lower and middle income people will go out and spend that tax break which will lead to an increase in GDP for that quarter or at least make the numbers better than they would be without the tax break.

No doubt, for a Top earner, low taxes are a good thing for many reasons. But on the whole, lower taxes for the rich does not boost the economy because it does not effect their consumption rate to a significant degree.

This is not about what's good for top earners, or low earners, but what is best for sustained raw GDP growth over time. GDP growth is not negatively impacted by high tax rates on the rich. Instead, it helps to fund the government, which funds the military which is vital to national security and national survival.

 

[U2Edge]

What you propose with your tax increase is to take away the profit motive from the holders of capital to risk that capital. What you do is push them into "safe" investments like tax exempt bonds. That type of investment doesn't create jobs it simply protects capital...and protecting capital is what the rich DO!

Well, what happened in the 1940s and 1950s when tax rates were 80% to 90% on top earners. Did the rich put all their money into "safe" investments and stopped investing in business to try and make money? NO of course not.

When did McDonalds begin? McDonalds was started in the 1940s when the so called crushing rates of 80% to 90% tax rates should have squashed that idea flat according to you.

Lower tax rates for lower income and middle income people or tax credits is good and helps drive the economy, because at that level consumers spend what they earn. Lower and middle income people make up more than 90% of consumers as well.

The lower and Middle income people will buy more Bic Macs from McDonalds when you lower their taxes or give them a tax credit. But the wealthy 1% will not purchase any more Bic Macs in a single year if they get any sort of a tax cut.


Again, wealthy people take a risk with their capital when they see unmet demand in the market that they could fill and profit from. They see what consumers demand and rush to try and fulfill that demand in order to make a profit. If there is no demand, then they are not going to start up a business. Without demand, there is no business start up. Without the consumer, there is no business. That's the #1 driving factor, not the top income earners tax rate.

wow; seriously? another master if the obvious. demand is always present; as there are elastic and inelastic demands. Government has been really sh*tty at "creating" demand and not even so good at stimulating demand in the private sector; certainly not demand that lasts and is self-sustaining.

Demand is not always present in many situations. During a recession, business's will close down and new ones will not take their place because the demand is not there for them. Recessions decrease demand and this leads to area's of the country where demand for certain products and services is wiped out completely. That's why there are large regions of the country where Hooters no longer exist. Its part of the reason why Quiznos has shrunk. There used to be several Quiznos where I live, but now I'd have to drive 90 minutes to go to one. This is the result of a decline in demand for fast food services as people have less income thanks to the recession to spend on such things.

AGAIN; why doesnt; or bettter yet why didnt Democrats propose 80-90% tax rates for the top brackets if they're such a good idea and people of your mindset are so convinced no harm will result?

Because both Democrats and Republicans are dependent on wealthy campaign doners who would oppose such measures. One of the benefits of being wealthy today is that you have a greater ability to shape the political process towards your personal interests, regardless of whether it is in the interest of the country as a whole or not.

what an obtuse argument you make. you leave out so much. businesses nowadays are also straddled with a million regulations that didnt exist in the 1950 or 60s.
also the idea that the rich dont put money in the economy is patently absurd. do they build their own mansions? drive used volkswagons? eat only Ramen noodles? not hire nannies? landscapers? pool people? movers?.....etc

Sure they do. But their personal consumption of goods and services is typically unaffected by tax rates and only makes up a small fraction of the country's total consumption. The top 1% is a small group, and the mansions they build, nannies they higher, landscapers they higher, form a much smaller percentage of overall consumption compared to the middle and lower classes.

why wouldnt rich people consume more "Big Macs" if you gave them a tax cut? you offer absolutely nothing to back up that statement. and why would poor people buy more Big Macs then they need to fill their stomachs? hmmmm interesting though? are you sure thats a good thing?

The Big Macs are just an example for overall consumption. The less income you have, the more likely you are to spend what income you do have for things. The rich, top 1%, have so much income that their daily spending habbits on food are not influenced by their tax rates. Warren Buffet is not going to eat more Big Macs this year if you give him a tax cut. The family living on 20,000 dollars a year though will be more likely to take the Kids out to McDonalds for a treat when they have more money in their pocket. The lower and middle incomes struggle to pay for their daily needs and wants. The rich do not.

Even if Warren Buffet did increase the number of Big Macs he ate because of a tax cut, the increase would be insignificant. But with millions of low income people, you would see a rise in consumption of Big Macs and other things. Because there are millions of low income people, this consumption has the power to positively effect GDP growth.

Again, consumers are the engine of the economy, and the overwhelming majority of consumers are in the lower and middle income classes and are more likely than the top 1% to go out and immediately spend EXTRA INCOME!

 

[bedowin62]

That's irrelevant, because the fact remains that the CONSUMER must be willing to buy the product or service for the Business owner to make any money period. Whether he produces something that is cost efficient for him is his problem, the consumer does not care about that. The Business owner is not going to open a shop in area where the demand is low for that product or service. Consumer demand drives what business owners do, period.

If the wealthy want to move or live in a different country that's fine. But most of the world lives in the third world and most of the rich live in the first world, where tax rates are typically higher.

Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Switzerland still have plenty of rich people despite their high tax rates. There are only so many places that are comfortable and safe from a rich person perspective to live in, around the world.

Yes, you'll lose some rich people, but most will stay, just as they did in the 1940s and 1950s when US tax rates for the top earners were around 80% to 90%. The United States did lots of great things when the tax rates were high and the standard of living for the middle class was still good. The United States ended the Great Depression, won World War II, and set up the world system that helped it to defend the world from Soviet Communism and prevent World War III.

You don't get it...do you? Demand is a given...you're not going to make something that people don't want but once you've determined that there is a demand for a product the next thing that any investor will look at is whether or not a profit will be derived from sales and if that profit is sufficient enough to risk capital. When you raise taxes on profits you discourage investment because the profit is now less while the risk remains the same.

Do you really think that high tax rates ended the Great Depression? That's an amusing concept.

The reason that the United States boomed following WWII is that we were the only remaining industrial power who hadn't been decimated by the war. Germany, Japan, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, Italy, France...all of these nation's infrastructures were in ruins at the end of that conflict whereas ours was untouched and operating a full throttle.

Demand is NEVER a given. That's why business's often don't start up in economically depressed areas. That's why during recessions many business's shut down and there are not new ones to replace them. Why? Because the demand is no longer there.

Demand will be filled by someone, regardless of whether an investor is scared about is profit margins and does nothing. Someone else will take the risk and move into the market in order to meet the demand or at least try to.

As long as there is demand, someone will go into the market to try and meet it, regardless of the economic tax rates.

From 1940 to 1980, the tax rate for top earners never dropped below 70%. The economic results of that 40 year period show that this did not hurt the country or the economy. Instead, the country was still able to come out of the recession, win World War II, and create the greatest economic expansion in the history of the world, leading the United States to become a Super Power!

I'm not saying high tax rates caused that to happen, I'm saying high tax rates on top earners did NOT PREVENT that from happening.

The engine of the economy is the consumer. As long as there is a consumer to demand product and services, someone will come in to try and meet that demand, regardless of the tax rates on top earners. If that were not the case, all the economic growth and success in the United States from 1940 through 1980 would have been impossible.

Giving Tax breaks to top earners does not boost the economy. Why, because top earners only consume so much. Its the lower and middle classes that create the majority of the consumption. Consumption drives 80% of the economy, which is why lower taxes on low and middle income people benefit the economy, while lower taxes on the wealthy do little to nothing.

Give a low income person a tax break, they will purchase more Big Macs throughout the year. Give a top earner a tax break and they will consume the same number of Big Macs they did the year before, but not anymore. The top earner will not consume more from a tax break, and even if he did, the increase relative to the rest of the economy is minute. In contrast, the millions of lower and middle income people will go out and spend that tax break which will lead to an increase in GDP for that quarter or at least make the numbers better than they would be without the tax break.

No doubt, for a Top earner, low taxes are a good thing for many reasons. But on the whole, lower taxes for the rich does not boost the economy because it does not effect their consumption rate to a significant degree.

This is not about what's good for top earners, or low earners, but what is best for sustained raw GDP growth over time. GDP growth is not negatively impacted by high tax rates on the rich. Instead, it helps to fund the government, which funds the military which is vital to national security and national survival.

Demand is ALWAYS a given. even in deprresed areas demand is always there; especially inelastic demands like food (your Big Mac). and if demand is always going to be filled by someone as you say; then it IS a given; you're contradicting yourself and talking in circles. One cannot try to meet something you say is "no longer there".
YAWN.

once more; pathetically; you mention the period from 1940-1980 as if we live in a time warp and things havent changed since then. all of the things that HAVE changed and make things different now have already been pointed out to you by me and others. YAWN

Sweden, Finland and Norway dont get to offer what they offer by taxing the rich to death; they have VAT TAXES; the most regressive of taxes. you want to mention those Social Democracies but are intellectually dishonest on how they do what they do. YAWN

if giving tax breaks to top consumers doesnt help the economy people such as JFK wouldnt have done just that; and the rich would have no reason to be asking for them.

the truth is they wont pay much in taxes anyway; the will pass on the tax hikes to you; and of course NOT HIRE as you see is happening now as companies hold off hiring waiting to see what this Progressive President will do next. YAWN


AND AGAIN; the lower and middle tax brackets already pay little to nothing in income taxes; federal income taxes; also AGAIN you advocating lower tax rates for them contradicts your using Sweden, Finland and Norway as examples.

also boringly you keep making the same poing about poor people spending all they have on the local economy as if that's a good thing; OR EVEN TRUE. it isnt. first of all we want people to be saving; for houses and big-ticket items; not just blowing all their food stamp money. talk about lowered expectations!!

second; actual REALITY doesnt bear your theory out. we have trillions being pumped into the economy in the form of welfare and food stamps, disability, Section 8, ...etc and the economy is still weak; EXCEPT FOR THE RECORD PROFITS ON WALL STREET. WAS THAT your desired effect?

what kind of idiot implies; or seems to; that people on government programs spending on the economy are a better thing than people with jobs? you seem to be saying that because that is what we have now.

 

[bedowin62]

Well, what happened in the 1940s and 1950s when tax rates were 80% to 90% on top earners. Did the rich put all their money into "safe" investments and stopped investing in business to try and make money? NO of course not.

When did McDonalds begin? McDonalds was started in the 1940s when the so called crushing rates of 80% to 90% tax rates should have squashed that idea flat according to you.

Lower tax rates for lower income and middle income people or tax credits is good and helps drive the economy, because at that level consumers spend what they earn. Lower and middle income people make up more than 90% of consumers as well.

The lower and Middle income people will buy more Bic Macs from McDonalds when you lower their taxes or give them a tax credit. But the wealthy 1% will not purchase any more Bic Macs in a single year if they get any sort of a tax cut.


Again, wealthy people take a risk with their capital when they see unmet demand in the market that they could fill and profit from. They see what consumers demand and rush to try and fulfill that demand in order to make a profit. If there is no demand, then they are not going to start up a business. Without demand, there is no business start up. Without the consumer, there is no business. That's the #1 driving factor, not the top income earners tax rate.

wow; seriously? another master if the obvious. demand is always present; as there are elastic and inelastic demands. Government has been really sh*tty at "creating" demand and not even so good at stimulating demand in the private sector; certainly not demand that lasts and is self-sustaining.

Demand is not always present in many situations. During a recession, business's will close down and new ones will not take their place because the demand is not there for them. Recessions decrease demand and this leads to area's of the country where demand for certain products and services is wiped out completely. That's why there are large regions of the country where Hooters no longer exist. Its part of the reason why Quiznos has shrunk. There used to be several Quiznos where I live, but now I'd have to drive 90 minutes to go to one. This is the result of a decline in demand for fast food services as people have less income thanks to the recession to spend on such things.



Because both Democrats and Republicans are dependent on wealthy campaign doners who would oppose such measures. One of the benefits of being wealthy today is that you have a greater ability to shape the political process towards your personal interests, regardless of whether it is in the interest of the country as a whole or not.

what an obtuse argument you make. you leave out so much. businesses nowadays are also straddled with a million regulations that didnt exist in the 1950 or 60s.
also the idea that the rich dont put money in the economy is patently absurd. do they build their own mansions? drive used volkswagons? eat only Ramen noodles? not hire nannies? landscapers? pool people? movers?.....etc

Sure they do. But their personal consumption of goods and services is typically unaffected by tax rates and only makes up a small fraction of the country's total consumption. The top 1% is a small group, and the mansions they build, nannies they higher, landscapers they higher, form a much smaller percentage of overall consumption compared to the middle and lower classes.

why wouldnt rich people consume more "Big Macs" if you gave them a tax cut? you offer absolutely nothing to back up that statement. and why would poor people buy more Big Macs then they need to fill their stomachs? hmmmm interesting though? are you sure thats a good thing?

The Big Macs are just an example for overall consumption. The less income you have, the more likely you are to spend what income you do have for things. The rich, top 1%, have so much income that their daily spending habbits on food are not influenced by their tax rates. Warren Buffet is not going to eat more Big Macs this year if you give him a tax cut. The family living on 20,000 dollars a year though will be more likely to take the Kids out to McDonalds for a treat when they have more money in their pocket. The lower and middle incomes struggle to pay for their daily needs and wants. The rich do not.

Even if Warren Buffet did increase the number of Big Macs he ate because of a tax cut, the increase would be insignificant. But with millions of low income people, you would see a rise in consumption of Big Macs and other things. Because there are millions of low income people, this consumption has the power to positively effect GDP growth.

Again, consumers are the engine of the economy, and the overwhelming majority of consumers are in the lower and middle income classes and are more likely than the top 1% to go out and immediately spend EXTRA INCOME!

YAWN. more obtuse stupidity.

ia rich person who puts an extension on his or her large home is more likely to cause more consumption of Big Macs than a reduction in their already low or non-existant tax rates. it is workers who fix the cars of the rich; clean their pools; build their houses, cut their lawns; cater their parties.. all of that is lessened when you tax them to death. this has been borne out time after time.