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

[bedowin62]

it the top 1% is a small group and keeping their taxes low wont have much of an effect on the economy; then raising them wont have much of an effect either. you cant have it both ways

you're comical

 

[U2Edge]

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.

What about the 1960s and 1970s. Top earners were still taxed at a rate that was over 70%. The United States quickly rebuilt Europe and Japan because their economic strength were a source of support and business opportunities. The United States is strengthened when economic conditions are strong around the world. It is weakened when they are not. Depressed demand overseas for US goods and services has a negative effect on the economy. When large area's of the world are destroyed or in complete ruins, it has a depressing effect on US exports which create jobs at home. It also is a threat to US national security when natural resources from abroad cannot be accessed at the prices needed to sustain economic growth.

By the way, Brazil and India were never occupied or bombed by the Axis Powers in World War II and were not sitting in ruins in 1945 either.

Its interesting to note that now that top tax rates have declined to 35% for income and Capital Gains taxes are a pitiful 15%, the economy over the past 15 years on the average has unfortunately been anemic in terms of growth compared to 1940 to 1980.

The big lowering of top tax rates has not led to improved GDP growth over the 1940-1980 period. Instead it has helped to balloon the deficit and debt and has made it difficult to pay for Defense and provide entitlements like social security and medicare.

Lower tax rates and tax credits on lower and middle income people is good for the economy and leads to better GDP growth. Lower tax rates for the rich has no real impact on their consumption and does not improve GDP growth. As for the country as a whole, the impact of tax breaks for the rich is usually negative in that it makes it more difficult for the government to pay for Defense, social security and medicare, and often helps lead to deficits and then increased debt.
US economic growth rates were great in the 1960s and did just fine in the 1970s. A 70% or more tax rate did not prevent that from happening.

 

[bedowin62]

the rich are telling us what they need; what they would like to see happen; in order for them to create jobs and an environment of SUSTAINALBE JOB CREATION.
but you Progressives will have none of that

you appear to know better than not just poor people what is good for them; but rich, private sector entrepreneurs as well

SIGH
oh well; YOU CAN ALWAYS GO ON PRETENDING RECORD WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS IS "FORWARD PROGRESS"

 

[bedowin62]

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.

What about the 1960s and 1970s. Top earners were still taxed at a rate that was over 70%. The United States quickly rebuilt Europe and Japan because their economic strength were a source of support and business opportunities. The United States is strengthened when economic conditions are strong around the world. It is weakened when they are not. Depressed demand overseas for US goods and services has a negative effect on the economy. When large area's of the world are destroyed or in complete ruins, it has a depressing effect on US exports which create jobs at home. It also is a threat to US national security when natural resources from abroad cannot be accessed at the prices needed to sustain economic growth.

By the way, Brazil and India were never occupied or bombed by the Axis Powers in World War II and were not sitting in ruins in 1945 either.

Its interesting to note that now that top tax rates have declined to 35% for income and Capital Gains taxes are a pitiful 15%, the economy over the past 15 years on the average has unfortunately been anemic in terms of growth compared to 1940 to 1980.

The big lowering of top tax rates has not led to improved GDP growth over the 1940-1980 period. Instead it has helped to balloon the deficit and debt and has made it difficult to pay for Defense and provide entitlements like social security and medicare.

Lower tax rates and tax credits on lower and middle income people is good for the economy and leads to better GDP growth. Lower tax rates for the rich has no real impact on their consumption and does not improve GDP growth. As for the country as a whole, the impact of tax breaks for the rich is usually negative in that it makes it more difficult for the government to pay for Defense, social security and medicare, and often helps lead to deficits and then increased debt.
US economic growth rates were great in the 1960s and did just fine in the 1970s. A 70% or more tax rate did not prevent that from happening.

YAWN;

once more you ignore what is inconveniant. is this the 70's? the 60's?

lol and pitifully again you make no actual connection between the higher tax rates of yesterday and that period's GDP; or the lowered top tax rates and the GDP figures of today. you seem to think just saying it is some kind of proof of something

 

[U2Edge]

it the top 1% is a small group and keeping their taxes low wont have much of an effect on the economy; then raising them wont have much of an effect either. you cant have it both ways

you're comical

The top 1% is a small group, which means their daily consumption levels are low, NOT their money and assets. The top 1% in this country have 33% of the wealth. The problem is that they won't and can't spend that on a daily basis. Take part of that wealth out their hands in put it into the hands of millions of lower income people and they will spend it all immediately and the business they spend it on will be the winners as well the economy, which leads to GDP growth. The rich sit on most of their wealth instead of using it for consumption. The lower and middle income people spend almost everything they have consuming products and services which benefits the economy and GDP growth.

Because the top 1% are not major consumers relative to the rest of the population, taxing them at a higher rate will not hurt the economy because most of their money is not being used to consume anything on a daily basis. The top 1% have a lot of money that is not being used for consumption at all, and should be used to pay for DEFENSE, SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE and other things that are NEEDED by the country as a whole. Because such money was not being used for CONSUMPTION, it will not negatively impact consumption and will not negatively impact the economy, yet it will benefit the country!

 

[bedowin62]

Brazil and India were not lying in ruins in 1945 true. but they were BOTH dirt-poor. you make my point for me. Now they are economic powerhouses that compete with us; whereas before they werent even in our league

wow

 

[bedowin62]

if their daily consumption levels are low; they are still high in dollar amount; as they have the capacity to afford more things. do people only eat food?

wow; honestly you're not saying anything; Daily consumption levels? one item a rich person buys might be equal to a year's worth of "daily consumption" for 10 people

and AGAIN your point is MOOT anyway because the middle class and poor already pay very little in the way of federal taxes; raising taxes on the rich wont increase what the poor and middle class consume


UNLESS what you're talking about in REDISTRIBUTION

why dont you move to North Korea? or how did that work out in the Soviet Union?

 

[U2Edge]

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.

What about the 1960s and 1970s. Top earners were still taxed at a rate that was over 70%. The United States quickly rebuilt Europe and Japan because their economic strength were a source of support and business opportunities. The United States is strengthened when economic conditions are strong around the world. It is weakened when they are not. Depressed demand overseas for US goods and services has a negative effect on the economy. When large area's of the world are destroyed or in complete ruins, it has a depressing effect on US exports which create jobs at home. It also is a threat to US national security when natural resources from abroad cannot be accessed at the prices needed to sustain economic growth.

By the way, Brazil and India were never occupied or bombed by the Axis Powers in World War II and were not sitting in ruins in 1945 either.

Its interesting to note that now that top tax rates have declined to 35% for income and Capital Gains taxes are a pitiful 15%, the economy over the past 15 years on the average has unfortunately been anemic in terms of growth compared to 1940 to 1980.

The big lowering of top tax rates has not led to improved GDP growth over the 1940-1980 period. Instead it has helped to balloon the deficit and debt and has made it difficult to pay for Defense and provide entitlements like social security and medicare.

Lower tax rates and tax credits on lower and middle income people is good for the economy and leads to better GDP growth. Lower tax rates for the rich has no real impact on their consumption and does not improve GDP growth. As for the country as a whole, the impact of tax breaks for the rich is usually negative in that it makes it more difficult for the government to pay for Defense, social security and medicare, and often helps lead to deficits and then increased debt.
US economic growth rates were great in the 1960s and did just fine in the 1970s. A 70% or more tax rate did not prevent that from happening.

YAWN;

once more you ignore what is inconveniant. is this the 70's? the 60's?

lol and pitifully again you make no actual connection between the higher tax rates of yesterday and that period's GDP; or the lowered top tax rates and the GDP figures of today. you seem to think just saying it is some kind of proof of something

The higher tax rates of the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, at least 70% NEVER had a negative impact on GDP. GDP growth on average during this time was better than at any period in United States history. I'm not saying the high tax rates are responsible for that, I'm saying that had NO EFFECT on great GDP performance. High tax rates on top income earners that is.

The lower Tax rates TODAY have not caused lower GDP growth rates, but they have not helped them either. Where the lower taxes have had a negative impact is that it has made it more difficult for the government to meet its spending obligations on defense, social security, medicare, and led to deficits and debt.

It is precisely because high tax rates on top income earners do not impact the economy significantly, that such rates should remain in place because they do much public good in helping to balance the budget and defend the country and its interest.

 

[U2Edge]

if their daily consumption levels are low; they are still high in dollar amount; as they have the capacity to afford more things. do people only eat food?

wow; honestly you're not saying anything; Daily consumption levels? one item a rich person buys might be equal to a year's worth of "daily consumption" for 10 people

and AGAIN your point is MOOT anyway because the middle class and poor already pay very little in the way of federal taxes; raising taxes on the rich wont increase what the poor and middle class consume


UNLESS what you're talking about in REDISTRIBUTION

why dont you move to North Korea? or how did that work out in the Soviet Union?

I NEVER SAID RAISING TAXES ON THE RICH WOULD INCREASE WHAT THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS CONSUME. I stated that such high tax rates would not negatively impact the economy, because GDP growth was strong on average from 1940 to 1980 when tax rates for the top earners were well above 1%.

THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT THE SOVIET UNION OR NORTH KOREA FROM 1940 to 1980 because it taxed its highest earners at a 70% rate or more.

The United States from 1940-1980 was a beacon for democracy and free market capitalism. Countries with Free Market Capitalism still have tax rates on everyone and the highest rates are paid by the rich.

The Soviet Union and North Korea are communist states where there is no such thing as the market and everything is owned by and run by top government officials.

While a rich person may buy something that is worth a years spending by 10 people, that rich person will still buy that something regardless of what their tax rates are. You have that luxury when you are in the top 1%. Your daily consumption needs and wants are so small to your overall wealth that increased tax rates will not impact your consumption rate.

 

[U2Edge]

Brazil and India were not lying in ruins in 1945 true. but they were BOTH dirt-poor. you make my point for me. Now they are economic powerhouses that compete with us; whereas before they werent even in our league

wow

It goes both ways. The United States has new markets in India and Brazil in which its business can make money which leads to more jobs in the United States and more tax revenue for the US government.

Lets take a business like U2. Back in the 1980s, U2 did not travel to Brazil to sell concert tickets. In the 2000s they do. There is now a market in Brazil which U2 can exploit and make millions of dollars from which they didn't have years ago.

U2 is not the only business to discover this. Thousands of US business's providing various products and services have discovered this as well and have benefited just like U2 have.

 

[bedowin62]

no YOU dont get it.
i asked you quite simply; how will taxing the richest at higher rates put more money in the hands of the poor and middle class?

 

[bedowin62]

your point about U2 makes my point more than it makes yours; and has nothing to do with taxing our richest people at high rates

 

[U2Edge]

the rich are telling us what they need; what they would like to see happen; in order for them to create jobs and an environment of SUSTAINALBE JOB CREATION.
but you Progressives will have none of that

you appear to know better than not just poor people what is good for them; but rich, private sector entrepreneurs as well

SIGH
oh well; YOU CAN ALWAYS GO ON PRETENDING RECORD WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS IS "FORWARD PROGRESS"

I'm not a progressive. I'm a Republican and have never voted for an independent or a member of another party.

Consumers are the job creators, not the rich. The rich simply help to fill unmet demand of consumers. Are economy is 80% driven by consumers, and the vast majority of them are in the lower and middle class. They are the engine of the economy and they decided the business winners and losers, not the rich.

 

[bedowin62]

how will taxing our rich to death make our products more likely to be bought in Brazil?

 

[U2Edge]

no YOU dont get it.
i asked you quite simply; how will taxing the richest at higher rates put more money in the hands of the poor and middle class?

I never said that it would or that it was the purpose. I simply said it would NOT have a negative impact on GDP growth and would help pay for vital things such as NATIONAL DEFENSE and help prevent budget deficits.

 

[bedowin62]

you dont know what you're talking about and are talking in circles

that the economy is driven by consumers is a given; it has nothing to do with your suggestion that the rich need to be taxed to death

 

[U2Edge]

your point about U2 makes my point more than it makes yours; and has nothing to do with taxing our richest people at high rates

You claimed Brazils economic power and growth was bad for US business and economy. Its not at all. I used U2 as an example to show that, even though U2 is Irish.

 

[U2Edge]

you dont know what you're talking about and are talking in circles

that the economy is driven by consumers is a given; it has nothing to do with your suggestion that the rich need to be taxed to death

I didn't say they need to be, I said that they can be and that it would be good for the country as a whole and would not have a negative impact on GDP growth.

Again, US GDP growth from 1940 to 1980 was not negatively impacted by high tax rates on the rich. The average GDP growth in the United States from 1940 through 1980 was the strongest in the history of the United States. That shows that high tax rates on the rich do not negatively impact GDP growth!

 

[U2Edge]

how will taxing our rich to death make our products more likely to be bought in Brazil?

They won't and I never said that they would. US products our more likely to be purchased in Brazil TODAY because the economy in Brazil has developed enough so that people can afford US products.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

That post, U2...is a perfect example of why Progressives struggle to create jobs. You honestly don't have a clue about how economics works...nor do you understand what motivates those with capital to risk that capital in investments that create jobs.