Is lowering taxes the answer?

[andysayshi]

 

[GhostMost]

This is to your credit. Do you read "The National Review", by any chance?" If not, where are you getting these ideas? Herbert Hoover's plan for economic recovery? If we use your "logic" the upper 2% shouldn't have to pay any taxes. Be honest, you just don't like Obama.

Also, you have not read a thing that I have posted. Have a nice day.

You've only posted one post in response to anything that I've said! I won't tell you where I get my ideas because I know you'll just spew insults at me for saying it, it's not any news source, or any person what-so-ever.

Was it really people having less "disposable" income, which doesn't make sense because money can't just be disposable because buying something serves a purpose (yes I'll get this exact since you are as well), or was it frugality dealing with saving money, supporting families, and other people? You must admit that frugality drives the economy down..

Please save your energy on the econ. 101 info.

I don't know, the idea of having a beggar be relieved of it's taxes just because it just begs for money on the street scares the shit out of me, communism is terrible let's get that out of the way. Let's give the lazy ones more of an incentive to go out there and find a job.

 

[Kulindahr]

"The super-rich do nothing to create jobs with all that wealth." Then what do they do? I mean Starbucks recently created a new brand of coffee called Seattle's Best, so they must not have created more jobs to get a different branch. NBC created Bravo, but oh no that just made the economy worse.

How can giving money to the poor create new companies? I agree demand does go up, but with demand you need supply or people pay even more for their demands, but taxing the rich must give more supply right?

What about the Independent Italian restaurant struggling to pay it's taxes because the owner's taxes are increased because of his salary per year?

Starbucks is not a person, nor is NBC.

Businesses which are totally domestic should have a tax rate of zero.

 

[GhostMost]

Starbucks is not a person, nor is NBC.

Businesses which are totally domestic should have a tax rate of zero.

Sorry THE PERSON THAT MADE THOSE COMPANIES. Corporations are just run by a bunch of people by the way.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes, the super-rich do create jobs.

Rarely. Jobs are created by entrepreneurs, who are rarely the super-rich -- except a few, later. That's one reason my idea for inheritance law is that no one entity may be bequeathed more than half a million times the minimum wage -- spread that wealth around, and some of the people who inherit will be ones who will use it creatively instead of managing it for the purpose of maintaining it.

And when the super-rich do create jobs, they're almost invariably in places where labor is the cheapest. So the result of more tax breaks for the super-wealthy is jobs in other countries -- not at home.

 

[chrisrobin]

Starbucks is not a person, nor is NBC.

Au contraire.
Please refer to recent SCOTUS decision, "Citizens United" where it was decided that corporations are people - vis-a-vis the First Amendment. If Starbuck's wants to give a billion dollars to the candidate of their choice, they are no longer subject to campaign disclosure laws (which for all intent and purposes no longer exist). They are merely exercising their right to free speech. But please don't take my word for it.

 

[Kulindahr]

But the super-rich are humans. You can't just hold them to a high enough standard by saying MAKE MORE JOBS WE NEED THEM, it's just not that simple. If they get taxed we have less jobs (not every business can afford to pay high taxes and run a money-demanding business). If the government gets it they'll distribute the money a very little to us (in the form of improving buildings, blah, and blah), then most will go to them to spend it on worthless and stupid shit no citizen will ever know about nor care about. This will not change even if they're taxed more.

Yes, the super-rich are humans -- so stop confusing them with companies.

If we ran the income rate on the super-wealthy to 90%, it would not cost us one single job. Quite the contrary: it would create jobs, as the government worked on infrastructure, etc. It would also have the nice benefit of making it possible to not just balance the budget, but start paying down the debt -- the best way possible to lower taxes, because it would reduce the interest that does no one any good.

 

[chrisrobin]

Please save your energy on the econ. 101 info.

Where do you want it?

 

[Kulindahr]

Was it really people having less "disposable" income, which doesn't make sense because money can't just be disposable because buying something serves a purpose (yes I'll get this exact since you are as well), or was it frugality dealing with saving money, supporting families, and other people? You must admit that frugality drives the economy down..

Please save your energy on the econ. 101 info.

I don't know, the idea of having a beggar be relieved of it's taxes just because it just begs for money on the street scares the shit out of me, communism is terrible let's get that out of the way. Let's give the lazy ones more of an incentive to go out there and find a job.

You don't even grasp the basic vocabulary of economics; how can you possibly expect to discuss the issues intelligently?


An incentive -- how about raising the minimum wage to $10/hr.?

 

[Kulindahr]

Au contraire.
Please refer to recent SCOTUS decision, "Citizens United" where it was decided that corporations are people - vis-a-vis the First Amendment. If Starbuck's wants to give a billion dollars to the candidate of their choice, they are no longer subject to campaign disclosure laws (which for all intent and purposes no longer exist). They are merely exercising their right to free speech. But please don't take my word for it.

Citizens United did no such thing -- any of those things. Corporate personhood has been around since the nineteenth century at least, and C.U. didn't touch on it. In fact it was explicitly stated that one need not be a person to have free speech, because the First Amendment does not mention persons. Nor did it lift campaign contribution limits, nor affect disclosure laws -- candidates still have to disclose as they did before.


But, let's back up. He was talking about "the super-rich", but then switching to corporations. The "super-rich" are people; corporations aren't.

 

[chrisrobin]

Citizens United did no such thing -- any of those things. Corporate personhood has been around since the nineteenth century at least, and C.U. didn't touch on it. In fact it was explicitly stated that one need not be a person to have free speech, because the First Amendment does not mention persons. Nor did it lift campaign contribution limits, nor affect disclosure laws -- candidates still have to disclose as they did before.


But, let's back up. He was talking about "the super-rich", but then switching to corporations. The "super-rich" are people; corporations aren't.

Please tell that to the Koch brothers.

 

[GhostMost]

You don't even grasp the basic vocabulary of economics; how can you possibly expect to discuss the issues intelligently?


An incentive -- how about raising the minimum wage to $10/hr.?

I'm afraid that wouldn't be enough. Aren't you liberals big on giving everyone a voice? So does it really matter if I don't use the same words, I can always just put some personality into it to impress .

"Where do you want it?"

in my ass hahahaha.

People invest in coporations, I never said they were people just basic extensions of a group of people, you liberals like a sense of community right?

 

[laikaNYC]

It's the same old tune; the left wants to raise taxes on the affluent, including small business owners who hire people. Does that make sense to you? If you want more jobs, you must give business incentives to hire, not take more money away from the entrepreneurial class.

 

[chrisrobin]

It's the same old tune; the left wants to raise taxes on the affluent, including small business owners who hire people. Does that make sense to you? If you want more jobs, you must give business incentives to hire, not take more money away from the entrepreneurial class.

We've had tax cuts for the upper 2% for ten years. Even the Great Satan Obama extended them. Please see below:

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm afraid that wouldn't be enough. Aren't you liberals big on giving everyone a voice? So does it really matter if I don't use the same words, I can always just put some personality into it to impress .

"Where do you want it?"

in my ass hahahaha.

People invest in coporations, I never said they were people just basic extensions of a group of people, you liberals like a sense of community right?

You'd have to ask a liberal about those things.

As for "that wouldn't be enough" -- you want a minimum wage jump to more than $10/hr??? Talk about a good way to eliminate jobs!

 

[GhostMost]

We've had tax cuts for the upper 2% for ten years. Even the Great Satan Obama extended them. Please see below:

Yeah because he didn't want so much hate that everyone's been giving him. I don't see anything below. Oh maybe that's why the economy's expected to rise soon

 

[GhostMost]

You'd have to ask a liberal about those things.

As for "that wouldn't be enough" -- you want a minimum wage jump to more than $10/hr??? Talk about a good way to eliminate jobs!

I never said I wanted it! Good god I'm saying even if it would rise that high it still wouldn't get the lazy ones off their asses.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's the same old tune; the left wants to raise taxes on the affluent, including small business owners who hire people. Does that make sense to you? If you want more jobs, you must give business incentives to hire, not take more money away from the entrepreneurial class.

If you using the GOP definition of "small business", you should go study reality first.

Other than that, you're committing the same fallacy as GhostMost: confusing people and corporations. To repeat: we could raise the tax rate on the super-wealthy to a good patriotic 90%, and it would not harm one single job.

Give businesses incentives? Reduce taxes for all-domestic companies to zero.

 

[Kulindahr]

I never said I wanted it! Good god I'm saying even if it would rise that high it still wouldn't get the lazy ones off their asses.

Ah -- possibly true. Of course the real problem is that there are no jobs for them, anyway. When economic theory says 3% unemployment is "full employment", and when economic figures say we're still over 9%, and when reality on the ground is more like 14% unemployment, why should the lazy bestir themselves?

 

[GhostMost]

To repeat: we could raise the tax rate on the super-wealthy to a good patriotic 90%, and it would not harm one single job.

Patriotic? Claims like that make me wonder how you'd be as a leader.