Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

[Critter7r]

We don't have to expect them for the premise to work.. we just have to recognize that the COULD.

that's incisors premise. He doesn't have to show that progressivity in taxes decreased inequality.. just show that it could.

The only way progressivity doesn't decrease inequality very much is if you take into account the benefits paid to people that receive them. But doing that is called circular reasoning, using benefits paid by the gov't that reduce inequality of income to show that inequality doesn't exist.

Having said that, I'd be more in favor of employers simply paying employees more so that fewer people needed benefits in the first place.

 

[jaeger19]

The only way progressivity doesn't decrease inequality very much is if you take into account the benefits paid to people that receive them. But doing that is called circular reasoning, using benefits paid by the gov't that reduce inequality of income to show that inequality doesn't exist.

Having said that, I'd be more in favor of employers simply paying employees more so that fewer people needed benefits in the first place.

Well.. your logic doesn't make sense.

Please explain how taxing me more (being more progressive) DIRECTLY helps my employees who make less.

the facts are.. it doesn't.

Oh you can try to claim BUT BUT BUT.. we COULD decide to give more to the poor with the money.

But the fact is.. we just as easily COULD decide to give that money to a few wealthy guys in a tax credit. Or a subsidy.

I think we need to improve wages for the poor and middle class as well. but to do that.. we need to address the fundamental issues that decrease wage pressure in this country.. Not try to solve the problem with taxes or monetary policy that has NOTHING to do why wages have been stagnant.

 

[Critter7r]

Taxing you more without increasing spending will allow us to reduce the deficit and debt that are continually held over the heads of the poor amd middle class as the reasons why X cant be done because "how will we pay for it?"

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[jaeger19]

Taxing you more without increasing spending will allow us to reduce the deficit and debt that are continually held over the heads of the poor amd middle class as the reasons why X cant be done because "how will we pay for it?"

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

Again.. your logic does not follow.

 

[Critter7r]

Again.. your logic does not follow.

Nice non-answer.

 

[Incisor]

I think we need to improve wages for the poor and middle class as well. but to do that.. we need to address the fundamental issues that decrease wage pressure in this country

It's pretty obvious what the fundamental issue behind the decrease in wage pressure is...globalization. US workers compete with global workers now, and because the standard for most of the rest of the globe is lower than ours, that drives down wages here. Trump's promise to bring jobs back was a hollow one. He knows that the jobs aren't coming back. Our economy has evolved over the last couple decades as it shifts to a service-based economy rather than a manufacturing-based economy. That is a result of the premise that cutting taxes for the wealthy will result in trickle-down. Because the "alternative wisdom" that the wealthy will increase consumption with the money they get from a lower tax rate exists only in the head of those devious or oblivious enough to believe it, the entire premise behind Conservative economic theory is disproved simply by human condition. So you can frame your arguments in "could's" and "might's" and "potential"...but in the end, that's just a more literate way of saying that your ideology would work if people just believed in it hard enough...like Tinkerbell.

 

[Incisor]

Not try to solve the problem with taxes or monetary policy that has NOTHING to do why wages have been stagnant.

So you believe wages have been stagnant because people don't believe hard enough in your theories. That's basically what your argument boils down to. If everyone thought as you thought, then your ideology would work. But that's where Conservatives always run into the conflict that arises from reality vs. theory. Sure, it could work if you tailor the circumstances just so and condition people to think the same way...but you have as much control over that as anyone else; none. They could also do the opposite and keep the money from the tax cuts for themselves and not trickle it down...which has been the case the last 35 or so years...

So there's your theory, and then there's reality.

 

[jaeger19]

Nice non-answer.

I guess I shouldn't have given you the benefit of the doubt that you would see why.

Your quote

Taxing you more without increasing spending will allow us to reduce the deficit and debt that are continually held over the heads of the poor amd middle class as the reasons why X cant be done because "how will we pay for it?"

You have decided to not increase spending...

So you are basically telling the middle class and poor.. "we aren't going to do this"

If you are "doing x" with the increase in revenue.. then you are increasing spending.

 

[jaeger19]

So you believe wages have been stagnant because people don't believe hard enough in your theories. That's basically what your argument boils down to. If everyone thought as you thought, then your ideology would work. But that's where Conservatives always run into the conflict that arises from reality vs. theory. Sure, it could work if you tailor the circumstances just so and condition people to think the same way...but you have as much control over that as anyone else; none. They could also do the opposite and keep the money from the tax cuts for themselves and not trickle it down...which has been the case the last 35 or so years...

So there's your theory, and then there's reality.

Yeah.. that's not even close to what my premise is.. not even close. :doh

 

[Critter7r]

I guess I shouldn't have given you the benefit of the doubt that you would see why.

Your quote



You have decided to not increase spending...

So you are basically telling the middle class and poor.. "we aren't going to do this"

If you are "doing x" with the increase in revenue.. then you are increasing spending.

Not necessarily. We could simply continue the programs already in place and pay down that pesky debt.

 

[jaeger19]

It's pretty obvious what the fundamental issue behind the decrease in wage pressure is...globalization. US workers compete with global workers now, and because the standard for most of the rest of the globe is lower than ours, that drives down wages here. Trump's promise to bring jobs back was a hollow one. He knows that the jobs aren't coming back. Our economy has evolved over the last couple decades as it shifts to a service-based economy rather than a manufacturing-based economy. That is a result of the premise that cutting taxes for the wealthy will result in trickle-down. Because the "alternative wisdom" that the wealthy will increase consumption with the money they get from a lower tax rate exists only in the head of those devious or oblivious enough to believe it, the entire premise behind Conservative economic theory is disproved simply by human condition. So you can frame your arguments in "could's" and "might's" and "potential"...but in the end, that's just a more literate way of saying that your ideology would work if people just believed in it hard enough...like Tinkerbell.

Too funny.

Lets see.. first.. the globalization is not a new issue. Globalization has been ongoing since before the civil war. the issue is americans response to globalization.. and that's the issue.

Jobs certainly can come back to the US...

New jobs can also be created to employ americans.

Our economy has evolved over the last couple of decades to a service based economy because we have chosen to allow our manufacturing supremacy to decline. Unfortunately.. many and especially you liberals don't get that.

You think if we simply throw money at the problem.. when money isn't the issue.

Or throw taxes at the problem when its not the issue.. will solve the problem.

Such things have been a failure and will continue to be.

You mentioned this:

Because the "alternative wisdom" that the wealthy will increase consumption with the money they get from a lower tax rate exists

Right.. its been a failure.. and why?? BECAUSE AS I FRIGGIN SAID>> THE REASON FOR THE INEQUITY IS NOT THE TAX RATES!!!.

Duhhh.. Get out of your ideology and minute.. just a minute..

Why are wages stagnant? 1. Illegal immigration creates decreased wage pressure. That's a quick and easy fix.
2. We have failed to hold our educational supremacy over the world. We used to have the highest educated workforce.. which allowed us to produce goods more efficiently or higher priced or higher quality goods than the rest of the world. Now the rest of the world is catching up or basically has caught up with us.. and in some instance may be overtaking us. So we have switched to a service economy as we have lost our competitive edge in manufacturing to say a company that now produces computer chips in india.
3. We have failed to continue with our infrastructure and grow more. Which now puts as at a disadvantage to countries that have invested in infrastructure.
4. We have failed to continue to be as dominant in development of technology. WE as a nation had large programs such as hydroelectric, nuclear programs, space programs, not to mention war research that were government financed that paid huge dividends in the private sector when that technology got adapted to consumer products.

THOSE are the reasons for wage stagnation.. not taxes.. not that we don't have enough money available.

Using either as a solution is doomed to failure.

 

[jaeger19]

Not necessarily. We could simply continue the programs already in place and pay down that pesky debt.

Which does nothing to help the poor and middle class and reduce inequity. Which is the subject of the discussion!

:doh:doh

 

[Incisor]

Yeah.. that's not even close to what my premise is.. not even close. :doh

But that is your premise...you even couched that premise with "might's" and "could's" and "potential's". That's all theory. Like, I *could* date Carla Gugino...but that's not likely to ever happen. I *want* to date her, but by merely wanting her doesn't mean I can have her.

 

[Incisor]

Our economy has evolved over the last couple of decades to a service based economy because we have chosen to allow our manufacturing supremacy to decline. Unfortunately.. many and especially you liberals don't get that.

We didn't choose that...I was never asked if I wanted a company to outsource jobs. The companies did that by their choice, not ours. And businesses have no allegiance to this country, or any country for that matter. We didn't choose to allow our manufacturing supremacy to decline, the manufacturers did because they could employ workers at a fraction of the cost they employ workers here. That's why scapegoating unions or "Democratic policies" is completely, 100% wrong. No labor union concession or legislation in the world would have prevented an $18/hr job to leave for China for $18/day. Unless that concession was to go down to $18/day, or legislation was passed to reduce wages down to that level.

ou think if we simply throw money at the problem.. when money isn't the issue.

First of all, I don't know what you mean by "throwing money at the problem". That isn't what I am calling for at all. So this is a bit of a straw man. My solution is to raise wages for the working class which, yes, now includes the service industry. This is the economy you guys wanted when you employed trickle-down. The inevitable result of trickle-down economics is to create an economy that services the wealthy. So any complaints about the poor wage growth, or the income gap, or the unstable bubble economy should be directed to the folks who wanted this system in the first place; Conservatives. And of course money is the issue. Money is always the issue. It's all about the benjamins.

Or throw taxes at the problem when its not the issue.. will solve the problem.

But it is a problem. By cutting taxes what you're doing is shifting the burden from the top to everyone else, who already are having a hard time in this economy. Raising taxes on those who can afford it will help the middle and lower classes who can then spend less on things like health care and education, and more in the consumer economy. There needs to be better equity and you don't get better equity by cutting taxes for the wealthy who are just going to take that money and put it in banks in socialist countries like Switzerland, or buy foreign-made luxury goods.

 

[jaeger19]

But that is your premise...you even couched that premise with "might's" and "could's" and "potential's". That's all theory. Like, I *could* date Carla Gugino...but that's not likely to ever happen. I *want* to date her, but by merely wanting her doesn't mean I can have her.

No incisor.. its YOUR premise. Try to keep up.

You claimed that if we taxed the rich more WE COULD.. or WE MIGHT.. or WE HAD THE POTENTIAL.. to spend more on the poor and thus indirectly help inequality.

And I pointed out.. USING YOUR PREMISE.. again YOUR PREMISE.. AGAIN.. YOUR PREMISE.

using your premise.. taxing the rich less.. means that they COULD.. POTENTIALLY, OR MIGHT.. contribute more in charity to the poor.. thus indirectly help inequality.

I EXPOSED THE GLARING FLAW IN YOUR PREMISE.

Ironic that you now arguing for my point. You realize that don't you? That you are now arguing that simply because taxing me more "might".. or we "could" spend that money on the poor.. DOES NOT MEAN that it indirectly reduces inequality.

Get it?

 

[Incisor]

Right.. its been a failure.. and why?? BECAUSE AS I FRIGGIN SAID>> THE REASON FOR THE INEQUITY IS NOT THE TAX RATES!!!

Yes, it is! When the wealthy do not increase consumption, but increase their take-home pay, that causes inequality. That means they're getting a larger share of the pizza. If tax rates do not have an impact on inequity then how come since the start of trickle-down, the income gap has grown? Am I to believe that's just a coincidence? I don't believe in coincidences.

1. Illegal immigration creates decreased wage pressure. That's a quick and easy fix.

Sure...but keep in mind who most illegal immigrants are; folks who have overstayed their work visas. And why were those people on work visas? So folks like Trump could import them so they didn't have to be subject to the same laws or wages, and have the same protections American workers have. So far, the prescriptions that the Conservatives have to remedy this situation is to relax those standards even more, which would mean more of those HB1 visas so many companies use to import labor, which takes jobs away from American citizens and leads to de facto indentured servitude for those brought in. So again, this is a problem of your own creation. More circular reasoning and arguing.

2. We have failed to hold our educational supremacy over the world.

Totally agree...and wouldn't you agree that putting a Christian fundamentalist as a top education adviser would disadvantage our students in the global marketplace? After all, they don't teach creationism in Japanese schools, do they? How can our students possibly compete in a world where students from other countries aren't subjected to Christianist theory? So how do you fix this problem? Very simply; pay teachers more. If you pay teachers more, you will attract more talent to the profession. But if you cut their pay, or their pensions, or their ability to collectively bargain, or you blame them for all the ills of the school system, how do you intend on getting the best people to educate kids? Again, this is where theory and reality are in conflict. You're not going to improve education if you dump on the people who do the educating.

3. We have failed to continue with our infrastructure and grow more.

Garrison Keillor just wrote something about this the other day; how we missed our chance to expand high-speed rail which would have catapulted our economy into unprecedented levels of innovation and growth. Obama proposed several infrastructure bills, even going so far as to set up an infrastructure bank proposal...but Conservatives rejected that because they party-before-country. Always.

4. We have failed to continue to be as dominant in development of technology. WE as a nation had large programs such as hydroelectric, nuclear programs, space programs, not to mention war research that were government financed that paid huge dividends in the private sector when that technology got adapted to consumer products.

Right, but you guys want to cut spending...so....I mean, we had the chance in 2001 to do something like that with the surplus and the surplus of high-skilled tech-savvy workers who lost their jobs in the dotcom bubble. We could have used that surplus to retrain those workers and construct a smart grid, or high-speed rail network, or national broadband. Instead, it was squandered on tax cuts for the rich. Why? Because Conservatives weren't finished with their class war and wanted to transfer more wealth to the 1%.

 

[Incisor]

You claimed that if we taxed the rich more WE COULD.. or WE MIGHT.. or WE HAD THE POTENTIAL.. to spend more on the poor and thus indirectly help inequality.

It's not a "could", it's a "would". More tax revenue means more to spend on programs that help the middle class. There's no "might" in that.

sing your premise.. taxing the rich less.. means that they COULD.. POTENTIALLY, OR MIGHT.. contribute more in charity to the poor.. thus indirectly help inequality.

But they didn't, and they don't. We already know this because we've been doing it for 35 years. So it's not a hypothetical question anymore, it's reality.

 

[jaeger19]

We didn't choose that...I was never asked if I wanted a company to outsource jobs. The companies did that by their choice, not ours. .

Sure.. while demanding a dramatic increase in minimum wage without regard to what it could do to companies that compete globally.. and while claiming that you don't care said companies close up doors if they can't pay what you consider a decent wage. :roll:

the fact is.. the country as a whole as not kept up with the rest of the world.. its that simple. and your liberal insistence that the issue is taxation.. when its not taxation or even that's its some conspiracy by "conservatives". when its not. .. simply furthers the problem.

First of all, I don't know what you mean by "throwing money at the problem". That isn't what I am calling for at all.

Wait..you need to contact the administrator of the board because apparently there is another incisor that's been here posting about increasing taxes and giving it to the poor to reduce inequity.. and supporting increasing deficit spending to improve the economy and reduce inequity. :roll:

Again.. your partisan hackery does nothing to further the discussion.

But it is a problem. By cutting taxes what you're doing is shifting the burden from the top to everyone else, who already are having a hard time in this economy

First.. that's not what happened with the Bush tax cuts.. nor Obama's as well.

Second. DUH.. that's what I have been saying.. taxes ARE NOT THE PROBLEM...

Raising taxes on the wealthy in NO WAY.. directly helps the middle and lower classes. In fact.. we have already largely shifted the burden from the poor and middle class to the rich. Which is why federal taxes on the poor and middle class are at ALL TIME LOWS.

Those high rates that you love so much on the rich that occurred in the 1960/ and 1970's? Taxes were higher on the poor and middle class and they paid a much greater burden of federal income taxes than they do NOW.

Those are the facts..

 

[jaeger19]

It's not a "could", it's a "would". More tax revenue means more to spend on programs that help the middle class. There's no "might" in that.




But they didn't, and they don't. We already know this because we've been doing it for 35 years. So it's not a hypothetical question anymore, it's reality.

No it doesn't mean would. There is no mechanism in our federal tax structure that means taxing me more WOULD mean more revenues would be spent on the poor or middle class. In fact that money could be spent say.. overseas in a war, or could go to a subsidy for a wealthy corporation. There is no mechanism that insures that taxing me more WOULD mean more revenues spent on the poor and middle class.

In fact.. the burden of taxation has fallen more heavily on the wealthy.. and yet inequity continues and expands.

But they didn't, and they don't. We already know this because we've been doing it for 35 years. So it's not a hypothetical question anymore, it's reality.

Right.. and we have become more progressive in our taxes.. our middle class and poor have a much lower burden.. and yet inequity continues.. it continues to get worse no matter how much we put more burden on the wealthy to pay taxes.. (because of course the income increase comes pre taxed) ... We know this because we have been doing this over decades.. so its not a hypothetical question anymore. its reality.

 

[jaeger19]

Yes, it is! When the wealthy do not increase consumption, but increase their take-home pay, that causes inequality. That means they're getting a larger share of the pizza. If tax rates do not have an impact on inequity then how come since the start of trickle-down, the income gap has grown? Am I to believe that's just a coincidence? I don't believe in coincidences.
.

Well its simple.. because the income growth.. pre tax has gone toward the wealthy.... PRE TAX... because of a number of mechanisms.. many of which I have listed. Some of it actually has to do with the welfare programs you liberals like.. which have increase inequality and expanded wealthy incomes.

You just see what you want to see.. and not reality. The reality is that the income shift happens PRE TAX.;.. which means it was not the result of changes in taxation.

Sure...but keep in mind who most illegal immigrants are; folks who have overstayed their work visas. And why were those people on work visas? So folks like Trump could import them so they didn't have to be subject to the same laws or wages, and have the same protections American workers have

Dude.. keep in mind? Its been me reminding you liberals on this board. I have been pointing out that these folks are here by and large to work and that lowers wage pressure. AND its you liberals doubling down with sanctuary cities and calling for amnesty... so point your finger squarely at yourself.

Totally agree...and wouldn't you agree that putting a Christian fundamentalist as a top education adviser would disadvantage our students in the global marketplace?

We have to see what she actually does. The bottom line is that the federal government is largely been useless at improving education.. and that's because it doesn't understand what it can do to further education. Instead it runs around putting out standards and other BS that's meaningless because at the end of the day its school districts at the local level that determine the education.

Very simply; pay teachers more. If you pay teachers more, you will attract more talent to the profession. But if you cut their pay, or their pensions, or their ability to collectively bargain, or you blame them for all the ills of the school system, how do you intend on getting the best people to educate kids? Again, this is where theory and reality are in conflict. You're not going to improve education if you dump on the people who do the educating.

Well.. you have to hear yourself though. On one hand.. you want to

will attract more talent to the profession

... but then you don't want to "dump on the people doing the educating".

Well.. why do you think you need to attract a more talented pool of teachers.. if you don't think you have a problem with your current talent pool?

But yes.. we need to improve out talent pool and that means increasing teacher pay AND increasing teacher requirements AND it means lowering class sizes.

Obama proposed several infrastructure bills, even going so far as to set up an infrastructure bank proposal...but Conservatives rejected that because they party-before-country. Always.

And the democrats could have pushed this when they had control of congress.. they managed to push obamacare.. so don't give me this partisan BS.

Right, but you guys want to cut spending...so....I mean, we had the chance in 2001 to do something like that with the surplus and the surplus of high-skilled tech-savvy workers who lost their jobs in the dotcom bubble. We could have used that surplus to retrain those workers and construct a smart grid, or high-speed rail network, or national broadband. Instead, it was squandered on tax cuts for the rich. Why? Because Conservatives weren't finished with their class war and wanted to transfer more wealth to the 1%.

But we don't need to. right now.. we take in the same percentage of revenue as a percentage of GDP that we did in the 1950's and 1960's.. in fact.. in same cases slightly more so. AND THEN.. we were able to pay for such infrastructure and technological enterprises.

We have the same revenue basically now as a percentage of GDP.. so revenue is NOT a problem.. the issue is what we spend it on.

 

[Incisor]

Sure.. while demanding a dramatic increase in minimum wage without regard to what it could do to companies that compete globally.. and while claiming that you don't care said companies close up doors if they can't pay what you consider a decent wage. :roll:

First of all, I never said a "dramatic increase in the minimum wage". I simply said "wages need to be increased". So you are once again creating a straw man argument. That's something you seem to do quite a bit. What gives? Secondly, we already can't compete globally because workers in America won't work 18 hours a day for $18 a day in conditions so terrible, the company employing them has to construct nets to prevent suicides. That seems like something you just don't get. However, it is possible to not only be a successful business, but pay your employees a decent wage. And yes, maybe there are some businesses that probably shouldn't be around if they can't pay their workers a decent wage. Most businesses fail in their first year anyway, and that is unrelated to wages. It has to do with demand. If you cannot satisfy the demand while paying a decent wage, then you're probably not going to last very long in the business world.

the fact is.. the country as a whole as not kept up with the rest of the world.. its that simple. and your liberal insistence that the issue is taxation.. when its not taxation or even that's its some conspiracy by "conservatives". when its not. .. simply furthers the problem.

You're the ones holding us back. You're the ones who insist in flawed economic theory. You're the ones who never take human condition into consideration. You're the ones who want to elevate fairy tales to the level of science. You're the ones who oppose green energy subsidizing which creates jobs. You're the ones standing in the way. It is entirely because of you and your beliefs that we are in the place we are today. I don't understand why you folks continue to adhere to theory you know is BS. Is it a matter of pride? Get over yourself.

Wait..you need to contact the administrator of the board because apparently there is another incisor that's been here posting about increasing taxes and giving it to the poor to reduce inequity.

Ok, so that's "tax and spend", not "throwing money at the problem". And I only say that because the businesses that employ those poor workers rely on the welfare state to subsidize their profits. We wouldn't need to increase taxes to pay for services for the poor if the poor were paid a decent wage. So again, as always, your argument is entirely circular. Don't you get dizzy chasing your own tail?

and supporting increasing deficit spending to improve the economy and reduce inequity.

In times of recession, deficit spending is necessary. Government has to step in and provide demand when the economy contracts due to a lack of demand. That's different than arbitrarily deficit spending for the sake of deficit spending. That's not what I've argued, and never what I've argued. Basically, to reduce inequity you have only two options:

1) Pay people more.

or

2) Raise taxes on the rich to subsidize the workforce they use to maintain their wealth.

There's no other way.

that's not what happened with the Bush tax cuts.. nor Obama's as well.

??? The Bush Tax Cuts saw a decline in household wages, an increase in household debt, and the net loss of 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years. If not for the housing bubble, the Bush economy would have been the worst since Hoover. Instead, it was the second-worst after Hoover. What happened after Bush cut taxes? Well, let's see...household debt increased, tuition costs at Public Universities and Colleges increased exponentially, health insurance premiums increased exponentially, all of which causes the middle class to spend more out of pocket because those tax cuts are made up for with spending cuts, even though we were promised tax cuts would "pay for themselves".

The Bush Tax Cuts increased savings by the wealthy, but not spending. Did the wealthy spend their tax cuts in the Bush economy? Nope. Did they take those savings and expand their businesses? Nope. All of that was driven by consumer debt (hence the skyrocketing household debt during Bush). What the Bush Tax Cuts did accomplish was a massive transfer of wealth to the top 1% to where they now own more wealth than the bottom 90%. The ratio has only ever been that high once before...in the leadup to the Great Depression.

Those high rates that you love so much on the rich that occurred in the 1960/ and 1970's? Taxes were higher on the poor and middle class and they paid a much greater burden of federal income taxes than they do NOW.

Yes, and you guys changed that. I'm all for returning to the tax code pre-1980.

 

[Incisor]

No it doesn't mean would. There is no mechanism in our federal tax structure that means taxing me more WOULD mean more revenues would be spent on the poor or middle class.

That's kind of the whole point of progressive taxation.

In fact that money could be spent say.. overseas in a war, or could go to a subsidy for a wealthy corporation. There is no mechanism that insures that taxing me more WOULD mean more revenues spent on the poor and middle class.

Well, that's not entirely true. Raising payroll taxes accomplishes that. Lifting the cap on taxable income for Social Security accomplishes that. Raising Medicare tax to pay for Medicare-for-all certainly accomplishes that. There's plenty of mechanisms where that can and does translate to more for the poor and middle class.

In fact.. the burden of taxation has fallen more heavily on the wealthy.. and yet inequity continues and expands.

The burden may have increased, but the amount they pay has been nearly cut in half. Again, that was caused by you guys cutting taxes. So you create a problem (unequal tax burden), then complain about the problem you created, and the solution to that problem you created is to employ the mechanism that caused the problem in the first place. So how is your argument not circular?

Right.. and we have become more progressive in our taxes.. our middle class and poor have a much lower burden.. and yet inequity continues.

Right, but you've cut their taxes, and you've cut the taxes for the rich...so does a 10% cut in taxes for the middle class result in the same amount a 10% cut for the upper class would get? No. The wealthy save more because math. So if they save more every year on year, how does that decrease inequality?

it continues to get worse no matter how much we put more burden on the wealthy to pay taxes

Well, you said yourself the tax burden was more equitable in the 60's/70's than today. Why do you think that is? I'll tell you why; because the middle and lower classes were paid more. Their wages rose at a faster rate than they do today. So something happened around 1980 that largely stopped the growth of wages relative to the growth for the top 1% for the next 35 years. Hmmmm. What could it be...I wonder...

 

[Critter7r]

Sure.. while demanding a dramatic increase in minimum wage without regard to what it could do to companies that compete globally....

Can we just drop the false narrative already?

There is no competing for Chinese labor. The companies that don't move to China aren't staying here because their US workers accepted $120 per day instead of $135 per day when Chinese workers only require a tenth of that. They stay here because they don't have the ability to profitably move to China.

Labor that is only 91% more expensive than Chinese labor, as opposed to labor that is 93% more expensive, isn't going to keep a company that can feasibly move there from doing so.

 

[Incisor]

Well its simple.. because the income growth.. pre tax has gone toward the wealthy.... PRE TAX... because of a number of mechanisms.. many of which I have listed. Some of it actually has to do with the welfare programs you liberals like.. which have increase inequality and expanded wealthy incomes.

How's that? What welfare programs have expanded the wealthy's incomes? Do you mean like the case of Walmart sucking up $6B in government welfare?

You just see what you want to see.. and not reality. The reality is that the income shift happens PRE TAX.;.. which means it was not the result of changes in taxation.

Um, obviously it is. Since they don't have to pay as much in taxes, they keep more for themselves.

I have been pointing out that these folks are here by and large to work and that lowers wage pressure.

OK, but they didn't come here illegally. They were brought here by people like Trump on visas. It seems the problem isn't illegal immigration, the problem is importing labor and that labor overstaying the visa. So how is a giant wall between Mexico and the US going to stop that? Because that's the only immigration plan Conservatives have.

but then you don't want to "dump on the people doing the educating".

First, I said "will attract more talent to the profession". You have a nasty habit of only reading the words you want to read and ignoring the rest. Secondly, if you want better teachers, you have to make the job desirable. So cutting their pay, cutting their pensions, eliminating their ability to collectively bargain, and blaming them for the ills of the school system isn't going to get you the best and brightest. It may get you the most idealistic. But idealistic and skill are mutually exclusive.

we need to improve out talent pool and that means increasing teacher pay AND increasing teacher requirements AND it means lowering class sizes.

Yes, and we can't do any of that unless we raise taxes to pay for it.

And the democrats could have pushed this when they had control of congress..

They tried. It was Conservatives who demanded 60 votes for anything, and Obama only had 60 votes for about 60 legislative days between when Al Franken was seated, and when Kennedy died. The Stimulus was the party negotiating with itself, as it was still infested with Blue Dogs at the time. That bill only had about $130B of direct federal spending when $1T was what many economists said was needed. The rest was tax cuts (useless policy) and aid to the states.

We have the same revenue basically now as a percentage of GDP.. so revenue is NOT a problem.. the issue is what we spend it on.

Yes, tax cuts and useless wars. Like I said.

 

[jaeger19]

First of all, I never said a "dramatic increase in the minimum wage". I simply said "wages need to be increased". So you are once again creating a straw man argument.

[.

Oh just stop your BS,,. I mean its a complete lie you are spouting... there is no strawman... you multiple times have claimed that companies should go under if they can't pay a decent wage.. (of course you refuse to state what a decent wage is). Don't even begin to try diverting what you have been saying all along.

Sheesh.

You're the ones holding us back. You're the ones who insist in flawed economic theory

Please tell me my flawed economic theory. Is it the one that taxes are not the cause.. so increasing or decreasing taxes won't have much effect?

Is it that wages are stagnant and need to be increased by changing the market conditions that are causing wages to be stagnant.. rather than simply throw money at the problem.

Please detail exactly what my flawed economic theory is. I would LOVE to hear you actually find just about anywhere I have said the things you accuse me of saying or believing.

So stop trying to distract this with partisanship.

Ok, so that's "tax and spend", not "throwing money at the problem

". Tax and spend is throwing money at the problem. It does not address the fundamental issues with the economy that cause stagnant wages.

In times of recession, deficit spending is necessary.

Sure.. don't disagree.. but its important on what the deficit spending is spent on. It can be spent on things that still may increase the US economy but still add to inequity. You don't really think poor people are the ones that lobby for welfare do you?

There's no other way.

Of course their is another way... heck I listed a bunch and you haven't in any way refuted what I said. Its simply that you are stuck on wanting to punish the wealthy. If the solution doesn't add up to punishing the wealthy.. then you don't like it.

??? The Bush Tax Cuts saw a decline in household wages, an increase in household debt, and the net loss of 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years. If not for the housing bubble, the Bush economy would have been the worst since Hoover. Instead, it was the second-worst after Hoover. What happened after Bush cut taxes? Well, let's see...household debt increased, tuition costs at Public Universities and Colleges increased exponentially, health insurance premiums increased exponentially, all of which causes the middle class to spend more out of pocket because those tax cuts are made up for with spending cuts, even though we were promised tax cuts would "pay for themselves".

Well yes.. that's did occur but not because of the Bush tax cuts.. unless you think increasing the burden on the wealthy versus the poor was a bad thing. Because that's what happened. You claim the burden needs to be relieved from the poor and go to the rich.. well that's what happened with the bush tax cuts.. in fact.. large numbers of poor folks got INCOME from taxes from things like the EITC.

So apparently you don't think we should cut taxes on the poor and middle class and make the rich pay a greater share of the burden.

Yes, and you guys changed that. I'm all for returning to the tax code pre-1980.

Which will make the overall system less progressive by increasing taxes on the middle class and poor.