Lowering Taxes does NOT create jobs?

[eohrnberger]

See.. that's not really crony capitalism.. That's a false term. What it really is is socialism. (or fascism depending on a variety of factors). The justification for it? "Well we need to keep jobs" Even though it would not have taken any jobs away... the perception that worked was that it could. That these companies needed to be protected "for the greater good"..

And that's where we are in this country. We have begun to elevate big connected corporations to beyond a simple economic entity. they aren't just a business.. why they are "people"... they aren't a business.. they are "job creators".. If you are wealthy.. its because you are smart, productive and are a doer... if you are poor or middle class.. you are lazy, unfocused or stupid.

there is the real scary irony... we have begun to create the aristocracy that our founding fathers fought against when they founded this country.

And that's what socialism is about.. its about protecting that aristocracy... and that's why its no coincidence that a great many former feudal monarchy's are now socialist.

OK. I stand corrected. But that still doesn't change that I agree with you, and what you are saying, nor that I strongly disagree with the practice.

 

[jaeger19]

OK. I stand corrected. But that still doesn't change that I agree with you, and what you are saying, nor that I strongly disagree with the practice.

Oh, my bad,, I didn't mean to sound like a jerk about it. ( I was between patients when I wrote it and now that I read it.. it came off a little.....:3oops..

I guess I get a little annoyed with the term "crony capitalism".. because around here.. its uses by liberals who critique what they call crony capitalism.. then applaud Obama giving perks to select solar power companies.. or propping up a certain electric car manufacturer.

(it also annoys me to here the "conservatives" around here complain about socialism because of a school lunch program.. and then get their tenants to sign up for a "energy program".. that puts new windows, new roof and a new heat pump into a rental building.. at taxpayer expense).

 

[eohrnberger]

Oh, my bad,, I didn't mean to sound like a jerk about it. ( I was between patients when I wrote it and now that I read it.. it came off a little.....:3oops..

No big deal. The electronic bits from the screen didn't hurt me.

I guess I get a little annoyed with the term "crony capitalism".. because around here.. its uses by liberals who critique what they call crony capitalism.. then applaud Obama giving perks to select solar power companies.. or propping up a certain electric car manufacturer.

I understand and object to that crap as well. Stupid, stupid and false 'investments' especially when you consider that it was nearly all political payoffs for big bucks donors at tax payer expense.

(it also annoys me to here the "conservatives" around here complain about socialism because of a school lunch program.. and then get their tenants to sign up for a "energy program".. that puts new windows, new roof and a new heat pump into a rental building.. at taxpayer expense).

I don't think that school lunches, subsidized or not, are that big a deal, expense wise. There are far more serious abuses and needless expenses to the tax payer that needs to be curbed first.

So I think we are more on the same page than not.

 

[jaeger19]

No big deal. The electronic bits from the screen didn't hurt me.



I understand and object to that crap as well. Stupid, stupid and false 'investments' especially when you consider that it was nearly all political payoffs for big bucks donors at tax payer expense.



I don't think that school lunches, subsidized or not, are that big a deal, expense wise. There are far more serious abuses and needless expenses to the tax payer that needs to be curbed first.

So I think we are more on the same page than not.

Agree completely.

 

[TurtleDude]

The legacy of the Bush tax cuts, in four charts

This is the way it used to be:

the top one percent pay more than 30% of the income tax. They got short changed

 

[upsideguy]

Reducing taxes significantly only reduces revenue for 12-24 months. Each significant tax cut at the federal level in my lifetime resulted in both greater deficits AND more revenue in about 2 years time. The expansion of the economy way over took the short term loss, but sadly politicians just blew thru the extra money.

It took 5 years to return the 2001 tax revenues to 2001 levels.... tax revenues to GDP never did recover.




Tax cuts, like any fiscal policy, work in certain circumstances. The idea that they work in all circumstances is naive to wrong. They did not work in 2001/03. The idea that they worked in the 1980's is dubious, at best. They tend to be most effective when targeted at middle and lower income tax payers because this group has a much higher MPC (marginal propensity to consume)... in other words, they pump it back into the economy to fuel demand.

Economist's View: Do Tax Cuts Stimulate the Economy?

The idea that tax cuts stimulate investment is also, generally, foolishness. Investment only happens if demand exists or their is good reason to assume demand will exist. No one invests without some assurance that products or services will be purchased (demand)

STUDY: Tax Cuts Don't Lead To Growth - Business Insider

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9

 

[upsideguy]

the top one percent pay more than 30% of the income tax. They got short changed

Hardly short-changed.... in fact, the opposite, they are not paying their fair share. They have had substantially all of the benefit of economic growth over the past 30 years. The the top 1% share of income grew nearly five times faster than their share taxes.

Why the Rich Pay 40% of Taxes - The Wealth Report - WSJ



Sorry, but its hard to shed a tear here.... the effective tax rates have been steadily declining ....



...and their effective rate is actually less than some lower income groups.



We can ease the tax burden on the mega rich with better wealth distribution schemes.... for example, a 50% marginal rate (combined with very low cap gain rates) would incent business owners to re-invest in business (and hire) rather than take profits now as "salary".... Our bad tax policy is causing our wealth schism, which long-term is very unhealthy for the American economy.

 

[MTAtech]

It took 5 years to return the 2001 tax revenues to 2001 levels.... tax revenues to GDP never did

I have shown a number of times, in other threads, that the supposed growth in tax revenue under Bush is largely due to inflation and population growth, both which increase revenue regardless of tax policy. Also, look at the years during the Bush Admin. Revenue dropped immediately after his tax cuts. Now look at the time when it increases. During the later years before the financial collapse -- that's right, during the housing bubble. Yet, real revenue adjusted for inflation and population growth never achieves 2000 levels.

Instead of proving that tax cuts increase revenue they prove the opposite.

 

[TurtleDude]

Hardly short-changed.... in fact, the opposite, they are not paying their fair share. They have had substantially all of the benefit of economic growth over the past 30 years. The the top 1% share of income grew nearly five times faster than their share taxes.

complete crap. the rich pay far more than what they get from the government while others pay far less. that is what fair is-paying for what you get. You seem to think the purpose of taxes is to salve the hurt of those who aren't competitive

 

[upsideguy]

complete crap. the rich pay far more than what they get from the government while others pay far less. that is what fair is-paying for what you get. You seem to think the purpose of taxes is to salve the hurt of those who aren't competitive

No, "complete crap" is retorting a reasoned and supported position with the "complete crap" of one's impressions. You even went further to even unilaterally decide what I think, stating things I did not even come close to saying.

"The rich paying far more than they get from government" is a completely different assertion than what I was arguing. That may or may not be true, but it is hardly germane to the point I was making. Its a different argument, including whether it might be absurd to think that taxpayers are suppose to thing of government as an investment that has a measureable and tangible personal return on investment.

For someone that claims to be an attorney you really don't seem to understand argument. I am not interested in your impressions unless you can support them. Pick up your game, pal!

 

[jaeger19]

complete crap. the rich pay far more than what they get from the government while others pay far less. that is what fair is-paying for what you get. You seem to think the purpose of taxes is to salve the hurt of those who aren't competitive

We have been down this road.. What you say is simply not true. The rich benefit tremendously more from government. That's why they spend a lot of time LOBBYING government to get those benefits.

 

[TurtleDude]

No, "complete crap" is retorting a reasoned and supported position with the "complete crap" of one's impressions. You even went further to even unilaterally decide what I think, stating things I did not even come close to saying.

"The rich paying far more than they get from government" is a completely different assertion than what I was arguing. That may or may not be true, but it is hardly germane to the point I was making. Its a different argument, including whether it might be absurd to think that taxpayers are suppose to thing of government as an investment that has a measureable and tangible personal return on investment.

For someone that claims to be an attorney you really don't seem to understand argument. I am not interested in your impressions unless you can support them. Pick up your game, pal!

1) the most objective definition of fair taxation

Paying the same amount of taxes for the same amount of governmental benefits

2) second most objective definition of taxation.

Paying the same percentage of your income as everyone else

Its funny watching people who apparently (by their posts) are economic ne'er do wells or mediocre producers of wealth pretending how much more they know than those of us who don't need the government to give us handouts

 

[TurtleDude]

We have been down this road.. What you say is simply not true. The rich benefit tremendously more from government. That's why they spend a lot of time LOBBYING government to get those benefits.

opinion rejected as the wishful thinking of crony capitalism

 

[jaeger19]

opinion rejected as the wishful thinking of crony capitalism

nice try.. but fail.. AGAIN...

You seriously don't make sense on this one. Why you refuse to see it is beyond me..

 

[jaeger19]

1) the most objective definition of fair taxation

Paying the same amount of taxes for the same amount of governmental benefits

2) second most objective definition of taxation.

Paying the same percentage of your income as everyone else

Its funny watching people who apparently (by their posts) are economic ne'er do wells or mediocre producers of wealth pretending how much more they know than those of us who don't need the government to give us handouts

Excuse me.. but according to your past posts your family's wealth depends or depended in part on Patent Protection that the government afforded and affords to your family. A service.. or "handout" that the average person does not use.

Do you deny this?

 

[MTAtech]

We have been down this road.. What you say is simply not true. The rich benefit tremendously more from government. That's why they spend a lot of time LOBBYING government to get those benefits.

That's true. As stiglitz said, "The American political system is overrun by money. Economic inequality translates into political inequality, and political inequality yields increasing economic inequality." Who decides that credit card debt can't be forgiven in a bankrupcy but a mortgage on a ten million dollar home can? Government. And who lobbied for government to change the bankrupcy law? Powerful banks and the wealthy with suitcases full of cash.

why is it that the top tax rate on income is 39% but the capital gains rate is 15%? While I have to pay the marginal rate up to 39%, the super rich only need to pay 15%, because the bulk of their income is capital gains.

 

[Fenton]

That's true. As stiglitz said, "The American political system is overrun by money. Economic inequality translates into political inequality, and political inequality yields increasing economic inequality." Who decides that credit card debt can't be forgiven in a bankrupcy but a mortgage on a ten million dollar home can? Government. And who lobbied for government to change the bankrupcy law? Powerful banks and the wealthy with suitcases full of cash.

why is it that the top tax rate on income is 39% but the capital gains rate is 15%? While I have to pay the marginal rate up to 39%, the super rich only need to pay 15%, because the bulk of their income is capital gains.

We've already been over this.

Back when Warren Buffet and Obama got together and tried to take advantage of all of the stupid people in America by claiming his Secretary paid more taxes than he did.

Remember ? Obama figured, " hey people just elected me based on platitudes and bumper sticker slogans, they'll believe this rhetoric for sure ".

 

[TurtleDude]

Excuse me.. but according to your past posts your family's wealth depends or depended in part on Patent Protection that the government afforded and affords to your family. A service.. or "handout" that the average person does not use.

Do you deny this?

your silly argument is accentuating to the point of stupidity what "benefits" the rich allegedly get from impossible to quantify programs from government-to justify massive taxes-and then deemphasizing all that the lower classes get in actual handouts to again pretend the poor and middle classes lack of paying for what they use is proper

 

[TurtleDude]

That's true. As stiglitz said, "The American political system is overrun by money. Economic inequality translates into political inequality, and political inequality yields increasing economic inequality." Who decides that credit card debt can't be forgiven in a bankrupcy but a mortgage on a ten million dollar home can? Government. And who lobbied for government to change the bankrupcy law? Powerful banks and the wealthy with suitcases full of cash.

why is it that the top tax rate on income is 39% but the capital gains rate is 15%? While I have to pay the marginal rate up to 39%, the super rich only need to pay 15%, because the bulk of their income is capital gains.

why is it that you think 39% should be the norm for all income even dividends that are often taxed twice.

you pay the same lower rates on capital gains as Buffett does. That sounds fair to me. and if you are actually making earned income that hits the top bracket, you should be making enough to invest some of your income

the people who whine about the alleged unfairness of earned vs investment income taxes are not those at the top earned income bracket. Rather its those who aren't industrious enough to have investments and generally those who aren't even paying an effective rate of 15% (which is normally people making over 150k a year)

 

[MTAtech]

why is it that you think 39% should be the norm for all income even dividends that are often taxed twice.

you pay the same lower rates on capital gains as Buffett does. That sounds fair to me. and if you are actually making earned income that hits the top bracket, you should be making enough to invest some of your income

the people who whine about the alleged unfairness of earned vs investment income taxes are not those at the top earned income bracket. Rather its those who aren't industrious enough to have investments and generally those who aren't even paying an effective rate of 15% (which is normally people making over 150k a year)

Capital gains is not taxed twice; it's a tax only on the "gain," which was never taxed before. Dividends are taxed twice only if you include that it was taxed (maybe) by the issuing corporation and then taxed as income from the shareholder. So what? There are two problems with this argument. First, everyone pays double taxes all the time. Sales taxes, for example, are taxes on already-taxed income, import taxes, excise taxes, bridge tolls, car registration, taxes on alcohol, gasoline and tobacco are all double taxes. So are property taxes, which tax assets bought with already taxed income. So why should dividends enjoy a privileged other taxes do not?

Second, so many companies that issue dividends manage to wiggle out of paying any taxes at all. Thus, it's hard to say that it's double-taxation when the company never paid taxes in the first place.

 

[TurtleDude]

Capital gains is not taxed twice; it's a tax only on the "gain," which was never taxed before. Dividends are taxed twice only if you include that it was taxed (maybe) by the issuing corporation and then taxed as income from the shareholder. So what? There are two problems with this argument. First, everyone pays double taxes all the time. Sales taxes, for example, are taxes on already-taxed income, import taxes, excise taxes, bridge tolls, car registration, taxes on alcohol, gasoline and tobacco are all double taxes. So are property taxes, which tax assets bought with already taxed income. So why should dividends enjoy a privileged other taxes do not?

Second, so many companies that issue dividends manage to wiggle out of paying any taxes at all. Thus, it's hard to say that it's double-taxation when the company never paid taxes in the first place.

dividends are often taxed twice

you are complaining about a tax rate set by the same entity that sets the tax rate you love

tell us-why not tax all income at the same rate for everyone? everyone pays 15%?

the people complaining the those with investment income don't pay enough are almost always those who aren't paying 15% effective rates themselves

 

[MTAtech]

dividends are often taxed twice

you are complaining about a tax rate set by the same entity that sets the tax rate you love

tell us-why not tax all income at the same rate for everyone? everyone pays 15%?

the people complaining the those with investment income don't pay enough are almost always those who aren't paying 15% effective rates themselves

Why not have a universal tax-rate of 15%? Because that rate doesn't generate enough income to fund the government. When the government ran revenues of 15% of GDP people like you complained of trillion dollar deficits.

There are lots of people, including myself, who pay capital gains but think it is unfair to coddle us with low capital gains rates while working people, who pay no capital gains, pay a higher rate plus payroll taxes. The difference between liberals who pay capital gains and conservatives that pay capital gains is that the liberals don't mind paying higher taxes for the good of the country, while conservatives are narcissistic and only care about their own selves.

 

[TurtleDude]

Why not have a universal tax-rate of 15%? Because that rate doesn't generate enough income to fund the government. When the government ran revenues of 15% of GDP people like you complained of trillion dollar deficits.

There are lots of people, including myself, who pay capital gains but think it is unfair to coddle us with low capital gains rates while working people, who pay no capital gains, pay a higher rate plus payroll taxes. The difference between liberals who pay capital gains and conservatives that pay capital gains is that the liberals don't mind paying higher taxes for the good of the country, while conservatives are narcissistic and only care about their own selves.

we don't need a government that does so much that 15% doesn't cover it

Go ahead and pay more. Your idea of the good of the country is not one I accept. and your claim is idiotic. You do stuff for your own good and pretend its for the greater good

 

[Nilly]

we don't need a government that does so much that 15% doesn't cover it

Go ahead and pay more. Your idea of the good of the country is not one I accept. and your claim is idiotic. You do stuff for your own good and pretend its for the greater good

Your own idea of government may not operate at 15%, but plenty of people do want a government that operates above that level. So no, a 15% flat tax doesn't cut it.

 

[MTAtech]

we don't need a government that does so much that 15% doesn't cover it

Go ahead and pay more. Your idea of the good of the country is not one I accept. and your claim is idiotic. You do stuff for your own good and pretend its for the greater good

It's fine to discuss in generalities. What services specifically would YOU not provide? Remember, federal spending is nearly all concentrated into five areas, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense and interest on the debt. Telling us that you would ban loans like those that went to Solyndra just doesn't make a dent.