• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Taxes, More Taxes?

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You won't get your favorite media outlet to tell you but most economists will. They watch the stock market and for those of you that think the stock market is evil then you don't understand what runs a country when it comes to the cost of a Micky D burger.

Tax cuts, ESPECIALLY for THE WEALTHY create jobs. Your average everyday worker works. People with money start small businesses and companies. Look in your want ads column. That add wasn't posted by a taxi driver, it was posted by a taxi company that needs drivers. It takes money to make money whether you are starting a business or buying a house.

The "Inside Washington" televised talk show aired on 3 of the Washington DC area stations this weekend and Nina Totenberg had this to say:

Commenting on President Bush's Thursday night speech she said it, "would have been a great opportunity to say, 'look, I'm for tax cuts, but we need a Katrina tax, we need to really pay, to do this and to pay for it.'"

When asked if she wanted more taxes she said, "I want more taxes, yes."

She went on, "For years, we have cut our taxes, cut our taxes and let the infrastructure throughout the country go and this is just the first of a number of other crumbling things that are going to happen to us."

I had to ask myself if she was talking about city, county, state or what? Did she know? Who pays to either rebuild when a building burns down or who pays when a shopping center goes up? President Bush? Who puts in sewers and electricity for you when you find them in a house you bought? President Bush?

The world holds bonds and treasury notes from the United States which is one of the major ways we finance something like Katrina. It is said that Katrina will cost 200 billion. That is a huge figure but so much will be added to our economy from employment, construction and materials supply that a very good portion of that economic building boom will offset the cost. Our economy will only benefit from this project now that the storm is over. Don't think for a minute that the world is going to kill their last wonderful goose. If we go down China, Japan, South Korea, France, Britain, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Russia and all the rest will sink into the mud.

When you raise taxes then you give the Republicans and Democrats something to spend and believe me, they will. If you don't remember your favorite story about pork I won't bore you here but PORK IT IS (and not boneless). When you cut spending you force these piggies in Washington to consider what their priorities are otherwise, they only dream of elections and could care less about the country as a whole. Do you want education or a bridge (226 million) for 50 people.

We just had an election in our state and over 87% of us turned down another 5 cents to be added to our gas taxes. If Nina Totenberg had been running for dog catcher Clyde would have won. It's amazing how these people that don't understand economics or what the majority of Americans want get on TV. I hope you understand. If you do you are clearly in the majority.
I guess someone likes Nina, agrees with her and I can't say she's a bad woman. Just dumb.
:duel :cool:
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,310
Reaction score
13,542
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
gordontravels said:
You won't get your favorite media outlet to tell you but most economists will. They watch the stock market and for those of you that think the stock market is evil then you don't understand what runs a country when it comes to the cost of a Micky D burger.

Tax cuts, ESPECIALLY for THE WEALTHY create jobs. Your average everyday worker works. People with money start small businesses and companies. Look in your want ads column. That add wasn't posted by a taxi driver, it was posted by a taxi company that needs drivers. It takes money to make money whether you are starting a business or buying a house.
……..
Most economists will not tell you that. At least not that cut and dry. You’re talking about what is pure “Supply Side Economics”. The problem is there is no such thing as “Supply Side Economics”, or at least in so much that it is an economic science. There are no Supply Side Economics departments at any major university. It is a concept invented by a journalist.

Jobs are created when consumption creates enough demand for a good or service that someone with sufficient wealth feels the need to hire individuals to provide that good or service. You are not taxed on the money you pay your employees. It is true that taxes can if high enough put a drag on production. For example, if you are taxed at a 30% tax rate, you might be at 100% production. However, if your taxes were raised to 50%, you probably would not feel the incentive to work as hard as you could and therefore, that tax would present a drag upon production. Just the same though, if you were at 100% production at a 30% tax rate, then dropping your tax rate to 20% is not going to boost your production any because you were already at full production.

During the 50s and the 60s we reached points when we were at near full employment. Yet taxes were much higher then than they are now. We had a stronger economy in the 90s than we do now and taxes were higher then. See the concept that many people don’t seem to get is that from a pure economics perspective, money spent is money spent. It doesn’t matter if I spend it, someone very rich spends it, someone very poor spends it, or if the government spends it. Either way, the money is being circulated throughout the economy. Now, that said, over 2/3 of our economy is fueled by consumption. Most of that consumption is Middle Class consumption. You can have all the money at the top that you want, but without adequate consumption, that money will not move and if that money doesn’t move, neither will the economy. Almost every economic downturn in the last 50 years was brought about by a slow down in consumption. Therefore the key to a strong economy is putting more money into the hands of the middle class.

Another misconception being promoted by the right is that there is an unfairness in our tax system because 80% of our federal income taxes is paid by the top 20%. That however is not an indication of an unfairness in the tax code, but rather, it is an indication of the distribution of wealth and income in our country. As Warren Buffet has said many times, as a percentage of his income, he pays no more in taxes than his secretary does.

The lower the taxes the better. However, a certain level of taxation is a necessity. Taxes are not your money, they are the fees you pay to live in the greatest nation in the history of civilization. If you want the government to spend less, then elect people who spend less. Just the same, you have to pay for what is spent, and I am certain that at some point higher taxes are going to be an absolute necessity. Even if this president doesn’t have the economic knowledge to realize that, you can bet the next one will.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SouthernDemocrat? I won't quote you here because of space and; even though I can agree with maybe 10% of what you say it is evident you know little of what you are talking about. Example? Ok.

QUOTING YOU: "Jobs are created when consumption creates enough demand for a good or service that someone with sufficient wealth feels the need to hire individuals to provide that good or service." END QUOTE

Actually most jobs are created when there is opportunity. Sure consumption and demand are important but if the business isn't standing then you haven't either of those. More simple? Ok. A developer sees a certain number of cars passing (survey number) on a particular road or highway and realizes that the traffic flow will support a shopping center with an anchor store or stores that will attract people off that road or highway. He develops the land and leasing is open.

Now, a hairstyling salon, a bicycle shop/skate shop, flowershop, dance studio; mexican restaurant; donut shop and dress shop take up residence. Do women want more dresses or have all the dresses in the area been consumed? No. A woman will shop and there is variety and competition. Entrepeneurs at work. Advertising. Attractive fronts to the stores. Easy access and parking/convenience.

Also, I can't believe your statement - and you made it:

QUOTING YOU: "You are not taxed on the money you pay your employees." END QUOTE.

(as I pick myself up off the floor) I won't bore you with Social Security, State Disability, Workers Comp Insurance (definitely a tax). You didn't mean that thing about the employer not being taxed on the employees pay right? Matching Social Security? No? It can also be considered as taxing when you figure your advertising costs, in or out of house promotions, upgrading of products or services, maintenance, utilities, sheesh and sheesh; all in an effort to raise income of which a portion will be payroll. You did forget payroll taxes didn't you? Please say yes.

The wealthy do create jobs as any investor/entrepeneur will but we also forget those that borrow to build. They pay interest on that loan. They end up with payroll. They are small business and they create most of the jobs in this country. Supply side? In many cases it is alive and well but money is money. If you can spend it to make it you may spend it. Some of that is tax cuts and judging from how our markets are fairing with the strength they have even with high fuel prices and the consequences of Katrina, don't you think the Bush Tax Cuts had SOME effect?
:duel :cool:
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gordontravels said:


...

Tax cuts, ESPECIALLY for THE WEALTHY create jobs.

...

It's amazing how these people that don't understand economics or what the majority of Americans want get on TV. I hope you understand. If you do you are clearly in the majority. I guess someone likes Nina, agrees with her and I can't say she's a bad woman. Just dumb.
:duel :cool:
You think?

The DOL website reports these January employment figures for the last 15 years:

http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm#data

1990 109144
1991 108998
1992 108313
1993 109725
1994 112473
1995 116377
1996 118192
1997 121232
1998 124629
1999 127477
2000 130781
2001 132454
2002 130581
2003 130247
2004 130372
2005 132573

In 1993, taxes, ESPECIALLY for THE WEALTHY, were increased from 31% to 39%.

In 2000, taxes, ESPECIALLY for THE WEALTHY were slashed, from 39% to 33% (and cap gains taxes were slashed as well).

Jobs created from Jan 93 to Jan 2001: 22,729,000. Average created per year: 2,808,500.

Jobs created from Jan 2001 to Jan 2005: 119,000 (and those were public employment). Average created per year: 29,750.

We can see how those tax increases on the WEALTHY really stifled job creation and how those tax cuts ESPECIALLY for THE WEALTHY really spurred job creation since 2000.
 
Last edited:

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
You think?

The DOL website reports these January employment figures for the last 15 years:

http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm#data

1990 109144
1991 108998
1992 108313
1993 109725
1994 112473
1995 116377
1996 118192
1997 121232
1998 124629
1999 127477
2000 130781
2001 132454
2002 130581
2003 130247
2004 130372
2005 132573

In 1993, taxes, ESPECIALLY for THE WEALTHY, were increased from 31% to 39%.

In 2000, taxes, ESPECIALLY for THE WEALTHY were slashed, from 39% to 33% (and cap gains taxes were slashed as well).

Jobs created from Jan 93 to Jan 2001: 22,729,000. Average created per year: 2,808,500.

Jobs created from Jan 2001 to Jan 2005: 119,000 (and those were public employment). Average created per year: 29,750.

We can see how those tax increases on the WEALTHY really stifled job creation and how those tax cuts ESPECIALLY for THE WEALTHY really spurred job creation since 2000.
Let's see. Our economy is currently growing at over 4%. The economy of France as measured by their own economics council to the government is growing at 1.2%. Our unemployment hovers around 5% which is equal to the Clinton amazing Administration years.

Shroeder just lost his reelection bid in Germany because of the poor economy and a conservative woman beat him.

I think your figures bear me out when you look at the global economy. Tell me why they don't. See? I don't post links and let them talk for me. I wrote an indepth post. Let's see your words beyond the obvious sarcasm and please spell out what you think your links tell and figures tell us. Oh and don't forget, this country isn't equaled at this moment by any country in the world when it comes to economics. In fact it is a fact that they all depend on us.
:duel :cool:
 

taxpayer

Active member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
271
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
You think?

The DOL website reports these January employment figures for the last 15 years:

http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm#data

1990 109144
1991 108998
1992 108313
1993 109725
1994 112473
1995 116377
1996 118192
1997 121232
1998 124629
1999 127477
2000 130781
2001 132454
2002 130581
2003 130247
2004 130372
2005 132573

In 1993, taxes, ESPECIALLY for THE WEALTHY, were increased from 31% to 39%.

In 2000, taxes, ESPECIALLY for THE WEALTHY were slashed, from 39% to 33% (and cap gains taxes were slashed as well).

Jobs created from Jan 93 to Jan 2001: 22,729,000. Average created per year: 2,808,500.

Jobs created from Jan 2001 to Jan 2005: 119,000 (and those were public employment). Average created per year: 29,750.

We can see how those tax increases on the WEALTHY really stifled job creation and how those tax cuts ESPECIALLY for THE WEALTHY really spurred job creation since 2000.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXCELLENT post!
Now we need to find out how many jobs were created in "FORIEGN" countrys by Bushs BIG tax break to the rich!
I'm sure its in the HIGH millions!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,310
Reaction score
13,542
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
gordontravels said:
SouthernDemocrat? I won't quote you here because of space and; even though I can agree with maybe 10% of what you say it is evident you know little of what you are talking about. Example? Ok.

QUOTING YOU: "Jobs are created when consumption creates enough demand for a good or service that someone with sufficient wealth feels the need to hire individuals to provide that good or service." END QUOTE

Actually most jobs are created when there is opportunity. Sure consumption and demand are important but if the business isn't standing then you haven't either of those. More simple? Ok. A developer sees a certain number of cars passing (survey number) on a particular road or highway and realizes that the traffic flow will support a shopping center with an anchor store or stores that will attract people off that road or highway. He develops the land and leasing is open.


That is absolute crap. A developer builds a shopping center when he thinks the economy of a community is strong enough to create enough demand for what ever stores are going to be there. Opportunity only figures in to where he decides to build it, not if he decides to build it. For example, there is plenty of traffic between Little Rock Arkansas and Pine Bluff Arkansas, but because Pine Bluff sits in one of the poorest parts of the country, no one is going to do much development along that route because there is not enough money down there to support it.

In an economic downturn, the first people that are cut are those who work in advertising? Why? Because advertising is only effective for non-necessities when the economy of an area is strong enough to fuel consumption for them. Once again, it is a core economic principle that consumption drives over 2/3s of the economy.

QUOTING YOU: "You are not taxed on the money you pay your employees." END QUOTE.

(as I pick myself up off the floor) I won't bore you with Social Security, State Disability, Workers Comp Insurance (definitely a tax). You didn't mean that thing about the employer not being taxed on the employees pay right? Matching Social Security? No? It can also be considered as taxing when you figure your advertising costs, in or out of house promotions, upgrading of products or services, maintenance, utilities, sheesh and sheesh; all in an effort to raise income of which a portion will be payroll. You did forget payroll taxes didn't you? Please say yes.

The wealthy do create jobs as any investor/entrepeneur will but we also forget those that borrow to build. They pay interest on that loan. They end up with payroll. They are small business and they create most of the jobs in this country. Supply side? In many cases it is alive and well but money is money. If you can spend it to make it you may spend it. Some of that is tax cuts and judging from how our markets are fairing with the strength they have even with high fuel prices and the consequences of Katrina, don't you think the Bush Tax Cuts had SOME effect?
No I don’t, low interest rates have the strongest effect on our maintaining economic growth. Cheap money is the key. If I give you a tax cut that allows you to bring home more 100 bucks more a month, how can that compare to low interest rates that save you 500 bucks on your mortgage? It can’t. The tax cuts had a negligible effect on economic growth. In fact, median income has remained flat for the last 5 years. That is the longest period of non-median income growth in our nation’s history. Moreover, poverty rates have gone up every year since Bush took office. We have had far stronger growth in the past with higher taxes.


Secondly, do you honestly think that your employer pays those payroll taxes out of his or her pocket? Or, do you think that they simply pass that expense along to the worker. If you guessed option 2, then you are correct and any economist out there will agree.

Moreover, increased borrowing by the federal government has a negative affect on economic growth. Every dollar the federal government spends is a dollar taken either in taxes or t-bills. Every dollar raised in t-bills is one less dollar that gets invested in other areas like the stock market.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
We have a booming economy..........Construction is at record high...Inflation is at record lows........Unemployment is at its lowest in 20 years..........Tax cuts stimulate the economy.......They should be made permanent and more should be given.....

If anyone from the left does not like that they should send their tax cuts back.........yeah, right.........:roll:
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,310
Reaction score
13,542
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Navy Pride said:
We have a booming economy..........Construction is at record high...Inflation is at record lows........Unemployment is at its lowest in 20 years..........Tax cuts stimulate the economy.......They should be made permanent and more should be given.....

If anyone from the left does not like that they should send their tax cuts back.........yeah, right.........:roll:
What about the deficit then? Moreover, if the taxcuts were responsible for this growth, then why did we have such high growth in the 90s, the 60s, and the 50s?

More and more I am convinced that on the far right and the far left, no one has any concept of actual economics.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SouthernDemocrat said:
[/FONT][/COLOR][/I][/B]

That is absolute crap. A developer builds a shopping center when he thinks the economy of a community is strong enough to create enough demand for what ever stores are going to be there. Opportunity only figures in to where he decides to build it, not if he decides to build it. For example, there is plenty of traffic between Little Rock Arkansas and Pine Bluff Arkansas, but because Pine Bluff sits in one of the poorest parts of the country, no one is going to do much development along that route because there is not enough money down there to support it.

In an economic downturn, the first people that are cut are those who work in advertising? Why? Because advertising is only effective for non-necessities when the economy of an area is strong enough to fuel consumption for them. Once again, it is a core economic principle that consumption drives over 2/3s of the economy.



No I don’t, low interest rates have the strongest effect on our maintaining economic growth. Cheap money is the key. If I give you a tax cut that allows you to bring home more 100 bucks more a month, how can that compare to low interest rates that save you 500 bucks on your mortgage? It can’t. The tax cuts had a negligible effect on economic growth. In fact, median income has remained flat for the last 5 years. That is the longest period of non-median income growth in our nation’s history. Moreover, poverty rates have gone up every year since Bush took office. We have had far stronger growth in the past with higher taxes.


Secondly, do you honestly think that your employer pays those payroll taxes out of his or her pocket? Or, do you think that they simply pass that expense along to the worker. If you guessed option 2, then you are correct and any economist out there will agree.

Moreover, increased borrowing by the federal government has a negative affect on economic growth. Every dollar the federal government spends is a dollar taken either in taxes or t-bills. Every dollar raised in t-bills is one less dollar that gets invested in other areas like the stock market.


I have owned a multitude, well 14 businesses in unrelated fields; started them, run them, profited from them and sold each and every one for profit. You seem to know some things and some things you are simply making up out of whole cloth. Example?

Who do you think pays the payroll taxes, quarterly taxes and income taxes? If you think your option 2, that the employer simply pass that expense along to the worker would you mind explaining that?

I'll be frank. If you don't I am through wasting my time with you here.

Also, low interest rates. You say cheap money is the key but when the actually wealthy spend their money they realize faster profit and with the failure rate of business that is a better guarantee of jobs. To borrow to start a business means a payback of principle AND interest. When that business fails the entrepeneur is history, bankrupt and the jobs are gone. Stability in business is key no matter how a business is financed.

And. You think a developer builds a shopping center and knows what businesses are going in? He may know his anchor or have interest in advance but believe me, he doesn't know who is going to call that number. He takes an application like any other landlord and if there are funds and a fair to clean credit report, welcome to the center. You think a landlord studies shoes or bicycles or whether the guy can cook good Mexican food? He looks at financials and gets leases signed. Where do you get your business accumin. I have been a businessman all my life; a successful businessman and am currently a landlord. You?

Oh and, I really am interested in that whole payroll tax thing and what the heck you mean. Passing it on to the worker? How? Social Security, Disability and Workers Comp Insurance? You really need to explain that to me because I've never heard it in my life. After that if you want to discuss crap, maybe I'll have something to say.
:duel :cool:
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SouthernDemocrat said:
What about the deficit then? Moreover, if the taxcuts were responsible for this growth, then why did we have such high growth in the 90s, the 60s, and the 50s?

More and more I am convinced that on the far right and the far left, no one has any concept of actual economics.
50's - post war inventive manufacturing boom led by communications (television) and autos.

60's - began with President John F. Kennedy's tax cuts - to that date the largest in history.

90's - the dot com bubble where garage companies like Amazon survived for over 5 years without turning a profit but also when at the end, over 95 percent of those companies failed - the dot com bubble burst.

Growth is only good growth if it can be sustained and to think that a President like Clinton or Bush is so responsible for either good private sector growth or it's bursting is naive. It is the market that decides. Lower taxes just provide funds for individuals to spend instead of government. Just look at California and the deficit under Gray Davis and now Arnold. No comparison except for a tax cutting physcal policy from the Republican Governor who isn't afraid to veto the Democrats and take it to the people who, even though a majority of Democrats themselves, back their Governor.

When you show the Democrats in a Democrat state what's wrong and they realize it's their party and it's attitudes toward spending, any one can come back and get a handle on it and the people will back them and turn on their party because the people eventually get smart.

By the way SouthernDemocrat? Who ran the last surplus before President Clinton?
:duel :cool:
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,310
Reaction score
13,542
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
gordontravels said:
I have owned a multitude, well 14 businesses in unrelated fields; started them, run them, profited from them and sold each and every one for profit. You seem to know some things and some things you are simply making up out of whole cloth. Example?

Who do you think pays the payroll taxes, quarterly taxes and income taxes? If you think your option 2, that the employer simply pass that expense along to the worker would you mind explaining that?

I'll be frank. If you don't I am through wasting my time with you here.

Also, low interest rates. You say cheap money is the key but when the actually wealthy spend their money they realize faster profit and with the failure rate of business that is a better guarantee of jobs. To borrow to start a business means a payback of principle AND interest. When that business fails the entrepeneur is history, bankrupt and the jobs are gone. Stability in business is key no matter how a business is financed.

And. You think a developer builds a shopping center and knows what businesses are going in? He may know his anchor or have interest in advance but believe me, he doesn't know who is going to call that number. He takes an application like any other landlord and if there are funds and a fair to clean credit report, welcome to the center. You think a landlord studies shoes or bicycles or whether the guy can cook good Mexican food? He looks at financials and gets leases signed. Where do you get your business accumin. I have been a businessman all my life; a successful businessman and am currently a landlord. You?

Oh and, I really am interested in that whole payroll tax thing and what the heck you mean. Passing it on to the worker? How? Social Security, Disability and Workers Comp Insurance? You really need to explain that to me because I've never heard it in my life. After that if you want to discuss crap, maybe I'll have something to say.
:duel:cool:
Payroll taxes are passed on to the employee by paying that employee that much proportionately less. If the employer portion of payroll taxes is 8%, then they will just pay their employee 8% less. That is a basic economic principle.

The rest of your post is half the truth. You are not going to start a business unless you have a market for what ever good or service you plan on providing. That is a basic economic principle. If two much money is invested into a business in proportion to the consumption that an economy provides, then as Alan Greenspan would put it, that is “irrational exuberance”.

As to the cheap money argument. For businesses to remain stable there has to be consumption for what ever they produce. One of the strongest signs of an economic slowdown is excess inventories developing. If you have a lot of product on the shelf, then you don’t have much reason to maintain a larger workforce and you won’t hire new workers until the consumption side of the economy consumes your existing product. If your taxes are 0, you are still only going to hire more people or invest in a company if that company has enough demand for what ever they are selling or providing. That is basic economics.

Cheap money provides access to the capital necessary for business to grow and for consumers to consume. That is basic economics.

Can taxes be high enough to put an anchor on economic growth? Of course. We see that now in parts of Europe. However, their taxes are higher than ours have ever been.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,310
Reaction score
13,542
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
gordontravels said:
50's - post war inventive manufacturing boom led by communications (television) and autos.

60's - began with President John F. Kennedy's tax cuts - to that date the largest in history.

90's - the dot com bubble where garage companies like Amazon survived for over 5 years without turning a profit but also when at the end, over 95 percent of those companies failed - the dot com bubble burst.

Growth is only good growth if it can be sustained and to think that a President like Clinton or Bush is so responsible for either good private sector growth or it's bursting is naive. It is the market that decides. Lower taxes just provide funds for individuals to spend instead of government. Just look at California and the deficit under Gray Davis and now Arnold. No comparison except for a tax cutting physcal policy from the Republican Governor who isn't afraid to veto the Democrats and take it to the people who, even though a majority of Democrats themselves, back their Governor.

When you show the Democrats in a Democrat state what's wrong and they realize it's their party and it's attitudes toward spending, any one can come back and get a handle on it and the people will back them and turn on their party because the people eventually get smart.

By the way SouthernDemocrat? Who ran the last surplus before President Clinton?
:duel:cool:
During the 1950s, the boom was largely fueled by the infrastructure build during the New and Fair Deals. Moreover, the top bracket tax rate during the 50s was a whooping 91%.

Kennedy’s tax cut had nothing to do with the economic growth during the 60s. Kennedy’s economic advisors advised him to cut taxes because they were concerned that they were removing so much money from the economy that the government was beginning to more or less hoard it and that would slow the velocity of money in the economy. The economic boom was fueled by money invested into the space race, defense spending, the great society, and the infrastructure built during the Eisenhower years, and FDR New Deal Era. Moreover, the top tax rate during the 60s, after JFK’s tax cuts was still a whopping 70%.

Economic growth is naturally cyclical. Presidents don’t have that much to do with economic growth. No one says: “Well that Bush won so I am not going to buy a new car this year”. That’s ridiculous. However, deficits in the short term usually mean a boost in economic growth just like getting a home equity loan means a boost in your ability to spend more money. That is not sustainable growth though. During the 90s we had the longest peace time expansion in our nation’s history, and we had a balanced budgets. That is good economic growth because that is growth fueled exclusively by the private sector and not from artificial influxes of money via deficit spending. Yes that growth did get overly exuberant by 1999 and 2000, and as a result there was an economic adjustment. Even still, we have a net gain of 18 million jobs from the 90s.

I have another thread already started on this subject here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=3931
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SouthernDemocrat said:
Payroll taxes are passed on to the employee by paying that employee that much proportionately less. If the employer portion of payroll taxes is 8%, then they will just pay their employee 8% less. That is a basic economic principle.

The rest of your post is half the truth. You are not going to start a business unless you have a market for what ever good or service you plan on providing. That is a basic economic principle. If two much money is invested into a business in proportion to the consumption that an economy provides, then as Alan Greenspan would put it, that is “irrational exuberance”.

As to the cheap money argument. For businesses to remain stable there has to be consumption for what ever they produce. One of the strongest signs of an economic slowdown is excess inventories developing. If you have a lot of product on the shelf, then you don’t have much reason to maintain a larger workforce and you won’t hire new workers until the consumption side of the economy consumes your existing product. If your taxes are 0, you are still only going to hire more people or invest in a company if that company has enough demand for what ever they are selling or providing. That is basic economics.

Cheap money provides access to the capital necessary for business to grow and for consumers to consume. That is basic economics.

Can taxes be high enough to put an anchor on economic growth? Of course. We see that now in parts of Europe. However, their taxes are higher than ours have ever been.
I am done. You are so far off and yes, I read both your posts and you have no clue. Just the first paragraph here ignores a living wage and lumps all employers into cutting payroll for employees to save on taxes? What about employers that actually need employees? Did you consider that. I have had people work for me that made anything from 16k per year to 85k.

One more time I'll try. Where does your business background come from?

Oh and read your Kennedy thing. QUOTE: "Kennedy’s tax cut had nothing to do with the economic growth during the 60s. Kennedy’s economic advisors advised him to cut taxes because they were concerned that they were removing so much money from the economy that the government was beginning to more or less hoard it and that would slow the velocity of money in the economy." END QUOTE

Please my sides are splitting. Are you saying the government had a surplus under Kennedy? Hoarding money? What is velocity, you mean growth but no you couldn't because you say Kennedy's tax cut had nothing to do with economic growth. OMG my sides.

Alright, I've had my fun and in the interest of debate please make sense. Where do you get your business knowledge about how payroll taxes work? Who had the last surplus before President Clinton? Won't you please give me an answer or answers that make sense?
:duel :cool:
 

Bleeding Heart

New member
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
"Who had the last surplus before President Clinton?" I'll admit I don't know, but according to your own logic, it's not a relevant question. You've already argued that the market determines these things, not the president.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,310
Reaction score
13,542
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
gordontravels said:
I am done. You are so far off and yes, I read both your posts and you have no clue. Just the first paragraph here ignores a living wage and lumps all employers into cutting payroll for employees to save on taxes? What about employers that actually need employees? Did you consider that. I have had people work for me that made anything from 16k per year to 85k.

One more time I'll try. Where does your business background come from?

Oh and read your Kennedy thing. QUOTE: "Kennedy’s tax cut had nothing to do with the economic growth during the 60s. Kennedy’s economic advisors advised him to cut taxes because they were concerned that they were removing so much money from the economy that the government was beginning to more or less hoard it and that would slow the velocity of money in the economy." END QUOTE

Please my sides are splitting. Are you saying the government had a surplus under Kennedy? Hoarding money? What is velocity, you mean growth but no you couldn't because you say Kennedy's tax cut had nothing to do with economic growth. OMG my sides.

Alright, I've had my fun and in the interest of debate please make sense. Where do you get your business knowledge about how payroll taxes work? Who had the last surplus before President Clinton? Won't you please give me an answer or answers that make sense?
:duel:cool:
I am sure you know how to run a business, but I think you need to read up a little on basic macro economics.

No, the government did not have a surplus under Kennedy, but it also did not have a very large deficit at all. The concern his economists had was that economic growth at the current level of taxation was going to provide so much revenue that the revenue would be greater than the government’s fiscal obligations and that would slow the velocity of money and thus slow economic growth. The velocity of money is simply the rate that money moves in an economy. For example, the velocity of money at walmart is faster than at a rolls royce dealership. You have to understand that the governing economic philosophy at the time was a lot different than the one since the Carter years; we now have a fed that is anti-inflationary in its policies. During the Kennedy era, the Federal Reserve was low unemployment at the expense of high inflation in its policies. The velocity of money was key to that policy.

Once again, I stand by more original point that your portion of payroll taxes is simply that much less money that you would be normally paid. That is economics 101. You brought up the minimum wage, but increases in minimum wage have never led to higher unemployment, there is simply too much money at the top tier in our economy for that to happen.
 
Last edited:

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
We have a booming economy..........Construction is at record high...Inflation is at record lows........Unemployment is at its lowest in 20 years..........Tax cuts stimulate the economy.......They should be made permanent and more should be given.....

If anyone from the left does not like that they should send their tax cuts back.........yeah, right.........:roll:



And President Bush's approval-ratings are at an all time low...

Go figure! :cool:
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
What about the deficit then? Moreover, if the taxcuts were responsible for this growth, then why did we have such high growth in the 90s, the 60s, and the 50s?

More and more I am convinced that on the far right and the far left, no one has any concept of actual economics.
Links please
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Bleeding Heart said:
"Who had the last surplus before President Clinton?" I'll admit I don't know, but according to your own logic, it's not a relevant question. You've already argued that the market determines these things, not the president.
When we have a surplus that means the government has to much of our money.....There should be more tax cuts.........

The deficit is high but when you factor in the GNP percentage wise it is smaller then it was in the eighties............
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
KidRocks said:
And President Bush's approval-ratings are at an all time low...

Go figure! :cool:
screw approval ratings.. they were in the forties last year and he was re elected by 3,000,000 votes...........Liberals can make those polls read anything they want too.........Moderates and Conservatives know better..........
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,310
Reaction score
13,542
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Navy Pride said:
Links please
You need links to know that economic growth was high in the 50s, 60s, and 90s?

If that is the case, I think the whole thread is probably over your head.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
>>The rest of your post is half the truth. You are not going to start a business unless you have a market for what ever good or service you plan on providing. That is a basic economic principle.<<

Tell that to Gates and Jobs. I would say most successful business people risk captial to create a market for an idea they have and then fulfill that market.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,310
Reaction score
13,542
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Stinger said:
>>The rest of your post is half the truth. You are not going to start a business unless you have a market for what ever good or service you plan on providing. That is a basic economic principle.<<

Tell that to Gates and Jobs. I would say most successful business people risk captial to create a market for an idea they have and then fulfill that market.
I worded that poorly. However, you guys are confusing two different things.

Yes, people create markets for new products all the time. Especially if that product or service enables people to work more efficiently or better their lives.

That’s a given, no argument there.

However, from an economics perspective, you can’t create a market for any product or service if the economy you are marketing it does not have the ability to support the consumption of that product. That is a basic economic principle.

As I said earlier, it seems that those on the far right and those on the far left have no idea how an economy actually functions.
 

taxpayer

Active member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
271
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Navy Pride said:
We have a booming economy..........Construction is at record high...Inflation is at record lows........Unemployment is at its lowest in 20 years..........Tax cuts stimulate the economy.......They should be made permanent and more should be given.....

If anyone from the left does not like that they should send their tax cuts back.........yeah, right.........:roll:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

We haven't even got back the 2.3 million jobs lost during Bushs first year or --so in office.
-----------
We have the HIGHEST oil prices EVER and our economy is now failing because of it.
-----------
Unemployment is NOT at its lowest in 20 years.
-----------
The BIG tax breaks Bush gave to American companys are stimulating the economy in foriegn countrys and filling the pockets of the rich Americans that used their big tax cut to invest in foriegn countrys!
-----------
Prices for goods here are at a all time high and people no longer can afford to buy products.
-----------
Bush should be held accountable for this! Its all on BUSHs watch!
 
Last edited:

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,310
Reaction score
13,542
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
taxpayer said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

We haven't even got back the 2.3 million jobs lost during Bushs first year or --so in office.
-----------
We have the HIGHEST oil prices EVER and our economy is now failing because of it.
-----------
Unemployment is NOT at its lowest in 20 years.
-----------
The BIG tax breaks Bush gave to American companys are stimulating the economy in foriegn countrys and filling the pockets of the rich Americans that used their big tax cut to invest in foriegn countrys!
-----------
Prices for goods here are at a all time high and people no longer can afford to buy products.
-----------
Bush should be held accountable for this! Its all on BUSHs watch!
What is funny, is the Bush Administration started recalculating how they calculate employment so as to make themselves look better.
 
Top Bottom