gordontravels
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2005
- Messages
- 758
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- in the middle of America
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
……..
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
KidRocks said:And President Bush's approval-ratings are at an all time low...
Go figure!
Navy Pride said:Links please
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.
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:
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!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?