Taxing The Rich Will Kill Jobs... BULLSHIT

Neither does Keynesian economics. So now what?

I disagree. If done right it works. Looking back now on the stimulus, now that we realize just how bad the economic crisis was, the stimulus plan should have been much bigger. There is no evidence that says supply-side economics works. There is evidence that Keynesian economics does and that is the Great Depression.
 
Harvard school loves Keynesian economics which has been proven to fail both on paper and as we have seen since Obama has taken office, in the real world as well.

Okay...by what metrics in your estimation would have demostrated that it works?

In other words, had it 'worked' what metrics would have proven this in your opinion?

:popcorn:
 
Okay. Let's say you're a rich person who owns a business. You can base that business where it will be taxed out the gazoo or you can base that business where you won't be taxed so much. Which are you choosing?
 
Okay. Let's say you're a rich person who owns a business. You can base that business where it will be taxed out the gazoo or you can base that business where you won't be taxed so much. Which are you choosing?

That's assuming you are a big enough business to choose your location. A lot of small businesses have to stay where their market essentially is. Shipping costs can be horrible and sometimes shipping won't work. Smaller business owners have to consider where they live too. It's hard enough to open up and successful business in your home state a few miles from home in a decent area; it's another to go to another state just for the tax base and move your entire family etc...

Also large businesses have a knack for finding ways to avoid paying taxes altogether or greatly reducing the amount they do pay.

Again small businesses don't have the option typically. Unless it's blatantly illegal and they don't have enough money to cover it up properly.

Look at Rick Snyder in Michigan though for how business get's done by republicans at times. He got rid of the tax incentives for major film industry movers and shakers and other high tech industries to come to Michigan and set up production companies and shoot films.

Now that's basically heading into the toilet because Rick wants and even playing field. Okay I'll buy that; he doesn't want the gov. picking winners...ok. Then there's a tax on upgrading equipment for the business itself.
 
Okay. Let's say you're a rich person who owns a business. You can base that business where it will be taxed out the gazoo or you can base that business where you won't be taxed so much. Which are you choosing?

The bigger companies don't even worry about taxes because they find ways to scam the system or use the loopholes to pay little or nothing at all. The big companies have the man power to do this and fight any tax evasion charges. Smaller businesses can't buck the system as much if at all.

A lot of companies incorporate in states they don't do business out of. It is all a scam. FaceBook incorporated in Delaware. They are located in California.
 
Okay...by what metrics in your estimation would have demostrated that it works?

In other words, had it 'worked' what metrics would have proven this in your opinion?

:popcorn:



Economic models done in Milton Friedman's Monetary workshop at the Univ. of Chicago 1957/58 for starters.

The early 1970s for another.

......and the current Obama administration's efforts.


It doesn't work.:bang:
 
Taxing "the rich" will not necessarily kill jobs, but it seems to be the left's White Whale... if they can just do that, everything will be great. The reality is it won't raise that much more money, certainly not enough to make a dent in the bloated spending of Washington. And while it sounds great in theory, the top 5% of taxpayers already pay about 60% of all income tax revenue, while half of American either pay nothing at all, or get money back that they didn't earn. That is a troubling trend... How can you complain when you are dependent on others for charity? And what is "rich"? Where is the line drawn? :2 cents:
 

SlamJack

Banned
Trident, I'll admit that is over my head. I'm just an IT guy!

Good comments Cunning. Tax revenues are not at a high point. Fixing some of the tax laws to increase the revenue will probably help, but economic growth is the only way to get back online. Watching CNN, one of the experts they brought in said we need to get spending to be about 18% of GDP. Sounds like a plan.

That will be tough to execute. Turn up the tax engine and I think companies will look for ways to import or offshore and not spend. If you don't get the revenues up though, I don't know how you pay it off without ugly cuts.
 
It boggles my fucking mind that some people are stilling claiming we shouldn't let the Bush tax cuts expire because raising taxes on the rich will cause them to hire less people. This is bullshit for the following reasons.

1) The Bush tax cuts have been in place for almost ten years now and the rich haven't created one fuckin job with their extra money.

2) It is absolutely ridiculous to think that the rich use their personal wealth to created jobs. They use the resources of their companies to create the jobs not personal wealth. But really they aren't even using company money to hire more people. They still send jobs over seas.

We need to let the Bush tax cuts expire and close all corporate loopholes. We should also tax any company that sends work overseas so it creates less incentive for them to use outside work.


If America's government was serious about jump starting job creation they would just dump the payroll tax. Don't tax companies for employing Americans, it is a stupid tax.

Actually I would tie the payroll tax with hiring people. The more Americans a company hires and retains the lower the payroll tax will be for them.
 
Economic models done in Milton Friedman's Monetary workshop at the Univ. of Chicago 1957/58 for starters.

The early 1970s for another.

......and the current Obama administration's efforts.


It doesn't work.:bang:

Translation: You don't understand what 'metrics' means.

If America's government was serious about jump starting job creation they would just dump the payroll tax. Don't tax companies for employing Americans, it is a stupid tax.

Actually I would tie the payroll tax with hiring people. The more Americans a company hires and retains the lower the payroll tax will be for them.

Translation: Eliminate Social Security and Medicare? (That's what payroll tax is for:2 cents:)
 
What President Obama's Inaugural speech should have been:

“I know you’re scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn’t work out. And it didn’t work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods, with the same results. But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it, and we will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting money back in the pockets of working Americans by putting them back to work, and by restoring integrity to our financial markets and demanding it of those who want to run them. I can’t promise that we won’t make mistakes along the way. But I can promise you that they will be honest mistakes, and that your government has your back again.”

From Drew Weston; NY Times

What happened to Obama?http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/o...ened-to-obamas-passion.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
 

Facetious

Moderated
Mikey, if we raise taxes on the rich, they're simply going to offset those increases by raising the the prices of the goods and services they offer... get it? ...your foodstamps would suddenly lose value.:facepalm:
 
CNN, one of the experts they brought in said we need to get spending to be about 18% of GDP. Sounds like a plan.

That will be tough to execute.




It is and that about where the GDP should be not the current 24%. Otrauma's admin. is lost, his Harvard advisers are clueless, all their ideas have failed.
 
Mikey, if we raise taxes on the rich, they're simply going to offset those increases by raising the the prices of the goods and services they offer... get it? ...your foodstamps would suddenly lose value.:facepalm:

:Face-palm:Raising taxes on the 'rich' isn't simplistically raising it on business. Everyone making over 250k income isn't a business sheesh. Even as such, businesses still operate within the general laws of demand elasticity. They will not just willy nilly pass on business costs to their customers if demand won't support the pricing increase.

It is and that about where the GDP should be not the current 24%. Otrauma's admin. is lost, his Harvard advisers are clueless, all their ideas have failed.

You sure hope the tea baggers and GOPers continue to poke their dick skinners in the pie....otherwise, you might need a very high bridge once all of your indoctrination gets a hole blown right through the middle of it...

By the way...by what measure are you saying Obama's approach has failed again???:cool:
 
Great quote
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”-Warren Buffett, New York Times 2006
 
Great quote
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”-Warren Buffett, New York Times 2006

Actually, it's more like we're all losing because one side is being handed the game by the refs.
 
Do you live under a rock?

Yeah...I do. Now enlighten us by what metrics (if you know what that means) are you judging failure.
 
Top