|
On October 17 2011 02:52 MannerKiss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 02:49 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 02:43 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 17 2011 02:34 Chargelot wrote:On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote:
Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods. The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend. That helps the economy, right? Right? Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay. It doesn't help the economy. Haha. I'd like to add to this. Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money. But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup. And the cycle continues. Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too? SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it. What? Why should they go to the effort of giving more people at the bottom money, so they can provide jobs for those people, so they can produce more ketchup, so they can sell that ketchup to more people...when they can just get their immediate taxes lowered? That's a level of long-term thinking not reserved for human beings. Yeah, the people that created legacy companies... Johnson and Johnson Proctor and gamble Wal-mart Microsoft Apple (first 5 that came to mind, should I go on?) ...certainly did not have long term self interest in mind that included expanding their companies to create more wealth. I'm so out of this thread good lord.
LOL you're comparing investment in one's own assets vs investments in other people's spending habits.
Yes, please, go.
|
On October 17 2011 02:56 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 02:43 MannerKiss wrote:
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it. Take my small business. If we got a big tax cut it would do nothing because our sales are slow. Give people more money to buy our products, and our sales will pickup and maybe we'll hire people. The problem here isn't that people want a product but there isn't enough of it, the problem is there isn't enough consumers and companies are competing over a smaller and smaller pool of them. This is how basic supply and demand works. You guys really need to read Adam's Smith The Wealth of Nations.
You're citing a 100% situation by situation problem. That situation is specific to YOUR business, there are plenty of businesses that simply cant afford to hire more people immediately (IMMEDIATELY) because the budget doesnt allow it. They would have to wait until they've generated more money, to have a risk cushion, to hire more people.
Your situation isn't unique, but neither is the one i cited.
NO a tax break doesn't benefit every business out there, but its just moronic to say that business owners wouldn't benefit from a tax cut.
|
On October 17 2011 02:55 MannerKiss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 02:47 BronzeKnee wrote:
I have no investments. All of my money is in FDIC insured accounts, as it should be (which is a form of welfare), but if it wasn't in FDIC insured accounts, then it would be under my mattress. FDIC accounts were created to take risk out of saving, and no one used them.
That wasn't the governments fault, everyone should have lost money who risked in any way in the stock market. Does that mean millions of people including the retired lose their savings? Sure, but they risked their savings, it was their own fault.
You are like one of the corporate farmers in America, who are literally subsidized by the US government. Your job would not exist if the industry wasn't bailed out. My industry would have THRIVED if the markets weren't bailed out. Prop firms can generate money by going SHORT (Profiting from market failures - creating efficiency in the market). You're so uninformed, brain exploding, etc. Just to clarify and stay on topic, i AM against the 9-9-9 tax. You're just confusing Day Trading with unregulated nonsense some of the banks did.
I don't think you understand the magnitude of the crash that would have happened. There amount of money that would be floating around to trade back and forth would have been equal to pennies. There would be no way to make money the way Day Traders do now.
Assets would be "hard" not paper or electronic.
|
On October 17 2011 02:56 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 02:43 MannerKiss wrote:
Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too?
SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it. Take my small business. If we got a big tax cut it would do nothing because our sales are slow. Give people more money to buy our products, and our sales will pickup and maybe we'll hire people. The problem here isn't that people want a product but there isn't enough of it, the problem is there isn't enough consumers and companies are competing over a smaller and smaller pool of them. This is how basic supply and demand works. You guys really need to read Adam's Smith The Wealth of Nations.
And Cohen and Rogers' On Democracy. Specifically Chapter 3, page 56. :D
|
While this isn't a reason to not pass the 9-9-9 if it was good (which it isn't) there is direct harm to any massive upheavals to the tax system.
You would put about 1,000,000 people who work in the tax industry out of work. People whose job it is to understand the overly complex system. Also, millions of people have long term plans based on the CURRENT system. If any changes were made to the system they would have to be gradual over the course of a decade + . People need time to adjust and the system needs time to change. It can't take the type of shock Cain is endorsing.
Couple that with the fact the idea itself is insulting to a thinking mind and you know this can't win.
It is a bad a sign when the only economists endorsing your plan are the person who helped write it and the evil man behind trickle down poverty economics.
|
On October 17 2011 03:00 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 02:52 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 02:49 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 02:43 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 17 2011 02:34 Chargelot wrote:On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote:
Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods. The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend. That helps the economy, right? Right? Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay. It doesn't help the economy. Haha. I'd like to add to this. Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money. But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup. And the cycle continues. Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too? SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it. What? Why should they go to the effort of giving more people at the bottom money, so they can provide jobs for those people, so they can produce more ketchup, so they can sell that ketchup to more people...when they can just get their immediate taxes lowered? That's a level of long-term thinking not reserved for human beings. Yeah, the people that created legacy companies... Johnson and Johnson Proctor and gamble Wal-mart Microsoft Apple (first 5 that came to mind, should I go on?) ...certainly did not have long term self interest in mind that included expanding their companies to create more wealth. I'm so out of this thread good lord. LOL you're comparing investment in one's own assets vs investments in other people's spending habits. Yes, please, go.
So, during the tax breaks that happend to those companies they just said "FUCK IT I"M KEEPING ALL THE MONEY! NO HIRING MORE MORE MORE FOR ME?"
What?
|
On October 17 2011 03:02 MannerKiss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 03:00 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 02:52 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 02:49 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 02:43 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 17 2011 02:34 Chargelot wrote:On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote:
Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods. The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend. That helps the economy, right? Right? Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay. It doesn't help the economy. Haha. I'd like to add to this. Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money. But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup. And the cycle continues. Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too? SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it. What? Why should they go to the effort of giving more people at the bottom money, so they can provide jobs for those people, so they can produce more ketchup, so they can sell that ketchup to more people...when they can just get their immediate taxes lowered? That's a level of long-term thinking not reserved for human beings. Yeah, the people that created legacy companies... Johnson and Johnson Proctor and gamble Wal-mart Microsoft Apple (first 5 that came to mind, should I go on?) ...certainly did not have long term self interest in mind that included expanding their companies to create more wealth. I'm so out of this thread good lord. LOL you're comparing investment in one's own assets vs investments in other people's spending habits. Yes, please, go. So, during the tax breaks that happend to those companies they just said "FUCK IT I"M KEEPING ALL THE MONEY! NO HIRING MORE MORE MORE FOR ME?" What?
Unemployment has increased during these tax breaks.
So yes.
|
I edited the post you quoted to include this:
"Your thinking is backwards. You seem to think there are lots of people out there who have tons of money to spend and with tax cuts you can just hire more workers and make more stuff and just make tons of money. It doesn't work like that, and I know, because I own a business.
You scale your business (supply) to the demand for your products. Demand controls everything. Occasionally something new and neat comes out (like the first auto, computer, cell phone) that creates a lot of opportunity or a new industry, but we can't rely on these for a good long term economy."
This is important. If there are more consumers there is more demand. Rich people being richer doesn't increase demand for things very much since they can already afford whatever they want. People without jobs getting money does increase demand for things.
|
On October 17 2011 03:02 MannerKiss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 03:00 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 02:52 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 02:49 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 02:43 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 17 2011 02:34 Chargelot wrote:On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote:
Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods. The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend. That helps the economy, right? Right? Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay. It doesn't help the economy. Haha. I'd like to add to this. Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money. But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup. And the cycle continues. Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too? SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it. What? Why should they go to the effort of giving more people at the bottom money, so they can provide jobs for those people, so they can produce more ketchup, so they can sell that ketchup to more people...when they can just get their immediate taxes lowered? That's a level of long-term thinking not reserved for human beings. Yeah, the people that created legacy companies... Johnson and Johnson Proctor and gamble Wal-mart Microsoft Apple (first 5 that came to mind, should I go on?) ...certainly did not have long term self interest in mind that included expanding their companies to create more wealth. I'm so out of this thread good lord. LOL you're comparing investment in one's own assets vs investments in other people's spending habits. Yes, please, go. So, during the tax breaks that happend to those companies they just said "FUCK IT I"M KEEPING ALL THE MONEY! NO HIRING MORE MORE MORE FOR ME?" What?
Oh, for crying out loud, we're not talking about businesses, we're talking about individuals. The basic premise of raising taxes on the rich, instead of the poor, is to give the poor more disposable income (equivalent to giving them money from the pockets of the rich) so THEY can keep consuming and keep our consumer-economy running. Doing the OPPOSITE, of raising taxes on the poor instead of the wealthy (equivalent to giving the rich money from the pockets of the poor) would just fuck everybody, because NO, they WON'T invest all of that money in useful things, they'll send a bunch to offshore bank accounts, or offshore investment, hiring more cheap labour across the world, rather than hiring OUR workers, or just plain spending it on various luxuries they don't need, which don't help our economy.
We've tried this whole low-taxes-on-the-richest-households thing twice in American history. Do you genuinely think it's just one big, fat coincidence that the Great Depression and this recent recession both occurred during periods of enormous wealth inequality, as a result of those taxation laws?
![[image loading]](http://c1ecolocalizercom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2010/04/wealthgapchart1.jpg)
History has a way of repeating itself, and we're too fucking self-centered and short-sighted to realize it.
|
there is nothing to discuss every serous, semi serious ecenomist knows it spure suicide
|
On October 17 2011 03:01 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 02:55 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 02:47 BronzeKnee wrote:
I have no investments. All of my money is in FDIC insured accounts, as it should be (which is a form of welfare), but if it wasn't in FDIC insured accounts, then it would be under my mattress. FDIC accounts were created to take risk out of saving, and no one used them.
That wasn't the governments fault, everyone should have lost money who risked in any way in the stock market. Does that mean millions of people including the retired lose their savings? Sure, but they risked their savings, it was their own fault.
You are like one of the corporate farmers in America, who are literally subsidized by the US government. Your job would not exist if the industry wasn't bailed out. My industry would have THRIVED if the markets weren't bailed out. Prop firms can generate money by going SHORT (Profiting from market failures - creating efficiency in the market). You're so uninformed, brain exploding, etc. Just to clarify and stay on topic, i AM against the 9-9-9 tax. You're just confusing Day Trading with unregulated nonsense some of the banks did. I don't think you understand the magnitude of the crash that would have happened. There amount of money that would be floating around to trade back and forth would have been equal to pennies. There would be no way to make money the way Day Traders do now. Assets would be "hard" not paper or electronic.
Do you think I care what the price of the securities were? If the price of apple stock was 4$ (Mega crash) vs 400$ What difference is it to me? How do I make less money? Yes the market cap or the "Money floating around" is lower, no difference to me.
Do care if there a few less trillion dollars out floating in capital markets? What difference is it to me?
If a security price is 1/00th what it is now, I simply buy(sell) 100 times more. How much money I make is determined by how much money I INVEST vs movement in the security.
|
On October 17 2011 03:18 MannerKiss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 03:01 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 17 2011 02:55 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 02:47 BronzeKnee wrote:
I have no investments. All of my money is in FDIC insured accounts, as it should be (which is a form of welfare), but if it wasn't in FDIC insured accounts, then it would be under my mattress. FDIC accounts were created to take risk out of saving, and no one used them.
That wasn't the governments fault, everyone should have lost money who risked in any way in the stock market. Does that mean millions of people including the retired lose their savings? Sure, but they risked their savings, it was their own fault.
You are like one of the corporate farmers in America, who are literally subsidized by the US government. Your job would not exist if the industry wasn't bailed out. My industry would have THRIVED if the markets weren't bailed out. Prop firms can generate money by going SHORT (Profiting from market failures - creating efficiency in the market). You're so uninformed, brain exploding, etc. Just to clarify and stay on topic, i AM against the 9-9-9 tax. You're just confusing Day Trading with unregulated nonsense some of the banks did. I don't think you understand the magnitude of the crash that would have happened. There amount of money that would be floating around to trade back and forth would have been equal to pennies. There would be no way to make money the way Day Traders do now. Assets would be "hard" not paper or electronic. Do you think I care what the price of the securities were? If the price of apple stock was 4$ (Mega crash) vs 400$ What difference is it to me? How do I make less money? Yes the market cap or the "Money floating around" is lower, no difference to me. Do care if there a few less trillion dollars out floating in capital markets? What difference is it to me? If a security price is 1/00th what it is now, I simply buy(sell) 100 times more. How much money I make is determined by how much money I INVEST vs movement in the security.
100,000 $4 stocks are worth a lot less than 100,000 $400 stocks.
You're assuming these things are limitless.
|
On October 17 2011 02:43 MannerKiss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 17 2011 02:34 Chargelot wrote:On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote:
Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods. The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend. That helps the economy, right? Right? Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay. It doesn't help the economy. Haha. I'd like to add to this. Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money. But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup. And the cycle continues. Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too? SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it.
That's supply side economics which is completely stupid. People aren't going to buy more ketchup because there is more ketchup to buy, they're going to buy ketchup if they can afford it (and they like ketchup)
|
On October 17 2011 03:02 On_Slaught wrote:
You would put about 1,000,000 people who work in the tax industry out of work. People whose job it is to understand the overly complex system.
You can just employ all of them to carry water to the ocean till retirement. Really, if you want to improve the economy you really want to free up this wasted labor so they can get productive jobs. It's like wasting SCVs.
Also, millions of people have long term plans based on the CURRENT system. If any changes were made to the system they would have to be gradual over the course of a decade + . People need time to adjust and the system needs time to change. It can't take the type of shock Cain is endorsing.
This is an argument against all reforms. If a reform is good on the long term you want to carry it through. If it has short time bad side effects, which it almost always have, you have to think about how to reduce those.
Not doing them is just the inferior decision.
It is a bad a sign when the only economists endorsing your plan are the person who helped write it and the evil man behind trickle down poverty economics.
Use the failed idea of the trickle down economy theory instead. It's much much stronger than the arguments you made here. Trickle down economics is a proven hoax to the degree almost no one that promotes it actually believes it themselves.
|
On October 17 2011 03:38 Suisen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 03:02 On_Slaught wrote:
You would put about 1,000,000 people who work in the tax industry out of work. People whose job it is to understand the overly complex system.
You can just employ all of them to carry water to the ocean till retirement. Really, if you want to improve the economy you really want to free up this wasted labor so they can get productive jobs. It's like wasting SCVs. Show nested quote +
Also, millions of people have long term plans based on the CURRENT system. If any changes were made to the system they would have to be gradual over the course of a decade + . People need time to adjust and the system needs time to change. It can't take the type of shock Cain is endorsing.
This is an argument against all reforms. If a reform is good on the long term you want to carry it through. If it has short time bad side effects, which it almost always have, you have to think about how to reduce those. Not doing them is just the inferior decision. Show nested quote +
It is a bad a sign when the only economists endorsing your plan are the person who helped write it and the evil man behind trickle down poverty economics.
Use the failed idea of the trickle down economy theory instead. It's much much stronger than the arguments you made here. Trickle down economics is a proven hoax to the degree almost no one that promotes it actually believes it themselves.
I wasn't trying to undermine 999 itself since that is done effectively already by everyone else in this thread. Instead I was actually adding something else which should also be considered. If it was up to Cain this reform would happen over the course of a few years. That sort of shock would cause massive upheaval in the system. In no way am I saying reform is bad. I'm saying i can't be sudden in a system as massive and complex as the US one.
Everything I said is true and applies. To what degree it should be concerned I don't care.
|
On October 17 2011 02:47 BronzeKnee wrote:
That wasn't the governments fault, everyone should have lost money who risked in any way in the stock market. Does that mean millions of people including the retired lose their savings? Sure, but they risked their savings, it was their own fault.
401(k) savings are supposedly safe, which is why we all like them. That's the financial world we live in, where risk is so undervalued it is non-existent. You're right in principle, of course, putting anything into the stock market is a risk.
I do think it's interesting that this came up, since Herman Cain also advocates privatizing Social Security - putting every penny of our future retirement funds at risk in the stock market. Even after the 2008 crash. That could never happen again, right?
|
On October 17 2011 03:09 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 03:02 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 03:00 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 02:52 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 02:49 Bibdy wrote:On October 17 2011 02:43 MannerKiss wrote:On October 17 2011 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 17 2011 02:34 Chargelot wrote:On October 17 2011 02:30 BronzeKnee wrote:
Last night I spent some time trying to figure out how we could cut our spending in the unlikely event this 9-9-9 plan became law. During that, I realized something:
How is the economy going to grow when people like me would be forced to make spending cuts? The average American would be paying more money to the government and less money on goods. The upper 1% would have more money, which they could then use to keep in banks and continue to not spend. That helps the economy, right? Right? Oh it doesn't? I thought... Okay. It doesn't help the economy. Haha. I'd like to add to this. Tax cuts to the rich never help the economy. Imagine if you were rich and owned a Ketchup factory. You get a huge tax cut (as does everyone else who is rich) but how much ketchup do rich people need? Just one bottle, so the demand for Ketchup doesn't go up, so why would you hire more workers? You wouldn't you'd pocket the tax cut money. But if the tax cut money went the poor instead, some people who couldn't afford ketchup would buy ketchup and thus the demand for ketchup would increase. So you might need to hire more people to produce more ketchup and the people you hire are unemployed, and maybe they didn't buy ketchup are now buying ketchup. And the cycle continues. Keeping with this ketchup theme - You're assuming that your one ketchup factory provides ALL the ketchup the world needs - perhaps some of the 99% would like some ketchup too? SO you get the tax break, now you have the opportunity to hire more workers, to make more ketchup to sell ketchup to more people TO MAKE MORE MONEY. Rich people are self interested, if you give them the opportunity to make MORE MONEY by selling MORE Ketchup, they're going to do it. What? Why should they go to the effort of giving more people at the bottom money, so they can provide jobs for those people, so they can produce more ketchup, so they can sell that ketchup to more people...when they can just get their immediate taxes lowered? That's a level of long-term thinking not reserved for human beings. Yeah, the people that created legacy companies... Johnson and Johnson Proctor and gamble Wal-mart Microsoft Apple (first 5 that came to mind, should I go on?) ...certainly did not have long term self interest in mind that included expanding their companies to create more wealth. I'm so out of this thread good lord. LOL you're comparing investment in one's own assets vs investments in other people's spending habits. Yes, please, go. So, during the tax breaks that happend to those companies they just said "FUCK IT I"M KEEPING ALL THE MONEY! NO HIRING MORE MORE MORE FOR ME?" What? Oh, for crying out loud, we're not talking about businesses, we're talking about individuals. The basic premise of raising taxes on the rich, instead of the poor, is to give the poor more disposable income (equivalent to giving them money from the pockets of the rich) so THEY can keep consuming and keep our consumer-economy running. Doing the OPPOSITE, of raising taxes on the poor instead of the wealthy (equivalent to giving the rich money from the pockets of the poor) would just fuck everybody, because NO, they WON'T invest all of that money in useful things, they'll send a bunch to offshore bank accounts, or offshore investment, hiring more cheap labour across the world, rather than hiring OUR workers, or just plain spending it on various luxuries they don't need, which don't help our economy. We've tried this whole low-taxes-on-the-richest-households thing twice in American history. Do you genuinely think it's just one big, fat coincidence that the Great Depression and this recent recession both occurred during periods of enormous wealth inequality, as a result of those taxation laws? History has a way of repeating itself, and we're too fucking self-centered and short-sighted to realize it.
This is a flawed method of analysis. Almost no economists attributed the Great Depression Crash and the Housing crash to wealth disparity. Instead they usually come to the consensus that flaws in the market (bubbles , poor regulation) coupled with poor monetary policy lead to these events.
|
Clearly Cain should have gone with the 1-1-1 tax plan, I hear that terrans cannot physically lose with that.
No but seriously I am actually remarkably infuriated with the state of american politics. I understand that differences in opinion can yield to additional debate within congress but when the republicans are trailing in increasing margins behind obama and the democrats at large for 2012 elections and the overall approval rating for congress is sitting at 12% you would think that they would put 2 and 2 together (instead of 9 and 9 and 9) and realize that they MUST moderate their position.
I'm very liberal on some issues and very conservative on others, and I'll probably be voting for Obama this election, but it is more a result of fear of a republican winning than confidence in the democrats.
Sigh.
If only the mainstream american politician would work to better america and not her or himself.
|
this bill will not pass. The rich will vote for it and the poor won't.
|
Without even looking at the details of this tax code, i am against it for one reason. 9% sales tax. For one we don't need to give government another way to take our money that can just be hiked up down the road.And the second one, I live in Texas, which has a 8.75% sales tax already so with that I will pay 18% sales tax on anything I buy... Fuck that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
