The US will not recover until taxes on the rich are raised.

[The_Zodiac]

i didnt know we dealed in absolutes when it comes to the economy. and im pretty sure on the sith do that.

.

Come at me bro.

[nutsy54]

54% or not 707 billion is more money than we need to be spending on defense. If we're going to look at cutting SS/Medicare/Medicaid then defense should definitely be considered, don't you think we could manage with like $550 billion budget or something in that area?

I absolutely believe we can and should cut Defense spending, and I've never said otherwise. My posts have very clearly stated the relative amount of overall government spending, for those who obviously didn't understand how insane the budget has actually become, largely not due to the military.

[ZachSmash]

until the gov stops taxing every company to the point that they ship jobs overseas (thanks a lot NAFTA) the US will not recover.


i like how your solution to the problem is to make an environment where no companies can do business in the US. what a GREAT economic idea you have.



also, if you are looking at rich people not paying taxes, look no further than one of obamas master, jeffery imhelt (sp?) the owner of general electric who is probably the largest corporation in the world, paid ZERO taxes as a corporation.


go **** yourself op.

[Darkshadow]

Why don't they just raise the taxes on all American companies who outsource, that would be an*incentive for companies to hire Americans.*

Because companies dont want to hire American labor that can be outsourced. It is much more expensive for them. These same companies fund our politicians' campaigns.

[Rdez]

Anybody want to take an actual $ bet? I also think that the US will slip into another recession, or at least stay at the same level of GDP indefinitely until the plutocratic economic system is changed.

A large accumulation of wealth at the top is what caused the great depression and the great recession.

I know it's a long read, but please read it before posting. It's the simplest yet most effective explanation on how income inequality lead to the great depression, and how in general, drastic inequality makes recessions inevitable.



I recommend to anybody who has the ability to think logically and not be a mindless corporatist, to read the book Aftershock. It has an excellent argument against income inequality, and how it directly lead to the Great depression and the great recession, while income equality, such as 1945-1975, lead to the great prosperity.

1) WTF do you care so much about America's economic conditions, you're an Aussie ?

2) The problem is not enough taxes, the problem is almost HALF our national budget goes to Transfer Payments, mostly Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. Nearly the rest of the other half is Defense. Our criminal Congress and President need to simply stop spending so much $ucking money.

When you raise taxes on corporations, they just raise prices on consumers. Corporations don't 'really' pay taxes in the end.

[xR1pp3Rx]

i didnt know we dealed in absolutes when it comes to the economy. and im pretty sure on the sith do that.

you say grow the economy, well adam smith please tell us how since its so simiple. quit spending money, yes thats clear but that wont be enough. if you both cut spending and raise taxes then we will get out of our debt faster.

had you have been paying attention there have been a half dozen or so great ideas in this thread... but since your still so young and have a hard time seeing it even tho its rite there in front of you... how about getting rid of capitol gains? OR better yet.. fairtax would get rid of corporate taxes altogether... createing the worlds largest Tax haven for buisness and would grow our economy way faster than raising taxes,,, wich BTW would reduce revenues not increase them. im certainly glad your enterested in this discussion but them govnt teachers are fillin your head full o shat~

[johnsbod]

had you have been paying attention there have been a half dozen or so great ideas in this thread... but since your still so young and have a hard time seeing it even tho its rite there in front of you... how about getting rid of capitol gains? OR better yet.. fairtax would get rid of corporate taxes altogether... createing the worlds largest Tax haven for buisness and would grow our economy way faster than raising taxes,,, wich BTW would reduce revenues not increase them. im certainly glad your enterested in this discussion but them govnt teachers are fillin your head full o shat~

We could also eliminate the IRS. I'm not sure there are many Americans out there that would argue against that.

[Darkshadow]

1) WTF do you care so much about America's economic conditions, you're an Aussie ?

2) The problem is not enough taxes, the problem is almost HALF our national budget goes to Transfer Payments, mostly Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. Nearly the rest of the other half is Defense. Our criminal Congress and President need to simply stop spending so much $ucking money.

When you raise taxes on corporations, they just raise prices on consumers. Corporations don't 'really' pay taxes in the end.

Yes but in the end its up to the consumer if they want to buy that product at the increased price. The price will always end up a price point for maximal profits, regardless of taxes.

[LennardiVooDoo]

until the gov stops taxing every company to the point that they ship jobs overseas (thanks a lot NAFTA) the US will not recover.


i like how your solution to the problem is to make an environment where no companies can do business in the US. what a GREAT economic idea you have.



also, if you are looking at rich people not paying taxes, look no further than one of obamas master, jeffery imhelt (sp?) the owner of general electric who is probably the largest corporation in the world, paid ZERO taxes as a corporation.


go **** yourself op.

I never said raise corporate tax rates. I said raise income in the top bracket. I guess if you had sufficient reading comprehension skills, you would have picked this up, but it's hard to blame you give the state of the American public education system.

And also, businesses don't ship overseas because of taxes, but because of cheap labor. It's as simple as that. Look at Ireland, the lowest corporate tax rate amongst developed countries yet is at 1000%GDP debt and huge unemployment.

[LennardiVooDoo]

1) WTF do you care so much about America's economic conditions, you're an Aussie ?

2) The problem is not enough taxes, the problem is almost HALF our national budget goes to Transfer Payments, mostly Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. Nearly the rest of the other half is Defense. Our criminal Congress and President need to simply stop spending so much $ucking money.

When you raise taxes on corporations, they just raise prices on consumers. Corporations don't 'really' pay taxes in the end.

This is false. Corporations can't really raise prices far above the production cost (disregarding the case of a monopoly), because somebody else will just undercut them. America is an extremely competitive market, and this simply won't happen. The only situation where this does happen is if certain corporations have a monopoly on a single resource, eg; oil. But again, I'm not saying raise taxes on the rich.
And btw, I really lol at the critical thinking of skills that people assume that because my current location isn't in America, means I have never lived there.

had you have been paying attention there have been a half dozen or so great ideas in this thread... but since your still so young and have a hard time seeing it even tho its rite there in front of you... how about getting rid of capitol gains? OR better yet.. fairtax would get rid of corporate taxes altogether... createing the worlds largest Tax haven for buisness and would grow our economy way faster than raising taxes,,, wich BTW would reduce revenues not increase them. im certainly glad your enterested in this discussion but them govnt teachers are fillin your head full o shat~

Playing the age card *sighs*. Anybody who supports a "fair tax" is absolutely economically illiterate. The fair tax is a complete disaster for any economy, which is exactly why no country has ever taken the idea seriously. And again, wages/productivity impact a business's decisions far more than taxes. Why do you think that Ireland, with the lowest tax rate amongst developed countries (10-11%), has huge unemployment and massive debt? Lowering corporate taxes helps nobody. As long as there is a demand for products, there will be businesses, and the growing unemployment is because the A.merican middle class simply don't have enough money to keep businesses here

Yes but in the end its up to the consumer if they want to buy that product at the increased price. The price will always end up a price point for maximal profits, regardless of taxes.

Exactly this. If a coffee shop decides to make more profits by doubling their price, I just set up another coffee shop at a much lower price. I get all the business and they get none. Economics is a beautiful thing.

[Rdez]

I never said raise corporate tax rates. I said raise income in the top bracket. I guess if you had sufficient reading comprehension skills, you would have picked this up, but it's hard to blame you give the state of the American public education system.

And also, businesses don't ship overseas because of taxes, but because of cheap labor. It's as simple as that. Look at Ireland, the lowest corporate tax rate amongst developed countries yet is at 1000%GDP debt and huge unemployment.

Raise income tax in the top bracket, then people will have less to invest. This means less growth, fewer jobs.

Remember the government does most things far less efficiently than the private sector. This means money in the hands of citizens, in general, grows the economy better than that same money taxed away and in government hands.

[LennardiVooDoo]

Raise income tax in the top bracket, then people will have less to invest. This means less growth, fewer jobs.

Remember the government does most things far less efficiently than the private sector. This means money in the hands of citizens, in general, grows the economy better than that same money taxed away and in government hands.

Again, things don't work that way.

Just image Warren Buffet. He has 10 or 20 billion sitting in his bank account, doing nothing. Now, imagine if instead of Warren Buffet, you had 200,000 people earn 50,000 for that year. Almost all that money will be spent, which is what keeps the economy running. Money sitting in bank accounts do nothing, and as a percentage of their income, the middle class spend FAR more of their money. THAT is what funds businesses, not the millions or billions that sits in stocks or bank accounts.
Trickle down doesn't work.

[nutsy54]

Yes but in the end its up to the consumer if they want to buy that product at the increased price. The price will always end up a price point for maximal profits, regardless of taxes.

Unless taxes simply force the price beyond what people are willing to pay - And the company & employees suffer as a result (reference: The ill-conceived "luxury tax" a few decades ago, which sent many companies into bankruptcy, and many former workers to the Unemployment office).

[nutsy54]

Again, things don't work that way.

Just image Warren Buffet. He has 10 or 20 billion sitting in his bank account, doing nothing. Now, imagine if instead of Warren Buffet, you had 200,000 people earn 50,000 for that year. Almost all that money will be spent, which is what keeps the economy running. Money sitting in bank accounts do nothing, and as a percentage of their income, the middle class spend FAR more of their money. THAT is what funds businesses, not the millions or billions that sits in stocks or bank accounts.
Trickle down doesn't work.

Bolded text once again highlights you have no idea what you're talking about. (Where do you think the backing for loans, investment, mortgages, etc comes from?)

[Rdez]

Again, things don't work that way.

Just image Warren Buffet. He has 10 or 20 billion sitting in his bank account, doing nothing. Now, imagine if instead of Warren Buffet, you had 200,000 people earn 50,000 for that year. Almost all that money will be spent, which is what keeps the economy running. Money sitting in bank accounts do nothing, and as a percentage of their income, the middle class spend FAR more of their money. THAT is what funds businesses, not the millions or billions that sits in stocks or bank accounts.
Trickle down doesn't work.

Trickle down DOES work. There's no such thing as trickle up. The 10 or 20 billion isn't 'doing nothing'. Money in banks allows banks to make loans and survive. And you know what, even if it was, who cares? It's his money. He can withdraw it all in cash and burn it if he wants. Too bad. This rich old fuk creates more jobs than every poor dumb slob in every inner city will ever create in 100 years.

Let's just tax everyone at 100% of income and holdings after they purchase their government approved good and services, right? How can you be so ignorant of how the world works? Oh right, your 17 AND Australian.

[LennardiVooDoo]

Bolded text once again highlights you have no idea what you're talking about. (Where do you think the backing for loans, investment, mortgages, etc comes from?)

So more loans is the solution? I'm fairly certain that excessive loans is what caused the mess in the first place, not to mention that there is no shortage of funds anyway.
Corporations are already sitting on 2 trillion dollars of cash. Do you really think throwing more money at them will make them invest when they have no incentive too? They won't make money because the middle class doesn't have money to spend on their products and services. If somebody gave you $100,000, would you hire 200 people to sit around and paint flowers all day? Would you start up a small restaurant if you knew full well that you wouldn't have enough customers to meet your costs?

[Rdez]

So more loans is the solution? I'm fairly certain that excessive loans is what caused the mess in the first place.
Corporations are already sitting on 2 trillion dollars of cash. Do you really think throwing more money at them will make them invest when they have no incentive too? They won't make money because the middle class doesn't have money to spend on their products and services. If somebody gave you $100,000, would you hire 200 people to sit around and paint flowers all day? Would you start up a small restaurant if you knew full well that you wouldn't have enough customers to meet your costs?

Sorry, but you're totally missing the boat. Either you're that ignorant or you doing it on purpose.

Who said "more loans are the solution!" ? Nobody.

"Excessive Loans" didn't cause anything. Government policy and corruption 'caused' the housing 'crisis'.

Don't they teach economics in Oz ?

Sorry but you don't know wtf you're talking about in any of your posts. Stick to your own nation's economic situation, you know jack $hit about America's other than regurgitating tired leftist talking points.

[LennardiVooDoo]

Sorry, but you're totally missing the boat. Either you're that ignorant or you doing it on purpose.

Who said "more loans are the solution!" ? Nobody.

"Excessive Loans" didn't cause anything. Government policy and corruption 'caused' the housing 'crisis'.

Don't they teach economics in Oz ?

Sorry but you don't know wtf you're talking about in any of your posts. Stick to your own nation's economic situation, you know jack $hit about America's other than regurgitating tired leftist talking points.

Yes they do teach economics in Australia. I'm doing a double major in Economics/Finance at one of the world's best social science universities, but you're probably right. You definitely know more about economics, especially considering your thorough understanding of the housing bubble, and how "government corruption and policy" caused it.

[Kane_89]

Trickle down DOES work. There's no such thing as trickle up. The 10 or 20 billion isn't 'doing nothing'. Money in banks allows banks to make loans and survive. And you know what, even if it was, who cares? It's his money. He can withdraw it all in cash and burn it if he wants. Too bad. This rich old fuk creates more jobs than every poor dumb slob in every inner city will ever create in 100 years.

Let's just tax everyone at 100% of income and holdings after they purchase their government approved good and services, right? How can you be so ignorant of how the world works? Oh right, your 17 AND Australian.

Trickle down obviously works, which is why our economy is booming right now

[johnsbod]

Trickle down obviously works, which is why our economy is booming right now

OK, we both livein TX. So why is it that the states with no state income tax are doing so much better financially than those with the highest taxes? Do you think it's a good idea to implement California policies on the national level or to follow examples that lead to a better economy?

[open_society]

I respect the tea party members for holding their ground. Don't spend more money than you have, don't put the government in a structural deficit. However, because the government does make up such a large proportion of GDP, that spending vacuum won't be filled immediately by private spending or domestic consumption.

Oversimplification coming below, but lets use this analogy.*

Hence lets say government spending makes up 30% of GDP (not sure about the US, but Australia's is at about 30%(including federal, state and local)), lets say you cut spending to 20% of GDP.*

Losing 10% of the GDP in one budget cycle would sink the economy. Even though the government would take less tax, much of the private return of tax revenue would go to paying down debt and savings. So a heap of domestic consumption would be lost, leading to inevidable social upheaval.*

If the US can reverse its structual budget deficit, reduce its overal debt, avoid social upheaval and open up its economy(regulations, tariffs, taxes...all in one year...great.*

This is unlikely, hence a 10 year plan is needed, but it will kill growth in the short term, help business confidence in the medium term and give you a long term investment boom.*

....if....if...if.

[Rdez]

Trickle down obviously works, which is why our economy is booming right now

Nothing is trickling down because everyone is in a 'wait and see' status, because of the incompetence of the President and Congress. Plus because of the artificial crisis the Government created with the 'housing market collapse'.

When the government gets it's head out of it's @ss, the money will start moving again.

[nutsy54]

So more loans is the solution? I'm fairly certain that excessive loans is what caused the mess in the first place, not to mention that there is no shortage of funds anyway.
Corporations are already sitting on 2 trillion dollars of cash. Do you really think throwing more money at them will make them invest when they have no incentive too? They won't make money because the middle class doesn't have money to spend on their products and services. If somebody gave you $100,000, would you hire 200 people to sit around and paint flowers all day? Would you start up a small restaurant if you knew full well that you wouldn't have enough customers to meet your costs?

Wow, you can really go Full Retard when you want to. Almost nothing in that post has anything to do with my statements, which were in direct response to your ludicrous claims.

1. Loans to people who couldn't afford them caused our current mess. Your statement claimed that money "sits in banks doing nothing", and thus would be better in the hands of the government or randomly employed workers - which would mean no funds available for those who can afford to intelligently borrow and pay back their obligations.

2. We're not talking about today, but your vision of a future which should have no money available for investing and borrowing, because you ignorantly believe that savings & stock investments actually do nothing at all. Guess what - the people who would need to borrow that money aren't the ones with piles of it stacked in the imaginary corner. Stop mixing apples, oranges, and cement blocks.

[nutsy54]

Trickle down obviously works, which is why our economy is booming right now

The economy is a mess because the Housing Bubble collapsed. What does that have to do with "trickle down" economics? On the flip side - as I'm sure you know, the economy was doing great for several years after the much-hated Bush tax cuts. GDP steadily grew, Unemployment dropped and stayed low, tax revenue increased. So, why the need to deceptively claim that the current post-bubble economy was caused by "trickle down"?

By the way - We've been ramming through years of insane, off-the-chart Government spending. How's that plan been working out for us?

[LennardiVooDoo]

Nothing is trickling down because everyone is in a 'wait and see' status, because of the incompetence of the President and Congress. Plus because of the artificial crisis the Government created with the 'housing market collapse'.

When the government gets it's head out of it's @ss, the money will start moving again.

Lol ok. I guarantee you that if there was a republican president, nothing would be different. There is no such thing as "wait and see". If a corporation has the opportunity to make money, they will NEVER hesitate.

[Kane_89]

OK, we both livein TX. So why is it that the states with no state income tax are doing so much better financially than those with the highest taxes? Do you think it's a good idea to implement California policies on the national level or to follow examples that lead to a better economy?

California's policies are retarded. The economy is **** because companies only hire when the demand is there, consumers need money in their pockets to fuel demand.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_857204.html Basically, the tax cuts are doing jack**** for our economy and are just a burden on our deficit.

Nothing is trickling down because everyone is in a 'wait and see' status, because of the incompetence of the President and Congress. Plus because of the artificial crisis the Government created with the 'housing market collapse'.

When the government gets it's head out of it's @ss, the money will start moving again.

Consumer demand must comes first before the hiring, but i agree about the gov lol

[DocHol1day]

Exactly this. If a coffee shop decides to make more profits by doubling their price, I just set up another coffee shop at a much lower price. I get all the business and they get none. Economics is a beautiful thing.

this assumes that another coffee shop is able to undercut you for a profit. if taxes go up, they go up for ALL coffee shops. therefore ALL coffee shops prices rise. what youre arguing is akin to saying that a rise in oil prices wouldnt cause the cost of an airplane ticket to rise. its nothing short of lunacy.

[Fist-Of-Freedom]

lol I refuse to believe this thread is serious.*

[Kane_89]

The economy is a mess because the Housing Bubble collapsed. What does that have to do with "trickle down" economics? On the flip side - as I'm sure you know, the economy was doing great for several years after the much-hated Bush tax cuts. GDP steadily grew, Unemployment dropped and stayed low, tax revenue increased. So, why the need to deceptively claim that the current post-bubble economy was caused by "trickle down"?

By the way - We've been ramming through years of insane, off-the-chart Government spending. How's that plan been working out for us?

An economy which had nothing to do with tax cuts...Clinton RAISES taxes and creates more small business growth/jobs than when Bush CUT taxes, Unemployment rises for 3 yrs AFTER Reagans tax cut. Reason? tax rates cant move the business cycle.

[LennardiVooDoo]

this assumes that another coffee shop is able to undercut you for a profit. if taxes go up, they go up for ALL coffee shops. therefore ALL coffee shops prices rise. what youre arguing is akin to saying that a rise in oil prices wouldnt cause the cost of an airplane ticket to rise. its nothing short of lunacy.

No. Corporate tax rate affects profits, not expenses, so corporations would just receive a smaller profit. The price of the coffee would not change.
But I don't even know why we're discussing this, since I never said to raise taxes on corporations.