If you tax the rich you aren't taxing companies. Those are two seperate tax rates.
inane little opines
Tax increases always lower production. That's been proven a million times over. Tax cuts can go either way.Shocking wrote:
It means that a (marginal) increase in tax rate on the rich in the US will have little to no effect on overall investments & the economy. I'm not advocating increasing their tax but it's not a good reason for giving them cuts, either.
Besides, who is advocating cuts? Romney just wants the tax rates that have been in place for the past 12 years to stay in place instead of rising.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Again, so what? What point are you trying to make?Shocking wrote:
If you tax the rich you aren't taxing companies. Those are two seperate tax rates.
And yes, Obama is raising corporate tax rates as well. He's increasing Capital Gains taxes across the board.
Last edited by Jay (2012-08-14 06:02:08)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Bush tax cuts aren't due to expire then?Jay wrote:
Exactly. I'm all ears.Dilbert_X wrote:
Really.
Why should investments and income streams which are largely only available to the already wealthy be taxed at a preferential rate?
Why should they get further preferential treatment via further tax cuts for the high income earners and nada for the average Joe?
Changing the status quo generally requires a good reason, lets hear it.
As for investment driving the economy, sure. But why should small numbers of people who make large investments be treated preferentially to large numbers of small investors?
No-ones calling for your dumb reductio ad absurdam arguments, just asking you to justify your argument.
Oh, you thought Romney was going to change the status quo? Obama is the one threatening tax increases in order to excite his poor moocher base.
Whats your solution? Continue the Bush plan and increase spending while reducing taxes?
Still waiting to hear how cutting taxes for the rich and paying for it by increasing the tax on the poor is in anyone's interest apart from those bankrolling Romney
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr … mney-does/
How does this benefit America as a whole?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-08-14 06:32:38)
Fuck Israel
That post was directed at Cybargs because he stated companies would leave the US to go overseas if you tax the rich. That's what large increases in corporate tax do, not individual income tax. Your argument for keeping tax rates on the rich low was that they use this money to invest. I agree, though in the world of shareholders the rich and mega rich form a tiny minority and their investments are of little relevance to the economic welfare of the US.
If O wants to increase capital gains tax as well (this actually matters) it just means that he feels the US gov. should be raking in more money. I assume that he weighed the negative effects it will have to the positive. I generally wouldn't agree with it, though you have to admit that there's going to be more than one way to solve the crisis.
In the whole taxation debate and who should contribute what I generally agree with maintaining a progressive tax, if only for moral reasons. The economic effects are negligible.
If O wants to increase capital gains tax as well (this actually matters) it just means that he feels the US gov. should be raking in more money. I assume that he weighed the negative effects it will have to the positive. I generally wouldn't agree with it, though you have to admit that there's going to be more than one way to solve the crisis.
In the whole taxation debate and who should contribute what I generally agree with maintaining a progressive tax, if only for moral reasons. The economic effects are negligible.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-08-14 06:32:16)
inane little opines
Shocking wrote:
That post was directed at Cybargs because he stated companies would leave the US to go overseas if you tax the rich. That's what large increases in corporate tax do, not individual income tax. Your argument for keeping tax rates on the rich low was that they use this money to invest. I agree, though in the world of shareholders the rich and mega rich form a tiny minority and their investments are of little relevance to the economic welfare of the US.
If O wants to increase capital gains tax as well (this actually matters) it just means that he feels the US gov. should be raking in more money. I assume that he weighed the negative effects it will have to the positive. I generally wouldn't agree with it, though you have to admit that there's going to be more than one way to solve the crisis.
In the whole taxation debate and who should contribute what I generally agree with maintaining a progressive tax, if only for moral reasons. The economic effects are negligible.
Yes, individual tax rates have no effect whatsoever on the economy...
Is your media really this bad?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Because if they did manage to lower the tax rate, they would cut spending as well.Dilbert_X wrote:
Bush tax cuts aren't due to expire then?Jay wrote:
Exactly. I'm all ears.Dilbert_X wrote:
Really.
Why should investments and income streams which are largely only available to the already wealthy be taxed at a preferential rate?
Why should they get further preferential treatment via further tax cuts for the high income earners and nada for the average Joe?
Changing the status quo generally requires a good reason, lets hear it.
As for investment driving the economy, sure. But why should small numbers of people who make large investments be treated preferentially to large numbers of small investors?
No-ones calling for your dumb reductio ad absurdam arguments, just asking you to justify your argument.
Oh, you thought Romney was going to change the status quo? Obama is the one threatening tax increases in order to excite his poor moocher base.
Whats your solution? Continue the Bush plan and increase spending while reducing taxes?
Still waiting to hear how cutting taxes for the rich and paying for it by increasing the tax on the poor is in anyone's interest apart from those bankrolling Romney
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr … mney-does/
How does this benefit America as a whole?
The alternative is voting for Obama and his tax increases. Do you want to pay more taxes? Do you think that raising taxes in a recession is a good idea? Generally, that's considered just about the worst thing you can do.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Our media rarely reports on US economics. Any knowledge I may have comes from either the economist or by talking to people from the US.
We were talking about the economic effects of individual income tax, right? Companies are infinitely more important in this game than any individual.
We were talking about the economic effects of individual income tax, right? Companies are infinitely more important in this game than any individual.
inane little opines
Really? Why do you feel that way? Who are these companies selling products to? If you take money away from the individuals who buy these products they can obviously buy less of them.Shocking wrote:
Our media rarely reports on US economics. Any knowledge I may have comes from either the economist or by talking to people from the US.
We were talking about the economic effects of individual income tax, right? Companies are infinitely more important in this game than any individual.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I feel this way because despite huge differences in our tax rates on the top income % (almost up to 40%) both the US and EU had great growth rates, until recently ofcourse. A 'business friendly atmosphere' has always been stressed as one of the main driving forces in growth, not income tax rates. That seems to be more of a moral debate if anything.
Large manufacturers are involved in mass production. Their products - to be consumed by all layers of society... and other companies. Important investors don't cater to one group of people, and as the mega rich are a very tiny minority and unlikely to buy way more than they want or need (the most you'll see is one maintaining a garage with some 50 different cars), their effects on the economy really are negligible. If that 0,0001% (probably less) of the population has their income decreased, important manufacturers won't feel a thing.
Large manufacturers are involved in mass production. Their products - to be consumed by all layers of society... and other companies. Important investors don't cater to one group of people, and as the mega rich are a very tiny minority and unlikely to buy way more than they want or need (the most you'll see is one maintaining a garage with some 50 different cars), their effects on the economy really are negligible. If that 0,0001% (probably less) of the population has their income decreased, important manufacturers won't feel a thing.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-08-14 06:58:50)
inane little opines
No Shocking, Europe has been near stagnant for decades. We normally have triple your growth rate.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Where'd you get that notion? Not at all.
inane little opines
But they never do, so its back to the usual GOP plan of cutting taxes for the wealthy and increasing spending - usually on the wealthy.Jay wrote:
Because if they did manage to lower the tax rate, they would cut spending as well.
How will that help the deficit of the economy?
Depends what you mean by 'usually'.No Shocking, Europe has been near stagnant for decades. We normally have triple your growth rate.
Fuck Israel
How can you still say this with a straight face after taking government hand outs in the form of Pell grants?Jay wrote:
excite his poor moocher base.
Was I supposed to return free money that was handed to me? If it makes you feel better, I'll pay about ten times that Pell Grant in taxes this coming April.Macbeth wrote:
How can you still say this with a straight face after taking government hand outs in the form of Pell grants?Jay wrote:
excite his poor moocher base.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The entire continent here shared in the 90s economic boom in the US. GDP and average disposable income have grown massively over the past 20-30 years.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-08-14 07:29:06)
inane little opines
By your own standards you were a moocher. If the you don't see the glaring hypocrisy of calling people who take handouts moochers while you yourself took everyol handout available then you must be blind.Jay wrote:
Was I supposed to return free money that was handed to me? If it makes you feel better, I'll pay about ten times that Pell Grant in taxes this coming April.Macbeth wrote:
How can you still say this with a straight face after taking government hand outs in the form of Pell grants?Jay wrote:
excite his poor moocher base.
You are much worse than 'hating on the government but working a government job' lowing. At least he earned his government cheque.
That's nice. Germany and France also averaged 10%+ unemployment and half our growth.Shocking wrote:
The entire continent here shared in the 90s economic boom in the US. GDP and average disposable income have grown massively over the past 20-30 years.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Ok.Macbeth wrote:
By your own standards you were a moocher. If the you don't see the glaring hypocrisy of calling people who take handouts moochers while you yourself took everyol handout available then you must be blind.Jay wrote:
Was I supposed to return free money that was handed to me? If it makes you feel better, I'll pay about ten times that Pell Grant in taxes this coming April.Macbeth wrote:
How can you still say this with a straight face after taking government hand outs in the form of Pell grants?
You are much worse than 'hating on the government but working a government job' lowing. At least he earned his government cheque.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Ummm.... How are we in this situation to begin with? Are you insane?Jay wrote:
Because if they did manage to lower the tax rate, they would cut spending as well.
And what exactly does that have to do with anything? It's the free market. Why is 10 percent unemployment worse than 5? Why is half our growth worse than exactly our growth?Jay wrote:
That's nice. Germany and France also averaged 10%+ unemployment and half our growth.Shocking wrote:
The entire continent here shared in the 90s economic boom in the US. GDP and average disposable income have grown massively over the past 20-30 years.
Last edited by Spearhead (2012-08-14 07:42:31)
Are you serious?Spearhead wrote:
Ummm.... How are we in this situation to begin with? Are you insane?Jay wrote:
Because if they did manage to lower the tax rate, they would cut spending as well.And what exactly does that have to do with anything? It's the free market. Why is 10 percent unemployment worse than 5? Why is half our growth worse than exactly our growth?Jay wrote:
That's nice. Germany and France also averaged 10%+ unemployment and half our growth.Shocking wrote:
The entire continent here shared in the 90s economic boom in the US. GDP and average disposable income have grown massively over the past 20-30 years.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Germany had to absorb the DDR post-soviet union and rebuild its economy. They maintained growth all throughout that enormously costly project and ended up having the largest economy on the continent. My country never topped 8% unemployment in the span of 20 years and had an average GDP growth of 3,4% from 1987-2001. The US averaged 3,4% as well in the same period. (world bank data). The rest of the continent didn't do too bad either and LOTS of money has been funneled to eastern Europe, which is doing much better growth wise.Jay wrote:
That's nice. Germany and France also averaged 10%+ unemployment and half our growth.Shocking wrote:
The entire continent here shared in the 90s economic boom in the US. GDP and average disposable income have grown massively over the past 20-30 years.
Stagnant? No way. The US has a much higher average disposable income because of its low tax rates (as much as 14,000 USD more on average in comparison to my country - gross the numbers are much closer), yet your economic growth doesn't show this. Why? Because business friendliness makes an economy boom, not the size of an individual's disposable income.
inane little opines
according to spearhead 10% unemployment is pretty cool, might as well make it 20% who cares about eocnomics bro at least youre living happily. everyone should switch to gross national happiness as a measure of a country's worth.Jay wrote:
Are you serious?Spearhead wrote:
Ummm.... How are we in this situation to begin with? Are you insane?Jay wrote:
Because if they did manage to lower the tax rate, they would cut spending as well.And what exactly does that have to do with anything? It's the free market. Why is 10 percent unemployment worse than 5? Why is half our growth worse than exactly our growth?Jay wrote:
That's nice. Germany and France also averaged 10%+ unemployment and half our growth.
When everyone's booming it's easy to say "hey look our economy is doing pretty well too!" but when you slump, you see the main flaws of a system. Japan is the best example in this case, everyone praised their growth in the late 1980s but when it crashed in 1990s Japan's economic "advantages" turned into their worst nightmare.Shocking wrote:
Germany had to absorb the DDR post-soviet union and rebuild its economy. They maintained growth all throughout that enormously costly project and ended up having the largest economy on the continent. My country never topped 8% unemployment in the span of 20 years and had an average GDP growth of 3,4% from 1987-2001. The US averaged 3,4% as well in the same period. (world bank data). The rest of the continent didn't do too bad either and LOTS of money has been funneled to eastern Europe, which is doing much better growth wise.Jay wrote:
That's nice. Germany and France also averaged 10%+ unemployment and half our growth.Shocking wrote:
The entire continent here shared in the 90s economic boom in the US. GDP and average disposable income have grown massively over the past 20-30 years.
Stagnant? No way. The US has a much higher average disposable income because of its low tax rates (as much as 14,000 USD more on average in comparison to my country - gross the numbers are much closer), yet your economic growth doesn't show this. Why? Because business friendliness makes an economy boom, not the size of an individual's disposable income.
We were all affected by the same banking / housing & construction crisis so we're all tanking/recovering at the same rate with little variation. I know very little of Japan's economy so can't comment on that.
On the other hand, we have our euro woes as well at the moment. Our weakness is/was a lack of centralised oversight & control.
On the other hand, we have our euro woes as well at the moment. Our weakness is/was a lack of centralised oversight & control.
inane little opines