I don't understand how it's unfair to tax everyone at the same rate... If the tax rate was set evenly across it all, with a minimum earnings requirement so that if you make below a certain amount a year (i.e. you're poor), then people would pay based on how much they make. The more you make, the more overall you're taxed, but percentage-wise you're still equal with Joe Schmo. How is that unfair?
Nick hits this on the head. Think of it from the standpoint of the individual. If you're in debt, how is getting a job that pays a lot more money (revenue) going to help you get out of it? It's not. And you'd be a fool to seek out such a promotion. The only way you're going to get out of debt is by cutting back on the spending you're doing. This is just common sense. Thanks for helping educate a brainwashed public, Reason TV!
Why in the name of hell should we give half of what we make to the government????,,,,is this England??????,,I thought we got away from that a couple of hundred years ago ):
In total, the top 1% already pay about 40% of the total taxes required in the U.S. And that doesn't even include the top 20%.
Now get this; among those that identify themselves as being part of the 99%, approximately 50% of them (half of these Americans) don't pay any federal income taxes at all.
"In total, the top 1% already pay about 40% of the total taxes"
it's not "total taxes" it's federal income tax, when you take into account all taxes on all levels of government you find out that the middle class are actually the most burdened, some of the rich to middle class range are burdened, the super rich pay relatively low taxes in comparison to their total income.
You should add the context of the amount of wealth controlled in the country as far as distribution is concerned, the top 400 tax filers control more than the bottom 150 million Americans combined. The poor that don't pay income taxes don't make enough and pay a large portion of their income to other taxes, which make up a far smaller percentage of income of high earners.
@garith21 You are still at this? Concede that you have lost, these libertarians have a much sounder argument and understanding of economics and fiscal policy. Give it a rest, you aren't converting anyone to your government dependency position.
*yawn* I'm sorry but you just make me laugh, when I present arguments you avoided them, then assert you have a better understanding just because you say you do. You claim your cohorts have a better understanding of history, but one of them actually claimed "reagan prevented the cold war from happening". Sorry, but when I address your arguments, ask questions that force you to question your arguments and you avoid them, that isn't a "better understanding"
Your cohort that claims to understand things better than I do says that "they want to raise taxes so they can raise spending" even if they want to cut overall spending and the fact that lower taxes has never stopped them from increasing spending before, not during Reagan or Bush Jr. Both spending and taxes are separate topics
"Give it a rest, you aren't converting anyone to your government dependency position."
Sorry, but the reason for healthy debate isn't to convert, it's to test one's ideas vs the arguments of others. I've pinned your cohorts into corners to the point that they admit that my arguments work and the reasoning behind them and won't even question the reasoning behind theirs. I'm not advocating "government dependency" merely using the right tool for a given job.
If all the people in the top tax bracket gave 100% of their income to the federal government it STILL wouldn't end the debt. Period. Spending is the problem, as the video said. Period.
@DevoutSkeptic Exactly right! No one should have to give half of their income to the government. When the vast majority of us run short of money we CUT our expenses. When the government runs short of money they want to RAISE TAXES. Does ANYBODY really believe the government (any government) is spending wisely? The people in government make the laws and the loop holes all while giving us the BS that they need more money. What a croc.
@nemo227 Exactly right. congress rising taxes so they can spend more is equal to any of us going to our boss demanding a pay increase so we can buy prettier things. It's vile.
Everyone should just pay the same percentage of taxes. And no one should complain about their taxs, heck the government wants to spend more then everyone should pay at least 50% of taxes or more to stop the dept from increasing. Or government can stop spending right now, and everyone can pay a 20% tax rate. But thats not for me to decide, it is the peoples choice, they decide what will happen not government.
The better question is why 46% of people in the country don't pay taxes at all? And the reason they don't pay 50% tax, by the way, is that that would severely decrease the incentive for innovation and investment, causing the economy to stagnate. Though I wouldn't expect the OWS retards to understand the subtleties of the Laffer Curve.
" 46% of people in the country don't pay taxes at all?"
Point of notice, it's "income taxes" not "all taxes"
"And the reason they don't pay 50% tax..."
Income tax isn't the same as corporate tax, unless it's an S class corporation where all the profits go to one individual. Most of the largest corporations aren't S class.
"causing the economy to stagnate."
What causes economic stagnation is consolidation of wealth
A lot of people aren't necessarily advocating as high a taxes as the individuals here are advocating. Some actually want to lower overall tax caps, but remove loopholes, make capital gains equal to regular income so they're paying on more equal footing. It doesn't make sense that some with super high incomes are paying 11-13% vs those right below paying 22-28% for example.
@JaysGOP The tax rate wouldn't affect the super rich regardless...they'll just take advantage of tax shelters. Just look at the post-WWII economic boom for proof.
Give the government more money so they can bomb more country's, give dictators more weapons, and subsidize/bailout out there campaign donors... YEAH RIGHT!!
There is NO mandate that these rich liberals cannot pay 50%. I guess it is only "moral" if they are required by law to pay higher taxes. They need to shut up and lead by example.
Well Stephen King and Hillary what is preventing you from giving the government 50% or more of your money? Stop complaining and do it. Never did like your writing anyway King and you're a terrible actor
Because the rich are the ones who hire people, and if they are taxed for 50% of their income they have no money to hire anyone (don't forget state income and property and local property taxes.)
@garith21 So better the working environment. Let them get advanced jobs, stop raising taxes on people who have enough money to reform the country and strengthen the job system... They dont need to work behind the counter at Wendy's their whole life, but constantly taxing money away from the rich with no economic growth will be of no benefit to the low income earners or economy
i'd love to talk to a rich douchebag saying "we should pay more taxes." i'd say, "ok, you should be paying 100% tax rates over 100,000 dollars. you don't need any more than that."
Vote obama out, your banking system resembles china, medicare is a bastardized version of scandinavian countries (but paying 15-30 % of total gdp to it - no other country pays anywhere near that amount) and the list goes on... your current deficits since obama has been commander and chief resembles greece, he's running your economy into the ground
wow, rather than restructuring the US's tax system to reduce taxes, and create incentives for new businesses to strive, more money to flow, and increase consumer confidence, along with attempting to improve competition in major sectors of the economy, do people really think that taxing people (decreasing the flow of cash in the private sector) will save the USA? If every millionnaire and billionnaire pays all their money the USA will still be in a huge amount of debt
Humans are so fucking stupid. Worship paper and cheap plastic shit all their lives until they get to 70 and are too fucking retarded to remember their own names, then they get stuck in a retirement home where they eat the same food day in, day out, forever playing bingo smelling like mould and piss. What a fucking worthless race we are, hopefully extinction occurs within the next 50 years.
This is a fine example of selective information. The clip of SK asking why he's not paying more is much longer than it is here. He went on to say that much of his money goes to veteran support groups, the poor and many other charitable outlets. For something called Reason TV, I don't see much reason for this video.
why aren't they paying more?because it's not the fucking soviet union.the rationale behind imposing extreme taxes on the rich will inevitably take you down that path. and then into poverty and collapse. just like the eastern bloc.i know,i spent my childhood in a country that was so socially just, you'd think it was paradise.it was in fact a recipe for poverty and endless bickering over privileges from the supposedly just and omnipotent state. eventually the state ran out of other people's money.
@Camel76 Besides, money spent by the government is often spent ineffectively and in order to provide certain groups of people with benefits, rather than society as a whole. Basically A and B decide how much money C should give to D. I think that once you have crossd thhat line and made it possible for the majority to democratically legislate that the minority's money should go to them, you have a sick society.
is that little spike where the white line jumps over the red, the so-called clinton surplus. this chart shows that clinton was running a deficit.for at least his first term. sort of detracts from clinton's legacy. heck, he probably would be in jail anyway if the real shit came out. hillary clinton knows alot of financial people like marc rich. he's probably the dude who fanagled the cattle futures windfall which was technically an illegal transaction.but hey,everybody knows what she's all about.
exactly. why dont they just fucking donate 50% if they want to give it so badly. fuck people trying to tell other what they need to do with their own shit.
Why would anyone give more money when they keep wasting and spending more. If government was responsible, I would want to give to pay down the debt. if they are just going to through it sown the drain theb way give them any more.
One major problem was Bush starting 2 wars and cutting taxes twice. First time in history. Even lincoln created a federal income tax to help pay for the Civil war.
Factcheck org has said thet WE have a spending and tax problem! Cutting taxes has never created jobs or the economy. The rich pay less NOW than they ever did. Pre-depression, the top 1% made 24% of the income. 1950-1980 they made 8-10%Now they are back to pre-Depression levels.
Umm, something is a little off about your explanation. At the very least, considering that we have a growing population, federal spending SHOULD INCREASE, if for no other reason than to provide for expanding infrastructure. If tax revenue is not commiserate, then it increases the deficit. The wealthy SHOULD pay closer to a 50% tax rate, or pay high fees on their corporate status.
Also, which is more likely? BILLIONAIRE Warren Buffet doesn't understand the economics of taxation or you don't?
@kingjust627 But you are talking in a recession now. There is a difference when we have high taxes in a recession and taxes in a prosperous economy. We have an interest rate at 0, meaning no economic growth, raising taxes would not have a significant impact like everyone suggests. A cut gives them the money to create the product. They need to make things before consumption, a cut is used for that reason, and other reasons
@TNovaccaine TN, are you telling me there is a shortage of goods? I'm not trying to insult you but that is fucking asinine!! Tell me what industry is struggling to make product? After that, when those products are made and consumers have no disposable income, will those products be purchased? Supply side is a fallacy... demand from consumers will dictate production. To say companies need money to produce assumes that they do not have cash on hand... record profits, remember?
@kingjust627 Our companies are indeed clogged with inventory that cannot be purchased and I do believe it is because of the taxing, because number 1 there is no growth, interest rate almost near 0, goods cannot be purchased but I do not see the liberals explanation for that. The problem is businesses are at a standstill, they are stagnant, therefore wages are stagnant etc etc you got that part. Demand is needed but not enough money is had.
@kingjust627 Our companies are indeed clogged with inventory that cannot be purchased and I do believe it is because of the taxing, because number 1 there is no growth, interest rate almost near 0, goods cannot be purchased but I do not see the liberals explanation for that. The problem is businesses are at a standstill, they are stagnant, therefore wages are stagnant etc etc you got that part. Demand is needed but not enough money is had.
@kingjust627 Our companies are indeed clogged with inventory that cannot be purchased and I do believe it is because of the taxing, because number 1 there is no growth, interest rate almost near 0, goods cannot be purchased but I do not see the liberals explanation for that. The problem is businesses are at a standstill, they are stagnant, therefore wages are stagnant etc etc you got that part. Demand is needed but not enough money is had.
@TNovaccaine To add on... why is it like pulling teeth to help consumers rather then help companies? Is there a disdain for the lower and middles who ironically are the ones who keep the wealthy WEALTHY by buying their companies or corporations shit? Oh whoa is the corporations sitting on trillions (DURING a recession) and still needing assistance to make product... the consumers are struggling to put food on the table and pay for other necessities... DURING a recession.
@kingjust627 I just feel an economy that is constantly having money invested into is is obviously a strong economy. They have products but due to a recession that came along the way, there is a deadlock. Everything is still, no motion in our economy, at least not much. The more invested in businesses gives it more money to place in production and in the hands of workers, whereas across the board cuts gives middle class opportunities with consumption. Do you see what Im saying?
@TNovaccaine If they need assistance even while sitting on positive cash flow, it's either a scam of government... or they really need to take a look at their business model. Consumers do not have the luxury or leeway.
@kingjust627 If anybody is in desperate need of help, it definitely is middle class, but by granting these cuts to the rich, the middle class will recover. Because more investment in private industry will increase economic growth
@garith21 If I was running the water and not using it, that would be more similar to the scenario. What spending has government done has hired more people? We want to invest money in the system, fortify it, get it working again, but how are we supposed to do that when taxes hinder the investors from doing so. Problem with ObamaCare is, not many people seem to see the benefit of it, because as complaints go, it just does not help anyone.
@garith21 I mean more money to give to programs that have not helped economy. Such as Obama's vacationing, bills that could only be passed by higher taxes so they can be afforded, etc etc. Constantly taking money from the rich is not logical. It is the time an economy is recovered that taxation can start again.
@Robbob9933 if demand isn't there... the demand created by the middle class for goods that corporations and companies create, will force the corporations to KEEP up withthat demand. And if that demand isn't being met... that is where hiring occurs. Innovations are another route, but obviously competeing with slave labor at factories of companies that innovate, we cannot compete.
@kingjust627 Reagan proposed a law that would ban imports from countries whose labor laws did not atleast match our larbor laws. "Tip" O'Neal shot that down in a heart beat. This has never been seriously examined since.
@Robbob9933 Yes repealing the glass setgal was fucking idiotic... but it goes further back. Reagans trickle down has been damaging our economy for decades. When you give the reigns of power to corporations, they will only do what is in the best interest for them... not to the public. Example: Giving tax cuts to the wealthy/corporations/supposed job creators doesn't make them obiglated to create jobs. cont...
@kingjust627 The term "trickle down economics" never came from Regan's mouth. This was used to deride Supply Side theory. The basis of this is that the removal of unreasonable barriers to business will stimulate growth.
@Robbob9933 Yes... unfortunately, I don't consider it class baiting if it's true. Either way there will always be a differing perspectives on that. Fiscal sanity really doesn't mean shit... as was stated before, how is it NOW that we have a concern over debt? Only now it's an issue... and that is why there is a lot of conversation is that because they don't like obama... and why they don't like obama is because he is black. I try to stay away from shit like that...
@kingjust627 The concern over the debt is because the rapidity with which Obama exploded it. Obama created more debt than the period from Andrew Jackson to Bill Clinton. Over the next 4 years is is projected to increase by another 6 to 8 Trillion on the present course, IF couintries will buy our bonds. The race card is sooo passe. Apparently if you don't like someone's policies you MUST bas a racist because EVERYONE MUST agree with every thing the first half black president wants.
"Over the next 4 years is is projected to increase by another 6 to 8 Trillion on the present course"
According to the CBO only about 16% of the upcoming debt is attributable to Obama's policies. Most of it is attributable to continuing Bush policies and the poor economic status of the United states. Claiming Obama "created more debt than..." seems dishonest in this regard.
@garith21 That's what i'm going back and forth with... giving tax breaks or any tax dollars or to the wealthy give them no obligation to hire anyone. They will invest in nontangible items where it doesn't require hiring... thus increasing shares. Supply side is stupid... demand control economies period... if no one ain't buying your shit... you will go under period. So emboldend, empower the consumer base and watch or economy flourish...
@TNovaccaine "We need investments to create goods and we need cuts to purchase the goods, that is how I see it." We can both salute a beer in the air with this... I agree. Only thing... the investments have to be right. You can invest into something that really doesn't create huge job growth. Like insurance, hedge funds, stocks... Tangibility is what is needed... that employs people... not increase share holdings...
@TNovaccaine Yes, I do... don't get me wrong I do. But think about it... giving them money... gives them 0 obiglation to hire, you know what I mean? Put it this way... if you have a business that has the proper amount of employees to meet the demand of your product. Hiring anymore people would hurt your margins. There is no change in your demand... why would you hire more, even with money that is given to you if there is now more demand now then before?
@kingjust627 Well, if all positions are filled they arent going to fire others so another person can get a job, unless I misunderstood your point. But there are multiple different businesses that will hire, you know? Not just one business
@TNovaccaine Well yeah, multiple business will hire, but we are talking about the effects of taxation or tax incentavization... Also, slots come and go according to budgeting requirements. So what creates slots? Money, well yeah... but the caveat is that if demand is still the same it actually takes away from the end profit, you know? But if THEIR profits are increased because of increased consumption of consumers...
@TNovaccaine to meet the demands for their products from consumers, the will HAVE to hire. If not, and they are working their workers to the bone with no increased wages, they will lose their current stock of employees... secondly, no one wants to be a 'slave' per se for anyone. I'm sure you can agree with that. Oddly enough, will companies are clearing record profits, they aren't hiring. Don't you think that fucked up and why should they continue to recieve subsidies/breaks?
@kingjust627 And hiring can be done with some $, so they can give it to their workers. One of the main reasons employees are not getting rewarded with money is because when a business pays taxes in a recession, they dont have the money needed to remunerate their workers, see what I mean? I agree, no one wants to be a slave, and some quit because they weren't getting paid due to, frankly, in my opinion it was regulation. They don't hire because they plan on paying their workers, but
@TNovaccaine "One of the main reasons employees are not getting rewarded with money is because when a business pays taxes in a recession, they dont have the money needed to remunerate their workers, see what I mean?" Then explain the TRILLIONS they are sitting on from profits? It creates a stark contradiction to your point. Also, taxes might be a little of the cause... but not makeing a profit, IMO, hit's harder than taxes. If your not selling, your not making money, PERIOD.
@kingjust627 if government continues impeding progress on the companies then what good is hiring going to do for em? And I for one am against subsidies. I believe TARP 1 and 2 were big mistakes. Best part is Bush chose to make it as America was falling apart and Obama chose to make one as we almost hit a depression. I do not believe that companies should be making profits at the expense of others. If a company fails they should not be rewarded with money so history can repeat itself
@TNovaccaine "if government continues impeding progress on the companies then what good is hiring going to do for em?" I always hear this... but no one has been able to show it to be true... demonstrably. TARP 1 and 2 have helped. Why do you deny this? I agree that companies shouldn't be doing that... but tarp was a loan. A lot of it has been repayed back. Look it up! If a company fails, jobs are lost, so helping them restructure through tarp to be successuf is a win win, no?
@kingjust627 I am not only referring to regulations KJ, I am referring to the corporation tax rate. Advocating a higher rate only means they have less money to give to their workers. I am against TARP because I feel if a businesses begins failing, to let it fail and recreate itself, and second time around hopefully choose to do things better. Why constantly reward them when the same thing could happen again? Businesses should not exist because of loans, it should exist because of money being
"Advocating a higher rate only means they have less money to give to their workers."
Corporate tax is applied after expenses including paying their workers. Corporate tax only applies to their claimed profits, having too low a corporate tax historically encourages firing employees to maximize profits while a high corporate tax encourages businesses to hire more for expenses and expanding the company while reducing how much they pay in taxes.
@garith21 Well if somebody does a lousy job, and there are negative results as to what they are hired to do, are you going to keep them working? If there aren't enough sales and purchases, obviously someone will be fired, I mean they dont fire them because they get bored and start firing, if the person does lousy at their job, I pretty sure you can figure this one out.
So basically you believe higher corporate taxes means they will hire more people so they can pay off the taxes?
@garith21 A) Yes, but the rich are the ones that place the money into the business to expand it and give it more money for production, so on and so forth
B) What is the difference between that and a cut? The only difference is a tax break has shown to be more of a feasible way of achieving recovery due to the past. But, just to clarify, are you basically saying, hire people and then all together pay the taxes? Explain your method a little
Giving tax cuts to the rich and businesses don't force businesses to hire more people there's no incentive at all to hire more people, but if I'm a business and I notice more demand than my current work force can support then I have a high encouragement to hire more people and expand my business. I don't really care about taxes on my profit after all my expenses in this regard.
@garith21 Please explain that one to me. Corporate businesses pay much in taxes today, but uhh...frankly I don't see any growth. Raising taxes during a time like this is completely fruitless, you see, because if there is no growth, and interest rates are near 0, what good will increasing tax revenue do?
Something about "the deficit is a primary concern" lowering revenue doesn't help the deficit at all, vague wants of lowering spending don't help either. Secondly most people want to fix existing loopholes so there aren't some businesses that are paying high tax rates while there are others paying low or evading entirely. Thirdly most people want to raise taxes on the extremely wealthy because they pay lower taxes than some right below...
@garith21 But out of all of the taxes already paid by them the deficit has not changed much. I am against loopholes but sometimes loopholes may be needed when you have a business struggling to sustain itself and they pay more and more in taxes. Most people do want to raise the wealthy's taxes but they still do pay a lot.
"when you have a business struggling to sustain itself and they pay more and more in taxes."
Sorry, but taxes after claimed profits doesn't really seem to make this an issue
"Most people do want to raise the wealthy's taxes but they still do pay a lot."
And many do not even pay as much taxes as people an income bracket just below them and they only have those options available to them because they're wealthy.
By the way you still haven't answered the question regarding flat taxes, do you believe that lower income individuals spend more of their income by percentage to necessities than those of higher income individuals. If you do, do you or do you not think that a flat tax is more punitive to those that have more of their income going to cost of living?
@garith21 Here is where I have two opinions. One tells me a flat tax will be fair being everybody pays that specific percent of taxes for certain things, but on the other hand, the tax might be too high for a low income individual. In response to your question I believe the lower income individuals have placed more towards necessities than the higher income individuals
" One tells me a flat tax will be fair being everybody pays that specific percent of taxes for certain things"
Which only makes sense if everyone pays the same amount to living expenses, either it's fair or it's not fair, it requires all the context to determine if it is fair or not. If everyone made enough to live comfortably and set aside money for retirement we wouldn't even have this conversation.
" I am against TARP because I feel if a businesses begins failing"
And if it's so integrated and invested in the entire economy that the entire economy will fail if they do what then? It's one thing if it's "just" that company, but when it's a company that can cause others to fail, which causes others to fail, which causes others to fail is why the "too big to fail" phrase came about in the first place.
@garith21 It depends entirely on the business? My question is what if you do indeed grant them this subsidy and before ya know it they need more and more and more...get what Im sayin?
So if the failing of one business can result in the failing of entire economic sectors you're okay with that? Secondly you can give the money with conditions you know, giving conditions they're not going to like or use government power so businesses have to create a fund for if they get to big, bust up businesses that are getting to big, stuff they have no incentive to do in a standard business model.
@garith21 Well if it is a substantial business of course, by all means grant them this subsidy, but don't come back here crying to me when they start asking for more and history constantly repeats itself. There is nothing that dissuades me from believin, if even they are not granted the subsidy the second time around that somewhere along the road they will screw up
"Well if it is a substantial business of course, by all means grant them this subsidy, but don't come back here crying to me when they start asking for more and history constantly repeats itself."
So your solution is to say that you should grant it then complain that it's granted and should be never done due to moral hazard, even though it's still not a subsidy and you still agree under extreme conditions it's okay.
" that somewhere along the road they will screw up and cause the business to fail"
So you admit it might be necessary to do if we get into that situation, but you don't agree that government should step in to either make it more difficult to make businesses too big to fail, force them to make funds to pay for such situations if they do mess up with other people's money or any option that might involve government involvement?
@kingjust627 invested into it. Yes, a large amount has been payed back but there is still some that never got paid back for that. I support a subsidy being a benefit to them, but the odds are by granting them more money they could just possibly make the same mistake they did the first time that earned them the subsidy. That is just a "what if" scenario but you see my point?
@TNovaccaine Essentially that is bad business because if your product starts losing sales even more... that person you just hired will have to be fired so that your ledger is balanced. But assuring that PEOPLE who buy your products, and those that want to but can't, have disposable income and start buying your products forces YOUR company to maintaint if not increase production to MEET demand.
@kingjust627 But I do believe high taxes can also be a potential problem for businesses because if they have a meager amount of money, how are they to remunerate their workers? That is why I constantly encourage more investment in businesses, so in advance when sales begin to decline or they dont have enough products the invested money will be at hand and they can produce. Do you see what I mean? Putting more money in the hands of businesses is giving the businesses money to keep
@TNovaccaine Higher taxes is of course bad, but again many corporations are recording recording profits... what are they bitching about, really? Even with them bitching about taxing corporations to death... which is the mantra of conservative pundits, they sit on trillions... get that, TRILLIONS, and say they still need a tax break to hire. C'mon, if that isn't a rigged fucking game I don't know what is... while the middle class suffer...
@kingjust627 A tax break so they can use the trillions that they hoard. Number 1 rule in a downfall, you do not raise taxes, but government has cleverly avoided that and the rich, in all, not just any certain percents pay 70% of all taxes. I dont see the fairness or sense in taxing the last of our wealthy people in a piss-poor economy like ours
@TNovaccaine Why do we need to subsidize their ability to hire? That makes no sense TN. They do not pay all the taxes... maybe a majority of the INCOME tax, but eveyone pays sales, and other use taxes, so that is a misnomer. Also, most people who don't pay taxes, when people who use that argument and don't understand, is because the statistics take in children and fixed income elderly. Kind of misleading... close to being a strawman.
@kingjust627 Well, yes everyone does pay taxes, but with the tax rates on corporations there is no denying they pay a hell of a lot. And some pay taxes because they cant afford it, others get out of it, but thats a whole other story.
@TNovaccaine "I dont see the fairness or sense in taxing the last of our wealthy people in a piss-poor economy like ours" Because they can afford it! No one is suggesting a 1960's erar 90% income tax rate. Please TN stop asserting some sense that we want to destroy the wealthy. We are suggesting that they profit off of all of us, and in a time of need, they should assist more as without the middle class, or the working people of this country, they wouldn't be shit.
@kingjust627 But the problem is the wealthy do pay more taxes than they should and whatever we purchase or whatever bill we pass has not been beneficial to our economy. And like my solution with a simple cut, we can help middle class out. Give them and the poor opportunities. The rich earn their money, at least some do. But many people prattle on saying rich profit off of others when government encourages more taxation so others can profit off the rich. I think everyone should individually earn
"It is completely fallacious to say business just wants to make money and screw over other classes."
Businesses exist for the sole purpose of making money, unless they happen to be a non profit entity. Those are the entities that exist to provide a service or good at the lowest possible cost.
@TNovaccaine "Putting more money in the hands of businesses is giving the businesses money to keep..." You do see the irony right? Corporations are sitting on millions, but are not hiring... does that not go against this very post?
@TNovaccaine That is unfounded... also the contradicting point, based on the argument that this administration is killing businesses because of what you state, that TRILLIONS are in the banks of companies, TRILLIONS in profit. You can't see the contradiction? If your argument is true, they wouldn't have trillions... they would be asking for another bail out! But in a way they are... through the whining and complaining about reducing THEIR tax rate, but fuck the rest of us... WTF?
@kingjust627 It is completely fallacious to say business just wants to make money and screw over other classes. Businesses do not want to do anything with their money because they are perplexed and unaware of government's next action. They think is government gonna tax my money away and use it to pass another bill...I mean they have dreams too. Letting them invest their money to fortify economy for the lower classes is going to help as far as I can see
"because they are perplexed and unaware of government's next action. "
This is simply a retarded argument, even if we assumed for the sake of argument that it were true, can't you simply continue using this argument even if taxes were lowered? Ignoring completely the behavior of existing businesses don't really care much about taxes on claimed profits as far as how they operate, the indication this claim can always be used makes it seem dubious at best.
@TNovaccaine Hiring people to generate a product that isn't in demand or has stagnant demand takes away from the profits of that company as you now have to pay for that 1 extra employee yet their is no increase in demand of your product which will be reflected with a lower profit margin for the week, month, quarter, etc...
@TNovaccaine Exactly... and the only way to prevent that is to generate demand. And who are the ones that force demand??? The consumers... it always boils down to the consumers. If everyone was able to grow their own fruits and vegetables, do you think the farming industry would take a hit because consumer demand for their grown products are reduced. Only exotic fruits that can't grow in this country would sell...
@kingjust627 SO, I think now is the time you and I give each others methods of demand. Although we probably went over it a couple times, I usually like to separate all issues into groups so we can talk mainly about one and not about everything at once you know?
@TNovaccaine Ok, i'll start. Businesses (large businesses who are making ridiculous profits) do not need a tax break. Small business do (but tend to fall to larger businesses). Maintain the tax breaks for the middle class and return the taxes for the wealthy to pre bush tax breaks. Remove all subsidies to any big oil companies, and companies that gross a means tested amount of profit.
@kingjust627 That is why we need to eliminate government regulations, or at least SOME of them so they do not hinder and stifle competition. I encourage government regulation to prevent monopolies, but if you want my opinion, government has shown to be the most effective monopoly I've seen. I would advocate having the wealthy pay taxes, but more like a flat tax you know? I find that to be fair for all classes. And I agree to remove subsidies
Do you believe that lower income people spend more of their income on essentials than higher income people? If you do believe then it's hard to believe that it's "fair to all classes", if you don't then I'll have to call you insane or delusional. If you still believe in spite of that, I'd have to ask you why you continue to believe it.
@TNovaccaine Which regulations can you show to correlate to curb corporation expansion (the pretty word for job creation... LOL)? The ones pertaining to china and trade... i'm all in agreeance sir. Flat tax is not fair... or are you refering to a flat tax at differing income levels? A progressive flat tax, OK, we're on to something, but when taxing... we have to consider the cost to live (ie goods).
@kingjust627 Not so much regulations, more liabilities. Higher taxes lead to less desire to pay them, ya see? I am neutral in flat taxes because some may not have a high enough income to pay, that is why we keep it low, so more can pay it.
" that is why we keep it low, so more can pay it."
But there's people that "currently pay no income taxes" that have issues just paying their bills, many of which also can't even afford to put food on the table that also work. So to accommodate those people you want a 0% income tax for everyone?
@TNovaccaine Such as the idiocy of CAINS 999 BS plan. While the impoverish, who barely make it by, have an increase of 4-6% effective tax rate, the uber wealthy get a 25+% decrease. I understand the premise that the uber wealthy will create jobs to help those who are being taxed more. But apparently we see that that is the biggest fallacy purported... As I stated before, nothing binds them to hire if tax breaks are given. That trickle down has damaged this economy, and 2 wars!!!
@kingjust627 Do to there being two completely different tax brackets, a cut would affect them differently. If tax breaks are given there is more investment which will lead to more jobs in businesses, but you need to cut taxes on lower classes to increase demand first so what businesses create can be purchased. The trickle down has been the only benefit to our economy since the 1960's, there is no doubt in my mind it can occur again.
@TNovaccaine TN... ask anyone, giving corporations does not encourage employment. How can you force a corporation to hire if you give them money but there is no more demand for the product then before money was given? You can't. Giving money to the middle class GAURANTEES money injection for goods in services... that is where companies need to keep up with the demands of the consumers and will hire to keep of with production... Get what I mean?
@kingjust627 That is why we need to supply the lower classes with money so we can increase demand, start selling products and creating more. My method of recovery includes success mostly in MC. More money placed in economy strengthens it, if you see what I mean, if you need me to reiterate I will. I don't see how your words differ from mine though. We have the same ideas just different ways of putting them into action. I am not saying the money of the rich will rain on Mc, KJ, I am
@TNovaccaine I see what your saying, the only problem is, all three things do not and can not happen at a singular moment. 1 of those things (demand, supply, production) can happen first. Demand has to be the first thing that has to increase... and that is why I focus on giving money to the middle class more so than the uber wealthy/corporations. Remember, they are already sitting on TRILLIONS, they DO NOT need ANY subsidising...
@kingjust627 But my methods are by giving more cuts to the rich, it is encouraging them to make more investments and strengthen economy, mainly for middle class workers. I dont believe in subsidies
"But my methods are by giving more cuts to the rich, it is encouraging them to make more investments and strengthen economy"
Investments don't really force hiring in big companies does it, companies still operate by the idea of supply and demand, if I have $500 million dollars in my corporate account and not doing anything with it (like many are) how is you giving me a cut on taxes going to change that?
@garith21A) Actually it encourages a faster moving economy as well as a business for hiring. More money for a business means they have more money to place into production, as well as they can use it to pay a worker.
B) If investors did not have the fear that all of their money would be wasted on programs that hardly help anybody, or bills that just place us deeper in debt, or abortions that may go against a taxpayer's beliefs, whatever the case may be, a cut is basically giving them
A) but it doesn't, because corporate taxes are applied after business expenses...in other words if they spend more money in production and paying their workers, the less taxes they pay.
B) This "fear" doesn't really change even if taxes were lowered, it's not like there's anything stopping people from raising taxes after the fact, it's a bogus argument to say they don't invest because of fear because it's a supposed constant regardless of current tax rates.
@garith21 A) Exactly what I advocate, except with a cut, which is less of a burden on the corporations and more of a benefit to economy.
B)But you have to place yourself in the rich's shoes, they are confused as to what to do now because going forward with their money is dangerous. Exposing that will give government advantages and that is a risk the rich just do not want to take, nor others that advocate higher investment
A) But, corporate taxes only care about the claimed profits which is AFTER all expenses, corporate taxes don't really change operating costs like you seem to think it does.
B) If I'm rich I don't really operate speculating on what the government might do, because that's pointless speculation, even if you lower my taxes today you still MIGHT raise my taxes tomorrow. I care more about what the market does, not the government and the market requires consumption.
@garith21 A) I don't know why you talk about what goes through the mind of the corporate business leaders. You seem to try to figure out what they think, when truly you haven't the first clue. You talk like you know what the business leaders think
B) I have encouraged nothing but free market but with the condition of the economy, interest rate is near 0, there is no economic growth whatsoever. If the market does such a good job under high taxes, where is the success?
A) Because it's basic business operating procedure, if you ran a business and you made more product than you could sell would you hire more workers or fire workers? Extra product is wasted money so you will likely fire workers. If you constantly sell out you're looking to expand quicker to meet the huge demand. What you tax my net profits after all my expenses really doesn't change this at all.
@garith21 I don't see how making superfluous amounts of product for a corporate business winds up with laying people off, I see higher taxes on a business in which they have to pay with the money they originally intended to be used for paying their workers, being a problem. It is not like they are putting their products are being sold anyway
"I don't see how making superfluous amounts of product for a corporate business winds up with laying people off"
Because making too much excessive product that doesn't sell is simply lost money, if you can't use the labor in selling the product or making the product effectively because that excess product is simply a loss that means that labor is also a loss to the business. As a business your objective to maximize profits is minimize losses.
@garith21 Yeah well newsflash...shit happens. Do you really expect everything to fall perfectly into place minus the hardships.... that is how the world is ran. If something doesn't sell, it don't sell, but does that mean EVERYTHING in this business is not going to sell? It is like me saying government will never invest into infrastructure with taxed money, look at my method without the doubts.
" If the market does such a good job under high taxes, where is the success?"
Taxes on claimed profits have no real effect on the success, what does have an effect is the demand for your product or service. Initial starting requires capital yes, but you're admitting that most rich people tend to only invest in existing companies which don't really affect their demand at all.
@garith21 The money earned by the wealthy can go into the creation of other businesses. And what does taxes on the claimed profits have to do with how the market operates? Market is being held back, we need to encourage free market and more investment in private industry because that does ultimately boost economic growth
This has been flagged as spam show
tax the people who make the money and give to the leechs
tell the poor to work
tax the rich less more jobs
more jobs less poor
less poor less leechs
capitalism bitch
you831able 1 day ago
FUCKING LEFTIST BUMS. I HOPE YOU ALL GET SICK AND DIE WITHOUT MEDICAID.
colouredbills 1 day ago
Why aren't the poor creating 50% jobs?
only a retard would call for more taxes
or a liberal rotten with envy.
Armando7654 2 days ago
I don't understand how it's unfair to tax everyone at the same rate... If the tax rate was set evenly across it all, with a minimum earnings requirement so that if you make below a certain amount a year (i.e. you're poor), then people would pay based on how much they make. The more you make, the more overall you're taxed, but percentage-wise you're still equal with Joe Schmo. How is that unfair?
ShoodDaFckinWoop 2 days ago
Nick hits this on the head. Think of it from the standpoint of the individual. If you're in debt, how is getting a job that pays a lot more money (revenue) going to help you get out of it? It's not. And you'd be a fool to seek out such a promotion. The only way you're going to get out of debt is by cutting back on the spending you're doing. This is just common sense. Thanks for helping educate a brainwashed public, Reason TV!
termsofusepolice 2 days ago
Why in the name of hell should we give half of what we make to the government????,,,,is this England??????,,I thought we got away from that a couple of hundred years ago ):
NCLUSA 2 days ago
In total, the top 1% already pay about 40% of the total taxes required in the U.S. And that doesn't even include the top 20%.
Now get this; among those that identify themselves as being part of the 99%, approximately 50% of them (half of these Americans) don't pay any federal income taxes at all.
And people are still arguing over what's fair?
summercures2 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@summercures2
"In total, the top 1% already pay about 40% of the total taxes"
it's not "total taxes" it's federal income tax, when you take into account all taxes on all levels of government you find out that the middle class are actually the most burdened, some of the rich to middle class range are burdened, the super rich pay relatively low taxes in comparison to their total income.
garith21 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@summercures2
You should add the context of the amount of wealth controlled in the country as far as distribution is concerned, the top 400 tax filers control more than the bottom 150 million Americans combined. The poor that don't pay income taxes don't make enough and pay a large portion of their income to other taxes, which make up a far smaller percentage of income of high earners.
garith21 2 days ago
@garith21 You are still at this? Concede that you have lost, these libertarians have a much sounder argument and understanding of economics and fiscal policy. Give it a rest, you aren't converting anyone to your government dependency position.
NecessariusVerum 1 day ago
Comment removed
garith21 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NecessariusVerum
*yawn* I'm sorry but you just make me laugh, when I present arguments you avoided them, then assert you have a better understanding just because you say you do. You claim your cohorts have a better understanding of history, but one of them actually claimed "reagan prevented the cold war from happening". Sorry, but when I address your arguments, ask questions that force you to question your arguments and you avoid them, that isn't a "better understanding"
garith21 1 day ago
Comment removed
garith21 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NecessariusVerum
Your cohort that claims to understand things better than I do says that "they want to raise taxes so they can raise spending" even if they want to cut overall spending and the fact that lower taxes has never stopped them from increasing spending before, not during Reagan or Bush Jr. Both spending and taxes are separate topics
garith21 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NecessariusVerum
"Give it a rest, you aren't converting anyone to your government dependency position."
Sorry, but the reason for healthy debate isn't to convert, it's to test one's ideas vs the arguments of others. I've pinned your cohorts into corners to the point that they admit that my arguments work and the reasoning behind them and won't even question the reasoning behind theirs. I'm not advocating "government dependency" merely using the right tool for a given job.
garith21 1 day ago
If all the people in the top tax bracket gave 100% of their income to the federal government it STILL wouldn't end the debt. Period. Spending is the problem, as the video said. Period.
loveisamistake 2 days ago
No one should have to give half of their wealth to the government to be wasted on wars and welfare...
DevoutSkeptic 3 days ago 8
@DevoutSkeptic Exactly right! No one should have to give half of their income to the government. When the vast majority of us run short of money we CUT our expenses. When the government runs short of money they want to RAISE TAXES. Does ANYBODY really believe the government (any government) is spending wisely? The people in government make the laws and the loop holes all while giving us the BS that they need more money. What a croc.
nemo227 1 day ago
@nemo227 Exactly right. congress rising taxes so they can spend more is equal to any of us going to our boss demanding a pay increase so we can buy prettier things. It's vile.
KamekoBruns 1 day ago
Everyone should just pay the same percentage of taxes. And no one should complain about their taxs, heck the government wants to spend more then everyone should pay at least 50% of taxes or more to stop the dept from increasing. Or government can stop spending right now, and everyone can pay a 20% tax rate. But thats not for me to decide, it is the peoples choice, they decide what will happen not government.
Smokey13900 3 days ago
How about we just make sure that everyone pays less tax?
kshackleton 4 days ago 6
The better question is why 46% of people in the country don't pay taxes at all? And the reason they don't pay 50% tax, by the way, is that that would severely decrease the incentive for innovation and investment, causing the economy to stagnate. Though I wouldn't expect the OWS retards to understand the subtleties of the Laffer Curve.
JaysGOP 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JaysGOP
" 46% of people in the country don't pay taxes at all?"
Point of notice, it's "income taxes" not "all taxes"
"And the reason they don't pay 50% tax..."
Income tax isn't the same as corporate tax, unless it's an S class corporation where all the profits go to one individual. Most of the largest corporations aren't S class.
"causing the economy to stagnate."
What causes economic stagnation is consolidation of wealth
garith21 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JaysGOP
A lot of people aren't necessarily advocating as high a taxes as the individuals here are advocating. Some actually want to lower overall tax caps, but remove loopholes, make capital gains equal to regular income so they're paying on more equal footing. It doesn't make sense that some with super high incomes are paying 11-13% vs those right below paying 22-28% for example.
garith21 4 days ago
@JaysGOP The tax rate wouldn't affect the super rich regardless...they'll just take advantage of tax shelters. Just look at the post-WWII economic boom for proof.
AliceNchainz011 2 days ago
Comment removed
NodrogTrax 5 days ago
here in nz the highest tax rate is 33% (for people earning more than 70k a year)
KiwiTomCrawford 5 days ago
Chris Christie had the best line to Warren Buffett and that was for him to write a check and shut up.
FiendsInRedSatin1 5 days ago
Give the government more money so they can bomb more country's, give dictators more weapons, and subsidize/bailout out there campaign donors... YEAH RIGHT!!
Yoddlay 6 days ago
The ultimate question is. Why is government so big that we need an income tax to begin with?
HandyMan101 1 week ago
There is NO mandate that these rich liberals cannot pay 50%. I guess it is only "moral" if they are required by law to pay higher taxes. They need to shut up and lead by example.
MatthewRider1 1 week ago
@MatthewRider1 They don't want to lose money unless everyone else has to lose money too.
worldofdraculas 1 week ago
Well Stephen King and Hillary what is preventing you from giving the government 50% or more of your money? Stop complaining and do it. Never did like your writing anyway King and you're a terrible actor
TheCoastalPirate 1 week ago
ethos
GrandWizad 1 week ago
Because the rich are the ones who hire people, and if they are taxed for 50% of their income they have no money to hire anyone (don't forget state income and property and local property taxes.)
d3ltadrive 1 week ago
@d3ltadrivenot really,thats not quite how things work... They aren't paying 50% in taxes because they shouldnt be. nothing to do with their income...
ElectricAfroMan 1 week ago
@garith21 So better the working environment. Let them get advanced jobs, stop raising taxes on people who have enough money to reform the country and strengthen the job system... They dont need to work behind the counter at Wendy's their whole life, but constantly taxing money away from the rich with no economic growth will be of no benefit to the low income earners or economy
TNovaccaine 1 week ago
Comment removed
NecessariusVerum 1 week ago
Comment removed
NecessariusVerum 1 week ago
Milton Friedman says the only reason inflation happen because of government spending, He is right.
robertpires87 1 week ago
i'd love to talk to a rich douchebag saying "we should pay more taxes." i'd say, "ok, you should be paying 100% tax rates over 100,000 dollars. you don't need any more than that."
UltraProle21 1 week ago
Vote obama out, your banking system resembles china, medicare is a bastardized version of scandinavian countries (but paying 15-30 % of total gdp to it - no other country pays anywhere near that amount) and the list goes on... your current deficits since obama has been commander and chief resembles greece, he's running your economy into the ground
mobility987 2 weeks ago
wow, rather than restructuring the US's tax system to reduce taxes, and create incentives for new businesses to strive, more money to flow, and increase consumer confidence, along with attempting to improve competition in major sectors of the economy, do people really think that taxing people (decreasing the flow of cash in the private sector) will save the USA? If every millionnaire and billionnaire pays all their money the USA will still be in a huge amount of debt
mobility987 2 weeks ago
The Government Should not be able to take 50% of what a person makes no matter how much they make! Anyone who think this should be hanged!
GlockN1911 2 weeks ago
Humans are so fucking stupid. Worship paper and cheap plastic shit all their lives until they get to 70 and are too fucking retarded to remember their own names, then they get stuck in a retirement home where they eat the same food day in, day out, forever playing bingo smelling like mould and piss. What a fucking worthless race we are, hopefully extinction occurs within the next 50 years.
DrDerpwerth 2 weeks ago
@DrDerpwerth Yes because that's all what humans value. Cheap plastic and paper.
My my my you're a great sociologist.
DoctorCapitalist 2 weeks ago
50% of Americans pay NO INCOME TAX at all. So how do they get the gall to complain about what anyone else pays?
pretorious700 2 weeks ago
This is a fine example of selective information. The clip of SK asking why he's not paying more is much longer than it is here. He went on to say that much of his money goes to veteran support groups, the poor and many other charitable outlets. For something called Reason TV, I don't see much reason for this video.
LiquidLen3333 2 weeks ago
why aren't they paying more?because it's not the fucking soviet union.the rationale behind imposing extreme taxes on the rich will inevitably take you down that path. and then into poverty and collapse. just like the eastern bloc.i know,i spent my childhood in a country that was so socially just, you'd think it was paradise.it was in fact a recipe for poverty and endless bickering over privileges from the supposedly just and omnipotent state. eventually the state ran out of other people's money.
topperheartramada 2 weeks ago
@topperheartramada
Correct. There's no need to punish success. Not in a Capitalist society. ;)
Camel76 2 weeks ago
@Camel76 Besides, money spent by the government is often spent ineffectively and in order to provide certain groups of people with benefits, rather than society as a whole. Basically A and B decide how much money C should give to D. I think that once you have crossd thhat line and made it possible for the majority to democratically legislate that the minority's money should go to them, you have a sick society.
topperheartramada 2 weeks ago
is that little spike where the white line jumps over the red, the so-called clinton surplus. this chart shows that clinton was running a deficit.for at least his first term. sort of detracts from clinton's legacy. heck, he probably would be in jail anyway if the real shit came out. hillary clinton knows alot of financial people like marc rich. he's probably the dude who fanagled the cattle futures windfall which was technically an illegal transaction.but hey,everybody knows what she's all about.
up2space 2 weeks ago
exactly. why dont they just fucking donate 50% if they want to give it so badly. fuck people trying to tell other what they need to do with their own shit.
sandman3697 2 weeks ago
We should have higher taxes! In Greece, if you make 75,000eu/yr or more, your tax rate is 40%!! Look how great Greece is doing!
dannyruxspin 2 weeks ago
Why would anyone give more money when they keep wasting and spending more. If government was responsible, I would want to give to pay down the debt. if they are just going to through it sown the drain theb way give them any more.
Thewizzardof9 2 weeks ago
One major problem was Bush starting 2 wars and cutting taxes twice. First time in history. Even lincoln created a federal income tax to help pay for the Civil war.
jrwel14 2 weeks ago
Factcheck org has said thet WE have a spending and tax problem! Cutting taxes has never created jobs or the economy. The rich pay less NOW than they ever did. Pre-depression, the top 1% made 24% of the income. 1950-1980 they made 8-10%Now they are back to pre-Depression levels.
jrwel14 2 weeks ago
Umm, something is a little off about your explanation. At the very least, considering that we have a growing population, federal spending SHOULD INCREASE, if for no other reason than to provide for expanding infrastructure. If tax revenue is not commiserate, then it increases the deficit. The wealthy SHOULD pay closer to a 50% tax rate, or pay high fees on their corporate status.
Also, which is more likely? BILLIONAIRE Warren Buffet doesn't understand the economics of taxation or you don't?
KeroroGunsouTX 2 weeks ago
A lot of the complaining going on turns out to be silly when you see that the rich are paying a lot of money.
AntiZionistFilms 2 weeks ago
Would be socialists. Damn, I wish there was a disease that would kill them all. Maybe an immunodeficiency virus could do the trick.
sonofagunM357 3 weeks ago
@kingjust627 But you are talking in a recession now. There is a difference when we have high taxes in a recession and taxes in a prosperous economy. We have an interest rate at 0, meaning no economic growth, raising taxes would not have a significant impact like everyone suggests. A cut gives them the money to create the product. They need to make things before consumption, a cut is used for that reason, and other reasons
TNovaccaine 3 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine TN, are you telling me there is a shortage of goods? I'm not trying to insult you but that is fucking asinine!! Tell me what industry is struggling to make product? After that, when those products are made and consumers have no disposable income, will those products be purchased? Supply side is a fallacy... demand from consumers will dictate production. To say companies need money to produce assumes that they do not have cash on hand... record profits, remember?
kingjust627 3 weeks ago
@kingjust627 Our companies are indeed clogged with inventory that cannot be purchased and I do believe it is because of the taxing, because number 1 there is no growth, interest rate almost near 0, goods cannot be purchased but I do not see the liberals explanation for that. The problem is businesses are at a standstill, they are stagnant, therefore wages are stagnant etc etc you got that part. Demand is needed but not enough money is had.
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 Our companies are indeed clogged with inventory that cannot be purchased and I do believe it is because of the taxing, because number 1 there is no growth, interest rate almost near 0, goods cannot be purchased but I do not see the liberals explanation for that. The problem is businesses are at a standstill, they are stagnant, therefore wages are stagnant etc etc you got that part. Demand is needed but not enough money is had.
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kingjust627 Our companies are indeed clogged with inventory that cannot be purchased and I do believe it is because of the taxing, because number 1 there is no growth, interest rate almost near 0, goods cannot be purchased but I do not see the liberals explanation for that. The problem is businesses are at a standstill, they are stagnant, therefore wages are stagnant etc etc you got that part. Demand is needed but not enough money is had.
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine To add on... why is it like pulling teeth to help consumers rather then help companies? Is there a disdain for the lower and middles who ironically are the ones who keep the wealthy WEALTHY by buying their companies or corporations shit? Oh whoa is the corporations sitting on trillions (DURING a recession) and still needing assistance to make product... the consumers are struggling to put food on the table and pay for other necessities... DURING a recession.
kingjust627 3 weeks ago
@kingjust627 I just feel an economy that is constantly having money invested into is is obviously a strong economy. They have products but due to a recession that came along the way, there is a deadlock. Everything is still, no motion in our economy, at least not much. The more invested in businesses gives it more money to place in production and in the hands of workers, whereas across the board cuts gives middle class opportunities with consumption. Do you see what Im saying?
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine If they need assistance even while sitting on positive cash flow, it's either a scam of government... or they really need to take a look at their business model. Consumers do not have the luxury or leeway.
kingjust627 3 weeks ago
@kingjust627 If anybody is in desperate need of help, it definitely is middle class, but by granting these cuts to the rich, the middle class will recover. Because more investment in private industry will increase economic growth
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@garith21 If I was running the water and not using it, that would be more similar to the scenario. What spending has government done has hired more people? We want to invest money in the system, fortify it, get it working again, but how are we supposed to do that when taxes hinder the investors from doing so. Problem with ObamaCare is, not many people seem to see the benefit of it, because as complaints go, it just does not help anyone.
TNovaccaine 3 weeks ago
@garith21 I mean more money to give to programs that have not helped economy. Such as Obama's vacationing, bills that could only be passed by higher taxes so they can be afforded, etc etc. Constantly taking money from the rich is not logical. It is the time an economy is recovered that taxation can start again.
TNovaccaine 3 weeks ago
@Robbob9933 if demand isn't there... the demand created by the middle class for goods that corporations and companies create, will force the corporations to KEEP up withthat demand. And if that demand isn't being met... that is where hiring occurs. Innovations are another route, but obviously competeing with slave labor at factories of companies that innovate, we cannot compete.
kingjust627 3 weeks ago
@kingjust627 Reagan proposed a law that would ban imports from countries whose labor laws did not atleast match our larbor laws. "Tip" O'Neal shot that down in a heart beat. This has never been seriously examined since.
Robbob9933 3 weeks ago
@Robbob9933 Yes repealing the glass setgal was fucking idiotic... but it goes further back. Reagans trickle down has been damaging our economy for decades. When you give the reigns of power to corporations, they will only do what is in the best interest for them... not to the public. Example: Giving tax cuts to the wealthy/corporations/supposed job creators doesn't make them obiglated to create jobs. cont...
kingjust627 3 weeks ago
@kingjust627 The term "trickle down economics" never came from Regan's mouth. This was used to deride Supply Side theory. The basis of this is that the removal of unreasonable barriers to business will stimulate growth.
Robbob9933 3 weeks ago
@Robbob9933 Yes... unfortunately, I don't consider it class baiting if it's true. Either way there will always be a differing perspectives on that. Fiscal sanity really doesn't mean shit... as was stated before, how is it NOW that we have a concern over debt? Only now it's an issue... and that is why there is a lot of conversation is that because they don't like obama... and why they don't like obama is because he is black. I try to stay away from shit like that...
kingjust627 3 weeks ago
@kingjust627 The concern over the debt is because the rapidity with which Obama exploded it. Obama created more debt than the period from Andrew Jackson to Bill Clinton. Over the next 4 years is is projected to increase by another 6 to 8 Trillion on the present course, IF couintries will buy our bonds. The race card is sooo passe. Apparently if you don't like someone's policies you MUST bas a racist because EVERYONE MUST agree with every thing the first half black president wants.
Robbob9933 3 weeks ago
@Robbob9933
"Over the next 4 years is is projected to increase by another 6 to 8 Trillion on the present course"
According to the CBO only about 16% of the upcoming debt is attributable to Obama's policies. Most of it is attributable to continuing Bush policies and the poor economic status of the United states. Claiming Obama "created more debt than..." seems dishonest in this regard.
garith21 3 weeks ago
@garith21 The CBO has made no such report.
Robbob9933 3 weeks ago
@garith21 That's what i'm going back and forth with... giving tax breaks or any tax dollars or to the wealthy give them no obligation to hire anyone. They will invest in nontangible items where it doesn't require hiring... thus increasing shares. Supply side is stupid... demand control economies period... if no one ain't buying your shit... you will go under period. So emboldend, empower the consumer base and watch or economy flourish...
kingjust627 3 weeks ago
@kingjust627
Yeah, preachin to the choir on this one. Supply side economics simply doesn't work and makes the base of our economy (labor) weaker.
garith21 3 weeks ago
@garith21 Let's hope people will start to understand that...
kingjust627 3 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine "We need investments to create goods and we need cuts to purchase the goods, that is how I see it." We can both salute a beer in the air with this... I agree. Only thing... the investments have to be right. You can invest into something that really doesn't create huge job growth. Like insurance, hedge funds, stocks... Tangibility is what is needed... that employs people... not increase share holdings...
kingjust627 3 weeks ago
@kingjust627 Giving corporations money encourages employment because there is money that can be granted to workers, you know what I mean?
TNovaccaine 3 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine Yes, I do... don't get me wrong I do. But think about it... giving them money... gives them 0 obiglation to hire, you know what I mean? Put it this way... if you have a business that has the proper amount of employees to meet the demand of your product. Hiring anymore people would hurt your margins. There is no change in your demand... why would you hire more, even with money that is given to you if there is now more demand now then before?
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 Well, if all positions are filled they arent going to fire others so another person can get a job, unless I misunderstood your point. But there are multiple different businesses that will hire, you know? Not just one business
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine Well yeah, multiple business will hire, but we are talking about the effects of taxation or tax incentavization... Also, slots come and go according to budgeting requirements. So what creates slots? Money, well yeah... but the caveat is that if demand is still the same it actually takes away from the end profit, you know? But if THEIR profits are increased because of increased consumption of consumers...
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine to meet the demands for their products from consumers, the will HAVE to hire. If not, and they are working their workers to the bone with no increased wages, they will lose their current stock of employees... secondly, no one wants to be a 'slave' per se for anyone. I'm sure you can agree with that. Oddly enough, will companies are clearing record profits, they aren't hiring. Don't you think that fucked up and why should they continue to recieve subsidies/breaks?
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 And hiring can be done with some $, so they can give it to their workers. One of the main reasons employees are not getting rewarded with money is because when a business pays taxes in a recession, they dont have the money needed to remunerate their workers, see what I mean? I agree, no one wants to be a slave, and some quit because they weren't getting paid due to, frankly, in my opinion it was regulation. They don't hire because they plan on paying their workers, but
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TNovaccaine "One of the main reasons employees are not getting rewarded with money is because when a business pays taxes in a recession, they dont have the money needed to remunerate their workers, see what I mean?" Then explain the TRILLIONS they are sitting on from profits? It creates a stark contradiction to your point. Also, taxes might be a little of the cause... but not makeing a profit, IMO, hit's harder than taxes. If your not selling, your not making money, PERIOD.
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 if government continues impeding progress on the companies then what good is hiring going to do for em? And I for one am against subsidies. I believe TARP 1 and 2 were big mistakes. Best part is Bush chose to make it as America was falling apart and Obama chose to make one as we almost hit a depression. I do not believe that companies should be making profits at the expense of others. If a company fails they should not be rewarded with money so history can repeat itself
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine "if government continues impeding progress on the companies then what good is hiring going to do for em?" I always hear this... but no one has been able to show it to be true... demonstrably. TARP 1 and 2 have helped. Why do you deny this? I agree that companies shouldn't be doing that... but tarp was a loan. A lot of it has been repayed back. Look it up! If a company fails, jobs are lost, so helping them restructure through tarp to be successuf is a win win, no?
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 I am not only referring to regulations KJ, I am referring to the corporation tax rate. Advocating a higher rate only means they have less money to give to their workers. I am against TARP because I feel if a businesses begins failing, to let it fail and recreate itself, and second time around hopefully choose to do things better. Why constantly reward them when the same thing could happen again? Businesses should not exist because of loans, it should exist because of money being
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
"Advocating a higher rate only means they have less money to give to their workers."
Corporate tax is applied after expenses including paying their workers. Corporate tax only applies to their claimed profits, having too low a corporate tax historically encourages firing employees to maximize profits while a high corporate tax encourages businesses to hire more for expenses and expanding the company while reducing how much they pay in taxes.
garith21 2 weeks ago
@garith21 Well if somebody does a lousy job, and there are negative results as to what they are hired to do, are you going to keep them working? If there aren't enough sales and purchases, obviously someone will be fired, I mean they dont fire them because they get bored and start firing, if the person does lousy at their job, I pretty sure you can figure this one out.
So basically you believe higher corporate taxes means they will hire more people so they can pay off the taxes?
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
"If there aren't enough sales and purchases, obviously someone will be fired,"
Which means that consumers dictate whether or not a business will hire or fire, not the rich, not giving tax breaks to businesses.
"So basically you believe higher corporate taxes means they will hire more people so they can pay off the taxes?"
No, they'll hire more to keep more money within the company to avoid paying higher taxes, there's no incentive to avoid what is low to begin with.
garith21 2 weeks ago
@garith21 A) Yes, but the rich are the ones that place the money into the business to expand it and give it more money for production, so on and so forth
B) What is the difference between that and a cut? The only difference is a tax break has shown to be more of a feasible way of achieving recovery due to the past. But, just to clarify, are you basically saying, hire people and then all together pay the taxes? Explain your method a little
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
"What is the difference between that and a cut?"
Giving tax cuts to the rich and businesses don't force businesses to hire more people there's no incentive at all to hire more people, but if I'm a business and I notice more demand than my current work force can support then I have a high encouragement to hire more people and expand my business. I don't really care about taxes on my profit after all my expenses in this regard.
garith21 2 weeks ago
@garith21 Please explain that one to me. Corporate businesses pay much in taxes today, but uhh...frankly I don't see any growth. Raising taxes during a time like this is completely fruitless, you see, because if there is no growth, and interest rates are near 0, what good will increasing tax revenue do?
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
"what good will increasing tax revenue do?"
Something about "the deficit is a primary concern" lowering revenue doesn't help the deficit at all, vague wants of lowering spending don't help either. Secondly most people want to fix existing loopholes so there aren't some businesses that are paying high tax rates while there are others paying low or evading entirely. Thirdly most people want to raise taxes on the extremely wealthy because they pay lower taxes than some right below...
garith21 2 weeks ago
@garith21 But out of all of the taxes already paid by them the deficit has not changed much. I am against loopholes but sometimes loopholes may be needed when you have a business struggling to sustain itself and they pay more and more in taxes. Most people do want to raise the wealthy's taxes but they still do pay a lot.
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
"when you have a business struggling to sustain itself and they pay more and more in taxes."
Sorry, but taxes after claimed profits doesn't really seem to make this an issue
"Most people do want to raise the wealthy's taxes but they still do pay a lot."
And many do not even pay as much taxes as people an income bracket just below them and they only have those options available to them because they're wealthy.
garith21 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
By the way you still haven't answered the question regarding flat taxes, do you believe that lower income individuals spend more of their income by percentage to necessities than those of higher income individuals. If you do, do you or do you not think that a flat tax is more punitive to those that have more of their income going to cost of living?
garith21 2 weeks ago
@garith21 Here is where I have two opinions. One tells me a flat tax will be fair being everybody pays that specific percent of taxes for certain things, but on the other hand, the tax might be too high for a low income individual. In response to your question I believe the lower income individuals have placed more towards necessities than the higher income individuals
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
" One tells me a flat tax will be fair being everybody pays that specific percent of taxes for certain things"
Which only makes sense if everyone pays the same amount to living expenses, either it's fair or it's not fair, it requires all the context to determine if it is fair or not. If everyone made enough to live comfortably and set aside money for retirement we wouldn't even have this conversation.
garith21 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
" I am against TARP because I feel if a businesses begins failing"
And if it's so integrated and invested in the entire economy that the entire economy will fail if they do what then? It's one thing if it's "just" that company, but when it's a company that can cause others to fail, which causes others to fail, which causes others to fail is why the "too big to fail" phrase came about in the first place.
garith21 2 weeks ago
@garith21 It depends entirely on the business? My question is what if you do indeed grant them this subsidy and before ya know it they need more and more and more...get what Im sayin?
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
"It depends entirely on the business?"
So if the failing of one business can result in the failing of entire economic sectors you're okay with that? Secondly you can give the money with conditions you know, giving conditions they're not going to like or use government power so businesses have to create a fund for if they get to big, bust up businesses that are getting to big, stuff they have no incentive to do in a standard business model.
garith21 2 weeks ago
@garith21 Well if it is a substantial business of course, by all means grant them this subsidy, but don't come back here crying to me when they start asking for more and history constantly repeats itself. There is nothing that dissuades me from believin, if even they are not granted the subsidy the second time around that somewhere along the road they will screw up
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TNovaccaine
"Well if it is a substantial business of course, by all means grant them this subsidy, but don't come back here crying to me when they start asking for more and history constantly repeats itself."
So your solution is to say that you should grant it then complain that it's granted and should be never done due to moral hazard, even though it's still not a subsidy and you still agree under extreme conditions it's okay.
garith21 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TNovaccaine
" that somewhere along the road they will screw up and cause the business to fail"
So you admit it might be necessary to do if we get into that situation, but you don't agree that government should step in to either make it more difficult to make businesses too big to fail, force them to make funds to pay for such situations if they do mess up with other people's money or any option that might involve government involvement?
garith21 2 weeks ago
@garith21 And cause the business to fail
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
"Businesses should not exist because of loans"
This is kind of a retarded statement, many businesses start up on loans and stocks are essentially loans for portions of the company.
garith21 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 invested into it. Yes, a large amount has been payed back but there is still some that never got paid back for that. I support a subsidy being a benefit to them, but the odds are by granting them more money they could just possibly make the same mistake they did the first time that earned them the subsidy. That is just a "what if" scenario but you see my point?
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine Essentially that is bad business because if your product starts losing sales even more... that person you just hired will have to be fired so that your ledger is balanced. But assuring that PEOPLE who buy your products, and those that want to but can't, have disposable income and start buying your products forces YOUR company to maintaint if not increase production to MEET demand.
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 But I do believe high taxes can also be a potential problem for businesses because if they have a meager amount of money, how are they to remunerate their workers? That is why I constantly encourage more investment in businesses, so in advance when sales begin to decline or they dont have enough products the invested money will be at hand and they can produce. Do you see what I mean? Putting more money in the hands of businesses is giving the businesses money to keep
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine Higher taxes is of course bad, but again many corporations are recording recording profits... what are they bitching about, really? Even with them bitching about taxing corporations to death... which is the mantra of conservative pundits, they sit on trillions... get that, TRILLIONS, and say they still need a tax break to hire. C'mon, if that isn't a rigged fucking game I don't know what is... while the middle class suffer...
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 A tax break so they can use the trillions that they hoard. Number 1 rule in a downfall, you do not raise taxes, but government has cleverly avoided that and the rich, in all, not just any certain percents pay 70% of all taxes. I dont see the fairness or sense in taxing the last of our wealthy people in a piss-poor economy like ours
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine Why do we need to subsidize their ability to hire? That makes no sense TN. They do not pay all the taxes... maybe a majority of the INCOME tax, but eveyone pays sales, and other use taxes, so that is a misnomer. Also, most people who don't pay taxes, when people who use that argument and don't understand, is because the statistics take in children and fixed income elderly. Kind of misleading... close to being a strawman.
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 Well, yes everyone does pay taxes, but with the tax rates on corporations there is no denying they pay a hell of a lot. And some pay taxes because they cant afford it, others get out of it, but thats a whole other story.
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
"And some pay taxes because they cant afford it, others get out of it, but thats a whole other story."
Tends to only display your misunderstanding of how corporate taxes work in the first place.
garith21 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine "I dont see the fairness or sense in taxing the last of our wealthy people in a piss-poor economy like ours" Because they can afford it! No one is suggesting a 1960's erar 90% income tax rate. Please TN stop asserting some sense that we want to destroy the wealthy. We are suggesting that they profit off of all of us, and in a time of need, they should assist more as without the middle class, or the working people of this country, they wouldn't be shit.
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 But the problem is the wealthy do pay more taxes than they should and whatever we purchase or whatever bill we pass has not been beneficial to our economy. And like my solution with a simple cut, we can help middle class out. Give them and the poor opportunities. The rich earn their money, at least some do. But many people prattle on saying rich profit off of others when government encourages more taxation so others can profit off the rich. I think everyone should individually earn
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
"It is completely fallacious to say business just wants to make money and screw over other classes."
Businesses exist for the sole purpose of making money, unless they happen to be a non profit entity. Those are the entities that exist to provide a service or good at the lowest possible cost.
garith21 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 there money. I encourage nothing more than individualism
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TNovaccaine "Putting more money in the hands of businesses is giving the businesses money to keep..." You do see the irony right? Corporations are sitting on millions, but are not hiring... does that not go against this very post?
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 They don't hire because regulations and conditions of economy prevent that
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine That is unfounded... also the contradicting point, based on the argument that this administration is killing businesses because of what you state, that TRILLIONS are in the banks of companies, TRILLIONS in profit. You can't see the contradiction? If your argument is true, they wouldn't have trillions... they would be asking for another bail out! But in a way they are... through the whining and complaining about reducing THEIR tax rate, but fuck the rest of us... WTF?
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 It is completely fallacious to say business just wants to make money and screw over other classes. Businesses do not want to do anything with their money because they are perplexed and unaware of government's next action. They think is government gonna tax my money away and use it to pass another bill...I mean they have dreams too. Letting them invest their money to fortify economy for the lower classes is going to help as far as I can see
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
"because they are perplexed and unaware of government's next action. "
This is simply a retarded argument, even if we assumed for the sake of argument that it were true, can't you simply continue using this argument even if taxes were lowered? Ignoring completely the behavior of existing businesses don't really care much about taxes on claimed profits as far as how they operate, the indication this claim can always be used makes it seem dubious at best.
garith21 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 to pay workers and save for when sales begin to decline so they can boost production
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine But there is no hiring in this incident... but I can understand your point of rentention instead of layoffs.
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine Hiring people to generate a product that isn't in demand or has stagnant demand takes away from the profits of that company as you now have to pay for that 1 extra employee yet their is no increase in demand of your product which will be reflected with a lower profit margin for the week, month, quarter, etc...
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 I see your point. But the person still gets paid, but they do lose the job because if you dont get results you get fired
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine Exactly... and the only way to prevent that is to generate demand. And who are the ones that force demand??? The consumers... it always boils down to the consumers. If everyone was able to grow their own fruits and vegetables, do you think the farming industry would take a hit because consumer demand for their grown products are reduced. Only exotic fruits that can't grow in this country would sell...
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 SO, I think now is the time you and I give each others methods of demand. Although we probably went over it a couple times, I usually like to separate all issues into groups so we can talk mainly about one and not about everything at once you know?
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine Ok, i'll start. Businesses (large businesses who are making ridiculous profits) do not need a tax break. Small business do (but tend to fall to larger businesses). Maintain the tax breaks for the middle class and return the taxes for the wealthy to pre bush tax breaks. Remove all subsidies to any big oil companies, and companies that gross a means tested amount of profit.
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 That is why we need to eliminate government regulations, or at least SOME of them so they do not hinder and stifle competition. I encourage government regulation to prevent monopolies, but if you want my opinion, government has shown to be the most effective monopoly I've seen. I would advocate having the wealthy pay taxes, but more like a flat tax you know? I find that to be fair for all classes. And I agree to remove subsidies
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
"I find that to be fair for all classes."
Do you believe that lower income people spend more of their income on essentials than higher income people? If you do believe then it's hard to believe that it's "fair to all classes", if you don't then I'll have to call you insane or delusional. If you still believe in spite of that, I'd have to ask you why you continue to believe it.
garith21 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine Which regulations can you show to correlate to curb corporation expansion (the pretty word for job creation... LOL)? The ones pertaining to china and trade... i'm all in agreeance sir. Flat tax is not fair... or are you refering to a flat tax at differing income levels? A progressive flat tax, OK, we're on to something, but when taxing... we have to consider the cost to live (ie goods).
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 Not so much regulations, more liabilities. Higher taxes lead to less desire to pay them, ya see? I am neutral in flat taxes because some may not have a high enough income to pay, that is why we keep it low, so more can pay it.
TNovaccaine 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TNovaccaine
" that is why we keep it low, so more can pay it."
But there's people that "currently pay no income taxes" that have issues just paying their bills, many of which also can't even afford to put food on the table that also work. So to accommodate those people you want a 0% income tax for everyone?
garith21 1 week ago
@TNovaccaine Such as the idiocy of CAINS 999 BS plan. While the impoverish, who barely make it by, have an increase of 4-6% effective tax rate, the uber wealthy get a 25+% decrease. I understand the premise that the uber wealthy will create jobs to help those who are being taxed more. But apparently we see that that is the biggest fallacy purported... As I stated before, nothing binds them to hire if tax breaks are given. That trickle down has damaged this economy, and 2 wars!!!
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 Do to there being two completely different tax brackets, a cut would affect them differently. If tax breaks are given there is more investment which will lead to more jobs in businesses, but you need to cut taxes on lower classes to increase demand first so what businesses create can be purchased. The trickle down has been the only benefit to our economy since the 1960's, there is no doubt in my mind it can occur again.
TNovaccaine 1 week ago
@TNovaccaine TN... ask anyone, giving corporations does not encourage employment. How can you force a corporation to hire if you give them money but there is no more demand for the product then before money was given? You can't. Giving money to the middle class GAURANTEES money injection for goods in services... that is where companies need to keep up with the demands of the consumers and will hire to keep of with production... Get what I mean?
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 That is why we need to supply the lower classes with money so we can increase demand, start selling products and creating more. My method of recovery includes success mostly in MC. More money placed in economy strengthens it, if you see what I mean, if you need me to reiterate I will. I don't see how your words differ from mine though. We have the same ideas just different ways of putting them into action. I am not saying the money of the rich will rain on Mc, KJ, I am
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine I see what your saying, the only problem is, all three things do not and can not happen at a singular moment. 1 of those things (demand, supply, production) can happen first. Demand has to be the first thing that has to increase... and that is why I focus on giving money to the middle class more so than the uber wealthy/corporations. Remember, they are already sitting on TRILLIONS, they DO NOT need ANY subsidising...
kingjust627 2 weeks ago
@kingjust627 But my methods are by giving more cuts to the rich, it is encouraging them to make more investments and strengthen economy, mainly for middle class workers. I dont believe in subsidies
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
"But my methods are by giving more cuts to the rich, it is encouraging them to make more investments and strengthen economy"
Investments don't really force hiring in big companies does it, companies still operate by the idea of supply and demand, if I have $500 million dollars in my corporate account and not doing anything with it (like many are) how is you giving me a cut on taxes going to change that?
garith21 2 weeks ago
@garith21A) Actually it encourages a faster moving economy as well as a business for hiring. More money for a business means they have more money to place into production, as well as they can use it to pay a worker.
B) If investors did not have the fear that all of their money would be wasted on programs that hardly help anybody, or bills that just place us deeper in debt, or abortions that may go against a taxpayer's beliefs, whatever the case may be, a cut is basically giving them
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
A) but it doesn't, because corporate taxes are applied after business expenses...in other words if they spend more money in production and paying their workers, the less taxes they pay.
B) This "fear" doesn't really change even if taxes were lowered, it's not like there's anything stopping people from raising taxes after the fact, it's a bogus argument to say they don't invest because of fear because it's a supposed constant regardless of current tax rates.
garith21 2 weeks ago
@garith21 A) Exactly what I advocate, except with a cut, which is less of a burden on the corporations and more of a benefit to economy.
B)But you have to place yourself in the rich's shoes, they are confused as to what to do now because going forward with their money is dangerous. Exposing that will give government advantages and that is a risk the rich just do not want to take, nor others that advocate higher investment
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
A) But, corporate taxes only care about the claimed profits which is AFTER all expenses, corporate taxes don't really change operating costs like you seem to think it does.
B) If I'm rich I don't really operate speculating on what the government might do, because that's pointless speculation, even if you lower my taxes today you still MIGHT raise my taxes tomorrow. I care more about what the market does, not the government and the market requires consumption.
garith21 2 weeks ago
@garith21 A) I don't know why you talk about what goes through the mind of the corporate business leaders. You seem to try to figure out what they think, when truly you haven't the first clue. You talk like you know what the business leaders think
B) I have encouraged nothing but free market but with the condition of the economy, interest rate is near 0, there is no economic growth whatsoever. If the market does such a good job under high taxes, where is the success?
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
A) Because it's basic business operating procedure, if you ran a business and you made more product than you could sell would you hire more workers or fire workers? Extra product is wasted money so you will likely fire workers. If you constantly sell out you're looking to expand quicker to meet the huge demand. What you tax my net profits after all my expenses really doesn't change this at all.
garith21 2 weeks ago
@garith21 I don't see how making superfluous amounts of product for a corporate business winds up with laying people off, I see higher taxes on a business in which they have to pay with the money they originally intended to be used for paying their workers, being a problem. It is not like they are putting their products are being sold anyway
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago
@TNovaccaine
"I don't see how making superfluous amounts of product for a corporate business winds up with laying people off"
Because making too much excessive product that doesn't sell is simply lost money, if you can't use the labor in selling the product or making the product effectively because that excess product is simply a loss that means that labor is also a loss to the business. As a business your objective to maximize profits is minimize losses.
garith21 2 weeks ago
@garith21 Yeah well newsflash...shit happens. Do you really expect everything to fall perfectly into place minus the hardships.... that is how the world is ran. If something doesn't sell, it don't sell, but does that mean EVERYTHING in this business is not going to sell? It is like me saying government will never invest into infrastructure with taxed money, look at my method without the doubts.
TNovaccaine 1 week ago
@TNovaccaine
" If the market does such a good job under high taxes, where is the success?"
Taxes on claimed profits have no real effect on the success, what does have an effect is the demand for your product or service. Initial starting requires capital yes, but you're admitting that most rich people tend to only invest in existing companies which don't really affect their demand at all.
garith21 2 weeks ago
@garith21 The money earned by the wealthy can go into the creation of other businesses. And what does taxes on the claimed profits have to do with how the market operates? Market is being held back, we need to encourage free market and more investment in private industry because that does ultimately boost economic growth
TNovaccaine 2 weeks ago