The fact of the matter is that tax cuts do not automatically create jobs. The extra money generated by tax cuts must be spent purchasing products or services by the recipients of those cuts in order for jobs to be created.
The only argument hear is that Obama wants the tax cuts to expire for only some and not all. The GOP wants the cuts to stay in place for ALL. If the GOP will not choose to raise taxes only on the wealthy then everyone will be taxed higher?? People this is a dumb argument, no1 needs to be taxed more in the state our economy is in. Do you think raising taxes on the wealthy will benefit the middle class?? NO!!!! Those wealthy people will send more jobs overseas and avoid taxes all together!!
hey Goolsbee, you're horribly deceptive. the Republican plan is not to "give" ANY cuts. it is to MAINTAIN the CURRENT cuts. understand the logic there? don't worry, I know you do, you just ignore it.
no wonder the economy is just getting worse, with people like you playing economic advisor of it all.
@Frettsy Yes, its to maintain tax cuts that have been in place for years. But, if you have notice, these tax cuts have not stimulated the economy. In fact, we now have a deficit and are in a crippling recession.
A lot of people talk about giving the rich incentive to contribute to the economy. It doesn't work. They had these amazing tax cuts in place for a large part of the past decade, but that didn't give them incentive. Instead they sent jobs overseas and cut corners to make even MORE money
@fizzychizzy well, for one thing, I wasn't debating whether the tax cuts were effective, I was only pointing out that Goolsbee is a liar, but I'm glad you agree with that.
however, the tax cuts did not create this recession. it was loose fiscal policy (spend spend spend) coupled with the Community Reinvestment Act (crushed the housing market which crushed the economy), entitlement/welfare programs consuming half the budget, etc.
@fizzychizzy btw, it shows that sense of entitlement when people say it is "giving the rich incentive" to not raise their taxes. who made the money in the first place? why is it your (or anybody else's) place to "give them" their own money?
@Frettsy I am only touting the rhetoric that has been behind tax cuts in this country. First, people say we shouldn't tax them because they will reinvest the money in the economy, create jobs, etc. Whenever I hear people in favor of tax cuts, that is one of their reasons for supporting.
But thanks for pointing something out. It is the prerogative of the people who earn that money. They have chose NOT to reinvest it in the economy. SO that should not be used as a excuse any longer.
@Frettsy Lets be real. They want to keep their money. They feel they shouldn't have to give their money up to government to pay for the things the government provides...like cops and fire fighters and infrastructure. I would have more respect for people if they just said things straight. Politicians sugar coat .
I never want to hear people use that tired view about the wealthy reinvesting cause they wont if they don't have to. And right now, a lot of them feel they don't have to.
@fizzychizzy of course "they" want to keep their money. how is that different than you or I? do you want to give all YOUR money away?
but the federal taxes are NOT for cops and firefighters, those are local. and I don't see the "rich" protesting the overwhelming local taxes, especially on the national level. do you? and really, the fedgov is not supposed to even be funding infrastructure projects, Constitutionally the market should dictate that.
@fizzychizzy people are protesting bailouts, entitlements, and mountains of wasteful spending. saying it's about "cops and firefighters" is pretty misleading.
I didn't say Clinton's average was 7%. I said Clinton's 7% was touted as "full employment" by the talking heads of the media during his re-election campaign. Try a reading comprehension course before feeling so great about not making things up. That's not really an accomplishment.
Let's not forget, that this little video completely fabricates that they're preventing a tax cut for the rich. These tax rates have been in place for almost a decade.
1. The tax rate change is ~ 5% and 5% of 1M is 50K not over 100K.
2. I believe the diameter of the circles is what is scaled to the tax change not the volume. I came to this conclusion based on the last two circles. The last one should be a little over 2 times the one before it and the diameter of the last circle looks about that. This makes the volume 4 times bigger which is a little deceptive.
I may be missing something key since I only spent ~ 15min.
think of it this way, the big red ball is one of the reasons if not the reason we're under a recession. so if you want more of the big red recession then vote GOP
Right, that makes sense. There was only soo much blue in washington that the red was powerless for over a year. did you get that change you were looking for? Did the flood waters recede and the mid east start just hugging each other. Nope. Everything got worse. Maybe it's because Obama's economic policy looks soo much like Bush's. But what do you care. Let's focus on party instead of something that matters.
"Right, that makes sense. There was only soo much blue in washington that the red was powerless for over a year." you had congress for 6 years and president for 8 years. "Did the flood waters recede and the mid east start just hugging each other." what does have to anything with this.
right, the GOP had congress and the presidency, and committed any number of leftist economic atrocities. over spending, corporate bailouts, and failing to convince the democrat minority to regulate the Mortgage mandates in 2004.
The point being, your guys had the opportunity to live up to their campaign hype, and all they did was more of the same. If you're thinking the blame for today rests in one party, you have your head up somebody else's ass, let alone your own.
@pimpdalyrical The GOP had the president and congress for 6 years can do what ever they wanted. what leftist economic atrocities we finally had congress and presidency for 2 years 2 years. corporate bailouts happen under GWB and the congress pass not because they want to they this to make sure US would not go second depression.
Yes, GWB spent too much and bailed out corporations. Obama spends too much and bailed out corporations, while taking them over. That's worse. Nobody ho has a legitimate beef with GWB's economic policy has any reason NOT to be just as mad at the Obama administration. Bailouts for banks may have stopped a depression. Auto union bailouts by buying GM, not soo much. They only faced bankruptcy, not dissolvement. Letting failed businesses fail creates market confidence. Its a good thing.
@pimpdalyrical Obama said it before once GM is better situation. Today GM will go from 66% government own to hopefully to 33% government own.
"They only faced bankruptcy, not dissolvement. Letting failed businesses fail creates market confidence. Its a good thing." we did try that way when let lehman brothers go into bankruptcy for the reaon the bailout under GWB happen to prevent a depression
@istraight1 33% government owned? It should be 0%.
the government that makes policy has no business having a financial stake in deciding market winners and losers. that like referees being allowed to bet on games they officiate. Lehman brother's went into bankruptcy, and the unemployment rate didn't change. The stockmarket had recovered completely, a year later. We take money from those that do things the right way to shore up those that don't, we get a potential depression.
"The stockmarket had recovered completely, a year later. We take money from those that do things the right way to shore up those that don't, we get a potential depression." the because governement intervention and there was no way GWB or Obama would let a great depression happen under there watch. The government does not choose winner or losers. eventually GM will not be government own no more.
The only reason we will possibly see a depression was government intervention. The market can withstand Gm or a few banks going out of business. Their competitors will thrive. government taking a trillion dollars out of the market to pay them, kills everybody's bottom line. That money had to come from US. Ford got no help whatsoever, and has consistently turned a profit and built better cars. government is not the solution. You voting with your wallet is.
@pimpdalyrical "depression was government intervention." the reaon was there was no depression and the bailout was not free money anyway and had to pay it back. Ford did not get bailout and good for them. "few banks going out of business. Their competitors will thrive" we tried that way and we had great depression.
@istraight1 "we tried that way and we had great depression."
No, we had the great depression because the federal government's policy caused panic, and lead to EVERY bank failing. That wasn't a threat in this recession. It is now, because Obama can't ( really won't ) stop spending money he doesn't have.
@pimpdalyrical No we had great deperssion for the same reason we great recession bad loans. the great recession happen because there was to many subprime lending which became cool in th late 90's until market collapse. To make worse the banks with Credit default swap a insurance on a bad loan while insurance is regulated.
the subrpime loans weren't "Cool." they were mandated. You think the banks WANTED to make loans to people that could never pay it back? They LOST money on that deal. The only reason they ever broke even was two government entities were created to buy the crappy notes, package them, lie about their rating, then sell them on the stock market. Then Obama gives the two guys responsible economic advisory jobs in his administration. Oh, but it's "Bush's fault."
"the subrpime loans weren't "Cool." they were mandated." the bank were not force to anything. They implied that was good investment because they believe real estate would never prices will never fall.
"Obama gives the two guys responsible economic advisory jobs in his administration. Oh, but it's "Bush's fault."
It is bush fault gave obama a terrible plate and john mccain was going to lose anyway because the USA was outrage with GOP.
"Baa baa little sheep." sheep of fox telling me a sheep
You obviously were not paying attetnion over the last thirty years. The Carter administration enacted the Community Reinvestment Act under political pressure that lending institutions were acting racist, because not enough blacks qualified for home loans. This was a MANDATORY racial QUOTA that banks had to meet. The Clinton administration upped the quota.
Bush did many things that hurt us economically (leftist policy mind you) but the mortgage failure falls squarely on the demos.
@pimpdalyrical Community Reinvestment Act was in 1977 and subrime moratge came to be cool late1990's. Removing Glass–Steagall Act in 1999 which one good reason why this accelerate faster then it was.
The point being, it's useless to blame how the mortgages were handled, while ignoring the pandering, reckless policy that made them possible in the first place. Either way, it was government interfering in a free market, which generally has disastrous results.
And let's not forget, that it was a democrat controlled congress running the show when everything finally fell apart. And even then, we were in no danger of things getting as bad as they are now. He has fixed nothing. The car got into the ditch by turning left, and Obama's answer is to stomp on the accelerator. How long do things have to get worse before you admit it's what he wants?
"And let's not forget, that it was a democrat controlled congress running the show when everything finally fell apart." the economy was showing collapse around late 2006 already under GOP congress and president.
"Obama's answer is to stomp on the accelerator."
the economy has slowly got better the jobs have not been created fast enough because alot of jobs have been offshored and/or the preident and GOP House can not agree should not let tax cuts expire. Obama should move 250k to 3mill
@istraight1 "subrime moratge came to be cool late1990's"
Otherwise known as the clinton administration. It wasn't "cool." It was people who had no business getting a mortgage getting into homes they were told they could afford, when they really couldn't, per government mandate.
Only part of Glass Steagall was repealed in 99 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, signed into law by president Clinton. Besides, investment banks could already hold and trade those assets as derivitives.
"they could afford, when they really couldn't, per government mandate."
the government did not force any loans on the banks and credit default swap was created in the late 1990's which was insurance on bad loans. The banks called it credit defualt swaps instead of insurances for the government not regulate it. GOP created this law but Clintion should veto this bill
@istraight1 "the government did not force any loans on the banks"
Yes they did. Race based quotas. What percentage of minorities, especially blacks, do you think falls into the lower class catagory? THe CRA states that they faced fines and loss of banking licenses if an arbitrary percentage of minority applications are not approved.. the credit default swap was how they kept the banks from going under with all that bad paper they mandated. It had to give sometime, it just happened under Bush.
@pimpdalyrical again that bill was pass in 1977 and all these subprime mortgage around 1997. Credit Defualt Swap was new term created for government not regulate this new insurances by calling something else. The banks believe that real estate would never fall in value
They were "subprime" in 77 too, they just werent classified any differently. I don't know what you're getting at, but either way it was Carter's administration that initiated racial quotas for banks, or Clintons expansion of the program that caused this. 70% of the failing mortgages in those credit default swaps were subprime, a tool specifically designed to satisfy liberal mandates. Banks believed in their value, because Barney Frank testified they were sound.
@pimpdalyrical "a tool specifically designed to satisfy liberal mandates." there was no liberal mandate for anything the banks were wrong real estate can fall in price like everything else another reason why gave bad loans to. Barney Frank was not part of this. Which also help housing mania in the late 90s to economic collapse.
"Clintons expansion of the program that caused this" i agree by removing glass steagall act with GWB promoting Ownership society
Look it up yourself, up to $5,000 fine, and the regulatory agencies "are authorized to refuse to approve applications from financial institutions that do not meet the credit needs of their communities."
"No democrat interference into the mortgage industry to try and buy the low income minority vote" democrats were not even power until 2007 when had congress and control of the president and congress in 2009. It was GOP an there deregulation that started this.
Christ man, you said it yourself, the CRA happened in 1977! That was the beginning of the chain of events that lead to the current recession. Try and keep up here.
I own my own business. I'm the employer. Take it from me like you would any employer out there. When the government is guaranteeing that more of the money my business makes will be confiscated and used merely delay the inevitable collapse of businesses under their unfunded liabilities, I have no reason to invest in growing my employee base. I do what's necessary to keep the doors open, and wait for a government that isn't a threat.
"the money my business makes will be confiscated and used merely delay the inevitable collapse of businesses under their unfunded liabilities" what do mean by this like taxation and usually it big corperation who benfit more tax cuts the the small business. To me they should the let taxes cuts expire who make at least 2 or 3 million dollars to not effect small business.
Right. Big government doesn't fight the corporations. See, the big guys can't become the monopoly you fear without legislation. you granting more power to decide winners and losers in the market is what they want, it's how they limit competitive small guys like me. 250k income is nothing when you're talking about a small business, with a million worth of inventory that I have to claim as growth. Big government is hurts the consumer, it doesn't protect them.
@pimpdalyrical "Big government is hurts the consumer, it doesn't protect them."
government can also help by giving small business the upper hand.
"See, the big guys can't become the monopoly you fear without legislation"
but government has laws to like antitrust acts to remove big monoplies and usually big corporations get upper hand by giving alot money for there campaigns in return lobbying for them.
Republicans: Of the stupid, For the Wealthy and By the Greedy. That's all republicans are. They make the rich richer and try to confuse the ignorant public by arguing stupid "moral" issues. Similar with religion. Crowd control through fear and ignorance. TAX THE RICH! Nevermind this 500K crap. If you make over 100K you need to start paying more taxes, As your salary increases, you pay an increasing amount. PERIOD. End of FUCKIN LIST!
Would cost?! This Marxist moron really sees it all as his money! That's insane... You don't borrow anything to let people keep more of their own money. What the hell is he talking about?! I certainly trust the private sector to create jobs more efficiently than austan & co. They have no understanding of how an economy works. Markets create jobs, not politicians. That's the only way it's ever worked.
@ThePOCKETKINGS because you dont take enough money in taxes to cover the costs, therefore you have to go to china and ask for more money to pay for tanks and schools, thats why you have to borrow! didnt glenn beck tell you this?
many need to realize some things they complain about are a moral issue, not political. to think that the super wealthy being taxed like a few percent more if going to screw up the job market is naive. the rich have more to lose, more to comfortably sacrifice comfortable for the betterment of others including their business.
they just dont want to because they want to maintain their annual massive income. thus they are more inclined to lay off than hire.
For a great rebuttal to this look up "Austan Goolsbee Vs. 6 Yr old Josh" .. A cute, funny and simple response with plain child like common sense logic.
The tax revolt is coming. People will not quit paying taxes completely. We need the military. Revenues will drop by about 75% starting in January, 2011,
The federeal government will have to quit spending or will have to print money fast enough to bring down the economy entirely. Monetizing the debt is what is coming anyway, may as well bring in on new. Sooner rather than later
@TAMARLANE We see it already. Soldiers in the field getting substandard equipment, vets coming back and not getting the care they need. Folks complain about early parole but hey it saves money if we close jails. "Quit spending" is easy to say but hard to actually pull off without destroying jobs and lives.
Pimpdalyrical says"Objective economists know that lowering those taxes for the "super rich" will create jobs you jackass, and it;'s an established fact that the government will take in more revenue."
P, perhaps you've been in a coma? THE TAXES WERE LOWERED for the "super rich", several years ago. What was that you were saying about job creation and revenue? and established facts?
But, hey, let's not let it expire- it is working so well. (Especially for profiteers who ship jobs overseas.)
The taxes were lowered for everybody numbnuts, and they worked. Or did you not notice how a terrorist attack on our economy didn't crush us?
Did we forget the mortgage industry timebomb, the democrat tax hike promises that hit when they took congress, and the liberal spending habits of Bush's second term?
Tax cuts for job producers (you call them evil rich guys) help the economy. Always have. Not one single dollar of theirs would be in your pocket if they had a higher tax rate.
Right immer, the taxes were lowered and we avoided a recession after a terrorist attack on our economic system. We had those tax cuts for 6 years of growth, no recession til the democrats took power. You apparently didn't get your DNC update. The spin is that de-regulation caused the collapse, not low taxes.
Oh, and next time, have the balls to hit the reply button.
It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and resolve all doubt. ~Abraham Lincoln
I am amazed at the enthusiasm with which people expose their stupidity. CSJ, I propose that if you really were making less money than people on welfare you probably had a pretty lousy job. You probably had a lousy job because, you know, you're not real smart. You appear to have a need to blame someone - be less afraid of welfare moms and more afraid of welfare executives.
In Affectionate Love, this is union thug mentality. Pretty simple, isn't it? Before a government can giveth, a government must FIRST taketh away. True, the $ bills, with all its N.W.O. symbology that has been so publicized belongs to them, by all labels, decorations in flying colors. They are Federal Reserve Notes, good for PUBLIC and PRIVATE debts and they can ask for them back anytime they want. The trouble, is not the rich keeping too much, it's your SPENDING, and thus your DEBT...
..this is one reason the founders wanted limited government, and to keep the N.W.O. banker bag-boys out of this country with their $'s, but don't fret America, even after they continue to destroy the pillars of this nation, eventually calling in Red China to attack America [Ephrayim], justice shall be served - Yâ-hwéh Yâhuwshúa` shall ensure it, which is why it is written: render unto Kaesar what belongs to Kaesar, and to Yâ-hwéh what is Yâ-hwéh's. Tough times ahead, but PURE Light at its end.
THE RICH DO NOT PAY TAXES raising taxes on the rich is an easy way to get Americans to agree to a tax increase. The "rich" see taxes as an overhead when their taxes go up they simply pass it down to the middle class by charging more for their goods and services when the cost of business goes up the price of the goods produceds by the business goes up as well. So a tax increase is a tax increase and it will effect EVERYBODY!
@PostToastie DON'T WORRY, THE REPUBLICANS WILL COUGH UP THE ANTI-CHRIST AND THE ILLUMINATI WILL APPOINT HIM PREZ AND GOVT AGENTS WILL FORCE US TO BE MICRO-CHIPPED FOR ID PURPOSES AND THEN WE WILL ALL WAX NOSTALGIC FOR THE DAYS OF OBAMA. LOL
@PostToastie NO, IT WAS DESTROYED BY A FIRE AND COLLAPSED AFTER THE CENTRAL SUPPORTING COLUMN FELL. NOT EVERYTHING IS A CONSPIRACY BUT PARANOIA IS FUN, ISN'T IT? LOL
"If you have a single mother of two, the question needs to asked, why does she have two kids and no husband?. If you make your bed, you should sleep in it." Yes, Thomas Ingelend said that. I can think of many ways this philosophy is morally reprehensible. For example, that philosophy would A) encourage her to stay married to her husband even if he beats her. B) Be completely responsible for a man who runs out on her. C) Blame her if she is widowed and her husband dies. D) It punishes her kids.
@sriquinator It does no such a thing. You cannot honestly tell me that all of these "single mothers" are widows or victims of abuse. Most of them are women who failed to make good choices. Maybe they should stay off their back and keep the legs together instead of jumping in bed with every guy? Please, don't use the old liberal "for the children" line with me. If you care about the children, then we should take them away from her. Paying her for her kids punishes me for her choices.
"Again, I don't think the flat tax would be over 10%." Yea, except even proponents of the flat tax typically say they would tax 25% after 100,000. Or they would tax around 19% w w w .h o o v e r . or g /p u bli ca tion s/ bo o ks/83 2 9
@sriquinator I am not the typical proponent. Most of those still believe we should be manipulating people through the tax code. I think taxes are for financing the LEGITIMATE expenses of government, and NOT for controlling the free market. 10% should be more than enough to cover the cost of the FEDERAL government.
Basic economics teaches that more producer and consumer surplus is always a good thing... so why does the Whitehouse and it's current occupants feel that any American citizen shouldn't get to keep more of THEIR own money?
Newsflash: The government doesn't produce anything. American citizens do.
Support ANY and ALL tax cuts and urge government to tighten their belts to reduce costs instead of passing on their costs to citizens.
You know what kind of Government republicans want? an every man for himself government. The rich don't want to pay taxes. Let everyone else who actually works for a living do it instead. Bunch of greedy tofu eating bigots
Communist scum! Obama, news flash, keep tax rates at current levels does not increase the deficit ... your asinine, out of control, manic like spending DOES! You want to decrease the deficit (I know this is a hypothetical, since you don't want to), lower spending! If you don't have money, you don't spend money. Quit sending your goons to write crap on white boards for you; why don't you get up and tell everybody that they don't deserve their money because it's not really their's it's yours!
It's a shame you greedybastards you really don't know how stupid your comment sounds ........and it doesn't really matter to you how the poor people are living here..the land of the free ... more like a third world country. I would cut my own throat if I were you.. You've road our back long enough, pay up and shut the f up. One thing you can't do is take it with.. lol
you guys sound so stupid in your comments and full of greed....that's way America will never be free again....... money to you rule your mindless being. if you die today you can take it with you. greedya---
@sleeplesscgho lol, and morons like you who advocate stealing from others are not greedy? Get off your soap box, and re-evaluate your views ... a country isn't free when people are enslaved to the government
What a joke, vote these fools out! They expect that people really believe that the gov would have to borrow money to pay people for the lack of a tax hike?
How dare you talk to us as though we are ignorant! This is why the President's and Congress' ratings are down the tubes. It's really hard for me to be a lady right now I am so furious! You are not GIVING the "wealthy" anything. You are stealing from them. You did not earn that money...they did. How dare you think we Americans are o.k. with raping the rich to pay for your spending spree? Among other things, you are a bunch of economic ignoramus's. I am so disgusted with my government...
Let me translate this for you. Obama and Congress want to RAISE taxes by the amount shown by the HUGE pink circles. In other words they are going to raise taxes by over 700 billion dollars. The people at the bottom get nothing. If the average private sector job is $100,000 per year, then this will COST AMERICANS 7 MILLION JOBS! His is right about one thing, the people at the bottom will not have to pay increased taxes since they will be unemployed. Not very smart.
The antidote to this propaganda is on this website at /watch?v=uyW8US8qeDM It clearly explains why the gov't steals from the rich and gives to the slightly less rich. It's called 'Director's Law of Public Income Redistribution' and it is an empirical law, not a theoretical one. God help you if your really poor!
More lies from the democrats. This does not cost Americans one dime. The whole video are liberal lies from start to stop. I can't wait until November 2nd!
Austan you are a knob, you act like you are talking about your $. If you did not earn it it's not yours. In reality, I would like to see all americans not pay any taxes at all. I vote that the time is come to say FU to the Government and STARVE THE BEAST
And of course what all these people jabbering back and forth about the Laffer curve are too silly to point out is that while yes it can be true particularly in a thriving economy and with smaller cuts, I don't care ONE IOTA if the government is able to extort just as much money. In fact I hope that they do not.
Let the people keep their own property...it's implied slavery otherwise.
Wow! That's quite an absolute, unsupported statement. "Ask any objective economist, and they'll tell you these tax cuts are the least effective thing we can do to get the economy growing."
Does he know he's lying, or is he just delusional? I don't think he meant to say *objective* economist. An objective economist would laugh in his face for saying something so idiotic. He must mean "ask a fanatical leftist economist who is only loosely based in reality."
This surprises you? These are the same guys that will look you dead in the eye and tell you every climatologist belives man made CO2 is effecting global climate.
Desptie how many have sued the authors of the one report that all the hype is based on, and the only science they have being that it's gotten a little warmer, sporadically.
Hell, they're still riding the "Bush did it" train!
Objective economists know that lowering those taxes for the "super rich" will create jobs you jackass, and it;'s an established fact that the government will take in more revenue. So combined with the sensible repeal of some of Obama's obscene spending policies, the government can come out way ahead.
Nice white wash of how the 200k - 500k bracket is gonna get less of a break too. Their only the biggest job providers.
@pimpdalyrical "it;'s an established fact that the government will take in more revenue." I assume you are referring to Laffer's curve. There is no scientific data supporting the notion that we are on the right side of Laffer's curve.
Actually, there is historical evidence for this. including the US gov'ts own financial records during Reagan and Bush Jr, Before and after the great depression, and even the Roaring 20's. Plus, the CBO's own 2005 report, and Laffer's data on Russia and the Baltic states. Plus, being that the nations biggest problem is that there's not enough money in the PEOPLE'S pocket, a move to the left on the Laffer curve is warranted regardless.
@pimpdalyrical You are not accounting for the fact that Laffer's curve, itself, is not static. There are various studies showing that when the government increases public consumption, public investment, and to a lesser extent public transfers, it shifts the peak of the curve to the right, and actually raises the height of the curve. During the Reagan years increases in tax revenue were actually more shallow than previous and preceding years. There is no evidence that 'we' are on the right slope.
How does the government increase public consumption? Making things more expensive with extra taxes, or less?
Leaving people with less take home pay from their jobs? That won't work.
How do you spur investment? Historically, you drop the Cap. gains tax. Obama has the opposite idea. Reagans' shotgun approach would have done better had it been targeted, but at least he was going the right way.
@pimpdalyrical -obama knows this well. He is on tape with hiliary during the primary stating that he knows but "he would still consider raising the capital gains in the interest of fairness". Translated, I don't care what it does to the economy and America....my "spread it around" agenda takes priority over all.
No, Reagan was at 20% Capital Gains tax, and BUSH was at 20% captial gains tax. BUSH had unemployment averaging 5%, which is less than Clinton's media extolled "Full employment" of 7%.
Expanding a business and hiring more people is an INVESTMENT you make based on how much it will earn you in the future. NObody is hiring now, because ever sincle liberals took power they have been promising to make investing in people less profitable.
@pimpdalyrical "There's only one reason to hire somebody... That's the only reason their should be. Grow up, get over it, and start working with reality instead of against it." Well I didn't resort to personal attacks but you seem to have done so. Yep, that is true, which is precisely why tax cuts for the rich won't directly translate to more jobs, you actually just restated what I said before. How about you grow up, you unscrupulous, sophomoric, covetous imp.
I meant people in general, not attacking you personally.
We're not talking about Tax cuts for the rich, the tax rate discussed in this video has been in place already for Ten years. However, Nobody gets a job from a poor person. If you want to do some work for somebody and get paid for it, they have to have extra money lying around to begin with. As long as this is still a country based on freedom, "Extra money" is not just what's left after an amount set by Washington.
@pimpdalyrical "Nobody is hiring now, because ever since liberals took power they have been promising to make investing in people less profitable." More scare tactic nonsense. As for your employment rates. Bush Jr. 4.7-5.8, Clinton 6.9-4.0, Bush Sr. 5.3-7.5, Reagan 7.6-5.3 (yes, I am not too partisan to compliment Reagan on keeping unemployment low), Carter 7.1-7.6, Ford 5.6-7.1, Nixon 3.5-5.6. Yeah don't make up your numbers, unemployment rates when they came into office and then passed on.
@pimpdalyrical Laffer himself has also stated that his curve doesn't really apply to those who aren't rich. Those who are rich in this country have money, but they don't want to invest it in a shaky market, use it for consumption, or hire more workers for personal businesses. What the frightening trend is, is that they are just sticking it in their savings account, with remarkably low interest rates.
The curve doesn't apply because the rich are the only one's paying significant proportions of taxes, and generate the wealth in the first place, effecting the economy .
The "rich" aren't investing it, because Washington is looming like a guy in a ski mask outside your front door, promising to take what you make off it. The jobs we need, are the ones that exist to help make other people more money. There's nothing wrong with it, the libs just need to get over it.
@pimpdalyrical "The "rich" aren't investing it, because Washington is looming like a guy in a ski mask outside your front door, promising to take what you make off it. The jobs we need, are the ones that exist to help make other people more money. There's nothing wrong with it, the libs just need to get over it." That is scare tactic nonsense, you completely departed from arguments of reason with that little bit.
Care to explain why? Or you just want to rant and deny the reality of human nature some more?
Businesses exist to make money, period. We need businesses, because the government can't employ everybody, not even a majority of people, and be sustainable.
There's only one reason to hire somebody: The more money they will make for you. That's it. That's the only reason their should be. Grow up, get over it, and start working with reality instead of against it.
this is about making the tax rate more fair for ALL Americans. Why does some rich dude pay only about 35 percent in federal income tax when I pay about 38 percent? That ain't right. We should both pay either 35 percent or 38 or whatever tax rate we decide on. It should be the same. PERIOD!
If thats what it is all about, then that big red circle would be the same size as the blue ones lol. The government must think most of us are stupid to give a presentation like this using circles.
I don't think your getting the point here. The circles don't represent the % of tax people pay, in fact they don't even represent the tax that people pay. They represent the tax that people don't pay. Say someone makes 100,000 and they get a 10% tax break, then the blue circle would represent 10,000. Someone making 5,000,000 with a 10% tax break would save 500,000 which the red circle represents (thats bigger than blue!). I guess the government underestimated your stupidity
I understand what the market is about. I interned in a stock brokerage years ago as well. I have a sister who would like to add two employees to her medical practice in Missouri. She and the Doctor she's partners with can't do it because of the uncertainty of employee health care plans, not to mention what the new health care laws are going to do to their business.
Your assertions are ridiculous. Nobody adjusts their work force based on fear of income tax. Businessmen add to their workforce based on if their is a greater demand for their service or product. No businessman is going to increase their overhead costs (by increasing their workforce), if their is no increased profitability from it. People don't hire other people out of the goodness of their heart, they do it to increase profit. This is not a critique of capitalism, itisthe nature of the market.
omg mercy...the man is an idiot for sure like those they try to "white wash!!" Every suppostion can so easily be miscontrued, etc..it is up to each one of us to weed through all the BS!
'Lammot du Pont complained in 1937, "Uncertainty rules the tax situation, the labor situation, the monetary situation, and practically every legal condition under which industry must operate." '
I've been hearing business people say this for the past year. They can't make any hiring or expansion plans unless they know these idiots won't pull the rug out from under them. It's that simple.
@Hiker58 The only uncertainty is that pushed by those who do not want their taxes increased, the richest 1% of Americans. This does not hurt hiring practices directly, this does not hurt business directly. These people want their revenue preserved and it is as simple as that. If there was more revenue to be made by hiring more people they would do it, if there wasn't they won't.
Listen at 1:03 "$700 Billion that we would have to borrow to give it" . I don't make squat for a living but that sure sounds like redistribution of wealth to me. What is this the second coming of the Soviet Union? No wonder business is afraid to invest in new employees. And it's not about increased profit, it's about staying in business at all.
@Hiker58 "What is this the second coming of the Soviet Union? No wonder business is afraid to invest in new employees." The business sector doesn't invest in new employees, because there isn't enough consumer demand for goods and services to justify a increase in overhead for many companies. Taxes are applied after all the profit and costs of operation. Even if your taxes cut too much into profitability, you would hire, if it increased profitability..
Saddest piece of bullshit I seen in a long time. If ur stinking rich theres plenty of ways to not pay taxes. There is no consensus amongst economists that this is the best solution. If u want the economy to grow? Cut the taxes. Simple as that
It would only make sense that a tax cut should benefit those who pay the most taxes. Poor people don't create jobs and to punish the "rich" even more when they already contribute to over 96% of all federal tax revenue will only prevent any economic recovery from happening. A tax reduction across ALL in conjunction with dramatically reduced spending is the key to prosperity. However, those in control of the spending never ask how to reduce it they only ask how to generate more cash flow.
@madhatter0110 Businesses create jobs (especially small businesses), not rich people. Taxing luxury is more fair than taxing reasonable or necessary cash, which is why it is fair that the wealthy have a higher percent tax burden.
Blanket tax and service reductions are not a key to prosperity - they're a key to failing infrastructure, an end to education, social injustices, and eventually a third-rate society. Government should be efficient and effective, not emaciated.
@pgunn01 Education and social issues are to be left to the states and any federal involvement in either one is unconstitutional. Therefore, no "third-rate society" would result if federal spending and taxes were greatly reduced as they need to be. Furthermore, your definition of fair punishes those such as small businesses the most because not only do those who earn get penalized with higher taxes but it removes the incentive to earn. Rich people are the only ones who create jobs.
@madhatter0110 "Education and social issues are to be left to the states and any federal involvement in either one is unconstitutional." Well you actually see a interesting trend when studying federal taxes spent by state vs federal taxes received by state. If we were to leave spending on social and educational issues to the states, you would actually see the south, midwest, the south west and alaska having a lot less money to work with.
@madhatter0110 If you want to talk constitutionality, talk to a constitutional scholar. Unless you are one, your words don't really have any weight.
Your "therefore" statement does not follow - even were we to accept your (faulty) premise, there's no reason to accept the conclusion you suggest.
Small businesses are not affected by this. This is both obvious (in that individual and business taxes are different) and suggested by academic economists.
@pgunn01 It does not take a scholar to interpret the US Constitution. If you would take the time and read it for yourself--especially the 10th Amendment, you would see that all powers not delegated to the federal government are to be left to the states. Those who consider the US Constitution a "faulty premise" are not worthy to live in the USA.
@madhatter0110 It does take a scholar to understand law in general. Without an adequate foundation in Common Law and the legal traditions (and history!) of Britain, it's easy to come to misunderstandings about how our government works or was founded. I am familiar with the 10th amendment, of course, but the hundreds of years of nuance, argument, and context belong to the scholars.
It is not for you to decide who is worthy to live in the US.
How's "globalism" working out for you America? Isn't it fun having monopolies run our govt. and lives by forcing us to compete with wage slaves from around the world? It's a race to the bottom supported by both "choices" of political parties. Don't love your country because that is "protectionism", and we all know one should not want to protect American interests, right? Of course in the "globalists'" excuse for a mind, you can't be a "protectionist" of the illegitimate, "global" govt.
More partisan misinformation in the form of a giant straw man arguement that purposefully ignores the real issue, wage inequality.
Rather than argue about how to redistribute what the thieves have stolen, why is no one talking about how to prevent the thieves from robbing us in the first place?
The reason our monetary system is so screwed up is because money is created by unelected, counterfeit operations, "legalized" by our corrupt govt. from both sides of the isle. They are central banks.
What Marxist crud; IT'S OUR MONEY! They think these tax cuts are the government money? Get your priorities straight; people make money, they should keep it and only pay enough tax to keep the govt going. This govt (all parties) spends every dollar it gets, borrows more and then cries poor. They are a bunch addicts, giving money to friends, buying votes with YOU as the HOST and they as the parasites.
I do not accept the guilt trip. The Govt is the greedy party here.
@Richdevens4 We are the government, in the America I know. Don't like how it is run? Think about who you vote into office, and once they are in there ... support them.
President Obama was voted in for four years by a majority. There are two years left. He asked that we hold him accountable, and we will in 2012.. That is the main difference from the last administration, who still shuns any accountability for the policies and actions that have put us in this ditch.
@Richdevens4 Well the next time a criminal breaks into your house, steals everything you own, rapes a loved one, kills all your pets, and there are no police to then come and save you because you didn't want to pay taxes, blame that on Marxist views too while your at it. lol
I have been working with GSS data, and performed a simple tabulate on rincom06 (individual income in 06) and class. Of the respondents making over 150,000 a year 20 said they were upper class, 40 middle class, and 6 working class. Really, working class?
One example of why rich people should pay a larger percent of their taxes is because of the externality of costs, and their benefit being much larger by the government bearing these costs. These include such things as systemic risks, pollution, public investment + public consumption, transportation, education, lowering relative wages, health costs, transfer payments being much larger, ect
@tmhunter7 Small businesses are rarely owned by rich people. Allowing the tax cuts on the very wealthy to expire would have negligible effect on growth, and it is a responsible way to prevent our budget deficit from becoming worse than it already is.
@pgunn01 Big businesses employ a lot of people just as small businesses do. Plus, the government is redefining the term 'rich' by lowering the required earnings to be lower and lower all the time. Pretty soon, I will be considered rich.
Perhaps the government should live within their means instead of punishing successful people.
@tmhunter7 Yes, but corporate taxes are different - this is on individual earnings, and the academic consensus is that allowing the individual tax rate on the very wealthy to rise will not impact employment significantly.
I don't believe you're correct regarding "redefining the term rich" - the term is not used in the law - the tax brackets and thresholds have not been shifted downward.
Tax is not punishment. It is duty. The means of government *is* taxation.
@tmhunter7 What are you talking about? The tax brackets have been static for many years and there has been no redefinition of tax boundaries. However, the top 1% of tax earners have a larger percentage of American wealth, a trend that has been gradually increasing over the last half century. In addition their tax percentage has decreased over this time. The claim by conservatives that the definition of "who is rich" is expanding is a ridiculous talking point.
@Wolfiemouse I am generally content to go with broad academic consensus on matters like this - specialised knowledge takes years to accumulate - it's not the kind of thing that people outside the field can pick up on the spot. I work in a different technical field, and it would not be remotely easy for me to explain topics in my field to people outside it. Economics is the same way, which is why broad academic consensus (not newsfolk!) is what we go with.
@tyu3456 - obviously another libtard who doesn't know how to read!!!! CUT $700 Billion in government spending! Heck, they should cut a heck of a lot more than that! Government is so OVER BLOATED right now!!! We are already are so over taxes right now and I understand that you being a dummy libtard doesn't understand that Income isn't the only tax we pay, we pay fuel tax, utility tax, state tax, sales tax, property tax, import tax (on nearly everything we buy), and the list goes on....
@adelyn123 I know full well about those taxes - it turns out I pay them as well. I also know that the "conservative" (not!) Republicans will not do a better job of cutting spending than Democrats, or as you call them "libtards" In fact, in my view a third political party is badly needed right now but that's not gonna happen anytime soon.
@adelyn123 Most 1st world countries tax their wealthy people a lot more than the United States does. In the first world the United States is often considered a haven for rich people.
The fact of the matter is that tax cuts do not automatically create jobs. The extra money generated by tax cuts must be spent purchasing products or services by the recipients of those cuts in order for jobs to be created.
insxobj 1 year ago
Rename this guy Goebbels. This is nothing but b.s. propaganda. Anyone who understands anything about economics knows that this guy is full of crap.
PHenry500 1 year ago
He talks as if giving a tax cut is the same as government giving somone money. thats not true. it means governments takes less not gives more.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
The only argument hear is that Obama wants the tax cuts to expire for only some and not all. The GOP wants the cuts to stay in place for ALL. If the GOP will not choose to raise taxes only on the wealthy then everyone will be taxed higher?? People this is a dumb argument, no1 needs to be taxed more in the state our economy is in. Do you think raising taxes on the wealthy will benefit the middle class?? NO!!!! Those wealthy people will send more jobs overseas and avoid taxes all together!!
lamiac2411 1 year ago
hey Goolsbee, you're horribly deceptive. the Republican plan is not to "give" ANY cuts. it is to MAINTAIN the CURRENT cuts. understand the logic there? don't worry, I know you do, you just ignore it.
no wonder the economy is just getting worse, with people like you playing economic advisor of it all.
ya lying douchebag.
Frettsy 1 year ago
@Frettsy Yes, its to maintain tax cuts that have been in place for years. But, if you have notice, these tax cuts have not stimulated the economy. In fact, we now have a deficit and are in a crippling recession.
A lot of people talk about giving the rich incentive to contribute to the economy. It doesn't work. They had these amazing tax cuts in place for a large part of the past decade, but that didn't give them incentive. Instead they sent jobs overseas and cut corners to make even MORE money
fizzychizzy 1 year ago
@fizzychizzy well, for one thing, I wasn't debating whether the tax cuts were effective, I was only pointing out that Goolsbee is a liar, but I'm glad you agree with that.
however, the tax cuts did not create this recession. it was loose fiscal policy (spend spend spend) coupled with the Community Reinvestment Act (crushed the housing market which crushed the economy), entitlement/welfare programs consuming half the budget, etc.
Frettsy 1 year ago
@fizzychizzy btw, it shows that sense of entitlement when people say it is "giving the rich incentive" to not raise their taxes. who made the money in the first place? why is it your (or anybody else's) place to "give them" their own money?
Frettsy 1 year ago
@Frettsy I am only touting the rhetoric that has been behind tax cuts in this country. First, people say we shouldn't tax them because they will reinvest the money in the economy, create jobs, etc. Whenever I hear people in favor of tax cuts, that is one of their reasons for supporting.
But thanks for pointing something out. It is the prerogative of the people who earn that money. They have chose NOT to reinvest it in the economy. SO that should not be used as a excuse any longer.
fizzychizzy 1 year ago
@Frettsy Lets be real. They want to keep their money. They feel they shouldn't have to give their money up to government to pay for the things the government provides...like cops and fire fighters and infrastructure. I would have more respect for people if they just said things straight. Politicians sugar coat .
I never want to hear people use that tired view about the wealthy reinvesting cause they wont if they don't have to. And right now, a lot of them feel they don't have to.
fizzychizzy 1 year ago
@fizzychizzy of course "they" want to keep their money. how is that different than you or I? do you want to give all YOUR money away?
but the federal taxes are NOT for cops and firefighters, those are local. and I don't see the "rich" protesting the overwhelming local taxes, especially on the national level. do you? and really, the fedgov is not supposed to even be funding infrastructure projects, Constitutionally the market should dictate that.
Frettsy 1 year ago
@fizzychizzy people are protesting bailouts, entitlements, and mountains of wasteful spending. saying it's about "cops and firefighters" is pretty misleading.
Frettsy 1 year ago
I'm hoping the rich will see this as a reason to spend their money.
GreenAvocadoGirl 1 year ago
P says: "The taxes were lowered for everybody numbnuts, and they worked."
Again, I question this individual's grasp on reality. Worked for whom?
Also, the 'numbnuts' thing should be saved for those occasions when you know you are addressing a male.
immer09 1 year ago
I didn't say Clinton's average was 7%. I said Clinton's 7% was touted as "full employment" by the talking heads of the media during his re-election campaign. Try a reading comprehension course before feeling so great about not making things up. That's not really an accomplishment.
Let's not forget, that this little video completely fabricates that they're preventing a tax cut for the rich. These tax rates have been in place for almost a decade.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
Two things stood out when I watched this
1. The tax rate change is ~ 5% and 5% of 1M is 50K not over 100K.
2. I believe the diameter of the circles is what is scaled to the tax change not the volume. I came to this conclusion based on the last two circles. The last one should be a little over 2 times the one before it and the diameter of the last circle looks about that. This makes the volume 4 times bigger which is a little deceptive.
I may be missing something key since I only spent ~ 15min.
icetheray 1 year ago
think of it this way, the big red ball is one of the reasons if not the reason we're under a recession. so if you want more of the big red recession then vote GOP
alulzmous 1 year ago
@alulzmous
The big blue mass of dumbasses in Washington is why we are in a recession, that could lead to a depression.
Instead of a mere downturn that would have corrected itself by now had they done nothing.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
The big red not blue mass of dumbasses in Washington is why we are in a recession, that could lead to a depression.
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1
Right, that makes sense. There was only soo much blue in washington that the red was powerless for over a year. did you get that change you were looking for? Did the flood waters recede and the mid east start just hugging each other. Nope. Everything got worse. Maybe it's because Obama's economic policy looks soo much like Bush's. But what do you care. Let's focus on party instead of something that matters.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
"Right, that makes sense. There was only soo much blue in washington that the red was powerless for over a year." you had congress for 6 years and president for 8 years. "Did the flood waters recede and the mid east start just hugging each other." what does have to anything with this.
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1
right, the GOP had congress and the presidency, and committed any number of leftist economic atrocities. over spending, corporate bailouts, and failing to convince the democrat minority to regulate the Mortgage mandates in 2004.
The point being, your guys had the opportunity to live up to their campaign hype, and all they did was more of the same. If you're thinking the blame for today rests in one party, you have your head up somebody else's ass, let alone your own.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical The GOP had the president and congress for 6 years can do what ever they wanted. what leftist economic atrocities we finally had congress and presidency for 2 years 2 years. corporate bailouts happen under GWB and the congress pass not because they want to they this to make sure US would not go second depression.
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1
Yes, GWB spent too much and bailed out corporations. Obama spends too much and bailed out corporations, while taking them over. That's worse. Nobody ho has a legitimate beef with GWB's economic policy has any reason NOT to be just as mad at the Obama administration. Bailouts for banks may have stopped a depression. Auto union bailouts by buying GM, not soo much. They only faced bankruptcy, not dissolvement. Letting failed businesses fail creates market confidence. Its a good thing.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical Obama said it before once GM is better situation. Today GM will go from 66% government own to hopefully to 33% government own.
"They only faced bankruptcy, not dissolvement. Letting failed businesses fail creates market confidence. Its a good thing." we did try that way when let lehman brothers go into bankruptcy for the reaon the bailout under GWB happen to prevent a depression
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1 33% government owned? It should be 0%.
the government that makes policy has no business having a financial stake in deciding market winners and losers. that like referees being allowed to bet on games they officiate. Lehman brother's went into bankruptcy, and the unemployment rate didn't change. The stockmarket had recovered completely, a year later. We take money from those that do things the right way to shore up those that don't, we get a potential depression.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
"The stockmarket had recovered completely, a year later. We take money from those that do things the right way to shore up those that don't, we get a potential depression." the because governement intervention and there was no way GWB or Obama would let a great depression happen under there watch. The government does not choose winner or losers. eventually GM will not be government own no more.
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1
The only reason we will possibly see a depression was government intervention. The market can withstand Gm or a few banks going out of business. Their competitors will thrive. government taking a trillion dollars out of the market to pay them, kills everybody's bottom line. That money had to come from US. Ford got no help whatsoever, and has consistently turned a profit and built better cars. government is not the solution. You voting with your wallet is.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical "depression was government intervention." the reaon was there was no depression and the bailout was not free money anyway and had to pay it back. Ford did not get bailout and good for them. "few banks going out of business. Their competitors will thrive" we tried that way and we had great depression.
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1 "we tried that way and we had great depression."
No, we had the great depression because the federal government's policy caused panic, and lead to EVERY bank failing. That wasn't a threat in this recession. It is now, because Obama can't ( really won't ) stop spending money he doesn't have.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical No we had great deperssion for the same reason we great recession bad loans. the great recession happen because there was to many subprime lending which became cool in th late 90's until market collapse. To make worse the banks with Credit default swap a insurance on a bad loan while insurance is regulated.
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1
the subrpime loans weren't "Cool." they were mandated. You think the banks WANTED to make loans to people that could never pay it back? They LOST money on that deal. The only reason they ever broke even was two government entities were created to buy the crappy notes, package them, lie about their rating, then sell them on the stock market. Then Obama gives the two guys responsible economic advisory jobs in his administration. Oh, but it's "Bush's fault."
Baa baa little sheep.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
"the subrpime loans weren't "Cool." they were mandated." the bank were not force to anything. They implied that was good investment because they believe real estate would never prices will never fall.
"Obama gives the two guys responsible economic advisory jobs in his administration. Oh, but it's "Bush's fault."
It is bush fault gave obama a terrible plate and john mccain was going to lose anyway because the USA was outrage with GOP.
"Baa baa little sheep." sheep of fox telling me a sheep
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1
You obviously were not paying attetnion over the last thirty years. The Carter administration enacted the Community Reinvestment Act under political pressure that lending institutions were acting racist, because not enough blacks qualified for home loans. This was a MANDATORY racial QUOTA that banks had to meet. The Clinton administration upped the quota.
Bush did many things that hurt us economically (leftist policy mind you) but the mortgage failure falls squarely on the demos.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical Community Reinvestment Act was in 1977 and subrime moratge came to be cool late1990's. Removing Glass–Steagall Act in 1999 which one good reason why this accelerate faster then it was.
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1
The point being, it's useless to blame how the mortgages were handled, while ignoring the pandering, reckless policy that made them possible in the first place. Either way, it was government interfering in a free market, which generally has disastrous results.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pimpdalyrical "Either way, it was government interfering in a free market"
i disagree i believe government should be regulating the market.
you believe in Austrian economic while believe in Keynesian economics
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1
And let's not forget, that it was a democrat controlled congress running the show when everything finally fell apart. And even then, we were in no danger of things getting as bad as they are now. He has fixed nothing. The car got into the ditch by turning left, and Obama's answer is to stomp on the accelerator. How long do things have to get worse before you admit it's what he wants?
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
"And let's not forget, that it was a democrat controlled congress running the show when everything finally fell apart." the economy was showing collapse around late 2006 already under GOP congress and president.
"Obama's answer is to stomp on the accelerator."
the economy has slowly got better the jobs have not been created fast enough because alot of jobs have been offshored and/or the preident and GOP House can not agree should not let tax cuts expire. Obama should move 250k to 3mill
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1 "subrime moratge came to be cool late1990's"
Otherwise known as the clinton administration. It wasn't "cool." It was people who had no business getting a mortgage getting into homes they were told they could afford, when they really couldn't, per government mandate.
Only part of Glass Steagall was repealed in 99 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, signed into law by president Clinton. Besides, investment banks could already hold and trade those assets as derivitives.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
"they could afford, when they really couldn't, per government mandate."
the government did not force any loans on the banks and credit default swap was created in the late 1990's which was insurance on bad loans. The banks called it credit defualt swaps instead of insurances for the government not regulate it. GOP created this law but Clintion should veto this bill
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1 "the government did not force any loans on the banks"
Yes they did. Race based quotas. What percentage of minorities, especially blacks, do you think falls into the lower class catagory? THe CRA states that they faced fines and loss of banking licenses if an arbitrary percentage of minority applications are not approved.. the credit default swap was how they kept the banks from going under with all that bad paper they mandated. It had to give sometime, it just happened under Bush.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical again that bill was pass in 1977 and all these subprime mortgage around 1997. Credit Defualt Swap was new term created for government not regulate this new insurances by calling something else. The banks believe that real estate would never fall in value
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1
They were "subprime" in 77 too, they just werent classified any differently. I don't know what you're getting at, but either way it was Carter's administration that initiated racial quotas for banks, or Clintons expansion of the program that caused this. 70% of the failing mortgages in those credit default swaps were subprime, a tool specifically designed to satisfy liberal mandates. Banks believed in their value, because Barney Frank testified they were sound.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical "a tool specifically designed to satisfy liberal mandates." there was no liberal mandate for anything the banks were wrong real estate can fall in price like everything else another reason why gave bad loans to. Barney Frank was not part of this. Which also help housing mania in the late 90s to economic collapse.
"Clintons expansion of the program that caused this" i agree by removing glass steagall act with GWB promoting Ownership society
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1 / justice(dot) / gov/olc/cra / (dot)htm
Look it up yourself, up to $5,000 fine, and the regulatory agencies "are authorized to refuse to approve applications from financial institutions that do not meet the credit needs of their communities."
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@istraight1
No democrat interference into the mortgage industry to try and buy the low income minority vote, no 2008 recession, that's the fact.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
"No democrat interference into the mortgage industry to try and buy the low income minority vote" democrats were not even power until 2007 when had congress and control of the president and congress in 2009. It was GOP an there deregulation that started this.
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1
Christ man, you said it yourself, the CRA happened in 1977! That was the beginning of the chain of events that lead to the current recession. Try and keep up here.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
"Christ man, you said it yourself, the CRA happened in 1977!" i never said somehow you want the bill pass 1977 somehow started the economic collapse
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1
I know you didn't say that. I did. Consider yourself now informed.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@istraight1
I own my own business. I'm the employer. Take it from me like you would any employer out there. When the government is guaranteeing that more of the money my business makes will be confiscated and used merely delay the inevitable collapse of businesses under their unfunded liabilities, I have no reason to invest in growing my employee base. I do what's necessary to keep the doors open, and wait for a government that isn't a threat.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
"the money my business makes will be confiscated and used merely delay the inevitable collapse of businesses under their unfunded liabilities" what do mean by this like taxation and usually it big corperation who benfit more tax cuts the the small business. To me they should the let taxes cuts expire who make at least 2 or 3 million dollars to not effect small business.
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1
Right. Big government doesn't fight the corporations. See, the big guys can't become the monopoly you fear without legislation. you granting more power to decide winners and losers in the market is what they want, it's how they limit competitive small guys like me. 250k income is nothing when you're talking about a small business, with a million worth of inventory that I have to claim as growth. Big government is hurts the consumer, it doesn't protect them.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical "Big government is hurts the consumer, it doesn't protect them."
government can also help by giving small business the upper hand.
"See, the big guys can't become the monopoly you fear without legislation"
but government has laws to like antitrust acts to remove big monoplies and usually big corporations get upper hand by giving alot money for there campaigns in return lobbying for them.
istraight1 1 year ago
Republicans: Of the stupid, For the Wealthy and By the Greedy. That's all republicans are. They make the rich richer and try to confuse the ignorant public by arguing stupid "moral" issues. Similar with religion. Crowd control through fear and ignorance. TAX THE RICH! Nevermind this 500K crap. If you make over 100K you need to start paying more taxes, As your salary increases, you pay an increasing amount. PERIOD. End of FUCKIN LIST!
brightshade12 1 year ago
BRILLIANT presentation - makes sense to us! Thank You.
aaapro 1 year ago
Would cost?! This Marxist moron really sees it all as his money! That's insane... You don't borrow anything to let people keep more of their own money. What the hell is he talking about?! I certainly trust the private sector to create jobs more efficiently than austan & co. They have no understanding of how an economy works. Markets create jobs, not politicians. That's the only way it's ever worked.
ThePOCKETKINGS 1 year ago
@ThePOCKETKINGS because you dont take enough money in taxes to cover the costs, therefore you have to go to china and ask for more money to pay for tanks and schools, thats why you have to borrow! didnt glenn beck tell you this?
stukya 1 year ago 14
the super rich will take that tax cut and save it. thats what they always do.
knowledgethief 1 year ago
many need to realize some things they complain about are a moral issue, not political. to think that the super wealthy being taxed like a few percent more if going to screw up the job market is naive. the rich have more to lose, more to comfortably sacrifice comfortable for the betterment of others including their business.
they just dont want to because they want to maintain their annual massive income. thus they are more inclined to lay off than hire.
why be at the mercy of them (tea party).
knowledgethief 1 year ago
For a great rebuttal to this look up "Austan Goolsbee Vs. 6 Yr old Josh" .. A cute, funny and simple response with plain child like common sense logic.
atleigh1 1 year ago
This is very well done. Basic yet effective.
MegaDaisy09 1 year ago
The tax revolt is coming. People will not quit paying taxes completely. We need the military. Revenues will drop by about 75% starting in January, 2011,
The federeal government will have to quit spending or will have to print money fast enough to bring down the economy entirely. Monetizing the debt is what is coming anyway, may as well bring in on new. Sooner rather than later
TAMARLANE 1 year ago
@TAMARLANE We see it already. Soldiers in the field getting substandard equipment, vets coming back and not getting the care they need. Folks complain about early parole but hey it saves money if we close jails. "Quit spending" is easy to say but hard to actually pull off without destroying jobs and lives.
tomplunket 1 year ago
@tomplunket Impeach Obama
TAMARLANE 1 year ago
Pimpdalyrical says"Objective economists know that lowering those taxes for the "super rich" will create jobs you jackass, and it;'s an established fact that the government will take in more revenue."
P, perhaps you've been in a coma? THE TAXES WERE LOWERED for the "super rich", several years ago. What was that you were saying about job creation and revenue? and established facts?
But, hey, let's not let it expire- it is working so well. (Especially for profiteers who ship jobs overseas.)
immer09 1 year ago 13
@immer09
The taxes were lowered for everybody numbnuts, and they worked. Or did you not notice how a terrorist attack on our economy didn't crush us?
Did we forget the mortgage industry timebomb, the democrat tax hike promises that hit when they took congress, and the liberal spending habits of Bush's second term?
Tax cuts for job producers (you call them evil rich guys) help the economy. Always have. Not one single dollar of theirs would be in your pocket if they had a higher tax rate.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@immer09
Right immer, the taxes were lowered and we avoided a recession after a terrorist attack on our economic system. We had those tax cuts for 6 years of growth, no recession til the democrats took power. You apparently didn't get your DNC update. The spin is that de-regulation caused the collapse, not low taxes.
Oh, and next time, have the balls to hit the reply button.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and resolve all doubt. ~Abraham Lincoln
I am amazed at the enthusiasm with which people expose their stupidity. CSJ, I propose that if you really were making less money than people on welfare you probably had a pretty lousy job. You probably had a lousy job because, you know, you're not real smart. You appear to have a need to blame someone - be less afraid of welfare moms and more afraid of welfare executives.
immer09 1 year ago
OH YEAH TEA PARTY REPUBLICANS LETS UNITE TO ELIMINATE ALL TAXES
You want to keep the military?
OK keep the military, that's 20% of budget our taxes will still go down by 80%
You want Social Security for grandma??
OK keep Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid that's 54% of budget. Taxes can still go down by the 26% that's left.
You want to pay the interest on the existing debt and try to pay it off like paying off a mortgage in 30 years?
There goes the 26% tax cut...NOTHING LEFT TO CUT
Picagostosao 1 year ago 2
In Affectionate Love, this is union thug mentality. Pretty simple, isn't it? Before a government can giveth, a government must FIRST taketh away. True, the $ bills, with all its N.W.O. symbology that has been so publicized belongs to them, by all labels, decorations in flying colors. They are Federal Reserve Notes, good for PUBLIC and PRIVATE debts and they can ask for them back anytime they want. The trouble, is not the rich keeping too much, it's your SPENDING, and thus your DEBT...
10yand5hand400t 1 year ago
..this is one reason the founders wanted limited government, and to keep the N.W.O. banker bag-boys out of this country with their $'s, but don't fret America, even after they continue to destroy the pillars of this nation, eventually calling in Red China to attack America [Ephrayim], justice shall be served - Yâ-hwéh Yâhuwshúa` shall ensure it, which is why it is written: render unto Kaesar what belongs to Kaesar, and to Yâ-hwéh what is Yâ-hwéh's. Tough times ahead, but PURE Light at its end.
10yand5hand400t 1 year ago
THE RICH DO NOT PAY TAXES raising taxes on the rich is an easy way to get Americans to agree to a tax increase. The "rich" see taxes as an overhead when their taxes go up they simply pass it down to the middle class by charging more for their goods and services when the cost of business goes up the price of the goods produceds by the business goes up as well. So a tax increase is a tax increase and it will effect EVERYBODY!
robokc1985 1 year ago
Comment removed
ceharper23 1 year ago
@PostToastie DON'T WORRY, THE REPUBLICANS WILL COUGH UP THE ANTI-CHRIST AND THE ILLUMINATI WILL APPOINT HIM PREZ AND GOVT AGENTS WILL FORCE US TO BE MICRO-CHIPPED FOR ID PURPOSES AND THEN WE WILL ALL WAX NOSTALGIC FOR THE DAYS OF OBAMA. LOL
InvictusX100 1 year ago
@PostToastie NO, IT WAS DESTROYED BY A FIRE AND COLLAPSED AFTER THE CENTRAL SUPPORTING COLUMN FELL. NOT EVERYTHING IS A CONSPIRACY BUT PARANOIA IS FUN, ISN'T IT? LOL
InvictusX100 1 year ago
"If you have a single mother of two, the question needs to asked, why does she have two kids and no husband?. If you make your bed, you should sleep in it." Yes, Thomas Ingelend said that. I can think of many ways this philosophy is morally reprehensible. For example, that philosophy would A) encourage her to stay married to her husband even if he beats her. B) Be completely responsible for a man who runs out on her. C) Blame her if she is widowed and her husband dies. D) It punishes her kids.
sriquinator 1 year ago
@sriquinator It does no such a thing. You cannot honestly tell me that all of these "single mothers" are widows or victims of abuse. Most of them are women who failed to make good choices. Maybe they should stay off their back and keep the legs together instead of jumping in bed with every guy? Please, don't use the old liberal "for the children" line with me. If you care about the children, then we should take them away from her. Paying her for her kids punishes me for her choices.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
"Again, I don't think the flat tax would be over 10%." Yea, except even proponents of the flat tax typically say they would tax 25% after 100,000. Or they would tax around 19% w w w .h o o v e r . or g /p u bli ca tion s/ bo o ks/83 2 9
sriquinator 1 year ago
@sriquinator I am not the typical proponent. Most of those still believe we should be manipulating people through the tax code. I think taxes are for financing the LEGITIMATE expenses of government, and NOT for controlling the free market. 10% should be more than enough to cover the cost of the FEDERAL government.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
Basic economics teaches that more producer and consumer surplus is always a good thing... so why does the Whitehouse and it's current occupants feel that any American citizen shouldn't get to keep more of THEIR own money?
Newsflash: The government doesn't produce anything. American citizens do.
Support ANY and ALL tax cuts and urge government to tighten their belts to reduce costs instead of passing on their costs to citizens.
akkrauta 1 year ago
You know what kind of Government republicans want? an every man for himself government. The rich don't want to pay taxes. Let everyone else who actually works for a living do it instead. Bunch of greedy tofu eating bigots
luigi34343 1 year ago
Communist scum! Obama, news flash, keep tax rates at current levels does not increase the deficit ... your asinine, out of control, manic like spending DOES! You want to decrease the deficit (I know this is a hypothetical, since you don't want to), lower spending! If you don't have money, you don't spend money. Quit sending your goons to write crap on white boards for you; why don't you get up and tell everybody that they don't deserve their money because it's not really their's it's yours!
dodgerboy86 1 year ago
This is a HUGE LIE..
Only a blind welfare recipient, Socialist, Marxist, Communist or cool-aid drinking Lib would buy a word of it..
How can Not taking money you are not due, cost anything???
Lie.
Even 'tingle up my leg' Chris Mathews gets it...
Quit Spending Our Money Jerk (obama)!!!!!
The American Express card has melted and you are killing our Country... '..JackAss...'
lunarmation 1 year ago
It's a shame you greedybastards you really don't know how stupid your comment sounds ........and it doesn't really matter to you how the poor people are living here..the land of the free ... more like a third world country. I would cut my own throat if I were you.. You've road our back long enough, pay up and shut the f up. One thing you can't do is take it with.. lol
sleeplesscgho 1 year ago
you guys sound so stupid in your comments and full of greed....that's way America will never be free again....... money to you rule your mindless being. if you die today you can take it with you. greedya---
sleeplesscgho 1 year ago
@sleeplesscgho lol, and morons like you who advocate stealing from others are not greedy? Get off your soap box, and re-evaluate your views ... a country isn't free when people are enslaved to the government
dodgerboy86 1 year ago
What a joke, vote these fools out! They expect that people really believe that the gov would have to borrow money to pay people for the lack of a tax hike?
asamcrowe 1 year ago
How dare you talk to us as though we are ignorant! This is why the President's and Congress' ratings are down the tubes. It's really hard for me to be a lady right now I am so furious! You are not GIVING the "wealthy" anything. You are stealing from them. You did not earn that money...they did. How dare you think we Americans are o.k. with raping the rich to pay for your spending spree? Among other things, you are a bunch of economic ignoramus's. I am so disgusted with my government...
cybergem 1 year ago
Let me translate this for you. Obama and Congress want to RAISE taxes by the amount shown by the HUGE pink circles. In other words they are going to raise taxes by over 700 billion dollars. The people at the bottom get nothing. If the average private sector job is $100,000 per year, then this will COST AMERICANS 7 MILLION JOBS! His is right about one thing, the people at the bottom will not have to pay increased taxes since they will be unemployed. Not very smart.
cutoffcongress 1 year ago
The antidote to this propaganda is on this website at /watch?v=uyW8US8qeDM It clearly explains why the gov't steals from the rich and gives to the slightly less rich. It's called 'Director's Law of Public Income Redistribution' and it is an empirical law, not a theoretical one. God help you if your really poor!
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
This explains why they are driving the economy into the ground. They know absolutely nothing about economics.
bcossa1400 1 year ago
This explains why they are driving the economy into the ground. They know absolutely nothing about economics.
bcossa1400 1 year ago
More lies from the democrats. This does not cost Americans one dime. The whole video are liberal lies from start to stop. I can't wait until November 2nd!
Liberalism is truly a disease!
steelersX01 1 year ago
Austan you are a knob, you act like you are talking about your $. If you did not earn it it's not yours. In reality, I would like to see all americans not pay any taxes at all. I vote that the time is come to say FU to the Government and STARVE THE BEAST
Suchorski321 1 year ago
Why borrow $700 Million when you can just seize it from hard working Americans. What a CROOK!
jnowlin 1 year ago
@jnowlin Make that $700 Billion
jnowlin 1 year ago
And of course what all these people jabbering back and forth about the Laffer curve are too silly to point out is that while yes it can be true particularly in a thriving economy and with smaller cuts, I don't care ONE IOTA if the government is able to extort just as much money. In fact I hope that they do not.
Let the people keep their own property...it's implied slavery otherwise.
bighitter42 1 year ago
"If you ask objective economists and analysts...." Of course you don't really mean objective, you mean those who subjectively already agree with you.
"Get all the information at XYZ.gov" tells me all I need to know. I paid for an education to "get all the information."
bighitter42 1 year ago
Wow! That's quite an absolute, unsupported statement. "Ask any objective economist, and they'll tell you these tax cuts are the least effective thing we can do to get the economy growing."
Does he know he's lying, or is he just delusional? I don't think he meant to say *objective* economist. An objective economist would laugh in his face for saying something so idiotic. He must mean "ask a fanatical leftist economist who is only loosely based in reality."
serotta09 1 year ago
@serotta09
This surprises you? These are the same guys that will look you dead in the eye and tell you every climatologist belives man made CO2 is effecting global climate.
Desptie how many have sued the authors of the one report that all the hype is based on, and the only science they have being that it's gotten a little warmer, sporadically.
Hell, they're still riding the "Bush did it" train!
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
who is this clown? he's implying that the money is the government's in the first place.
slugga06 1 year ago
You can't steal my money Obama, I'll just hide it or make less. Maybe I'll even down size my business to save money?
ulooklikeadope 1 year ago
"Objective economists." Are those like unicorns and bigfoot?
Maltheon 1 year ago
Perfect!
DEMS, USE MORE PICTURES!
Plupsyeah 1 year ago
Objective economists know that lowering those taxes for the "super rich" will create jobs you jackass, and it;'s an established fact that the government will take in more revenue. So combined with the sensible repeal of some of Obama's obscene spending policies, the government can come out way ahead.
Nice white wash of how the 200k - 500k bracket is gonna get less of a break too. Their only the biggest job providers.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical "it;'s an established fact that the government will take in more revenue." I assume you are referring to Laffer's curve. There is no scientific data supporting the notion that we are on the right side of Laffer's curve.
sriquinator 1 year ago
@sriquinator
Actually, there is historical evidence for this. including the US gov'ts own financial records during Reagan and Bush Jr, Before and after the great depression, and even the Roaring 20's. Plus, the CBO's own 2005 report, and Laffer's data on Russia and the Baltic states. Plus, being that the nations biggest problem is that there's not enough money in the PEOPLE'S pocket, a move to the left on the Laffer curve is warranted regardless.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical You are not accounting for the fact that Laffer's curve, itself, is not static. There are various studies showing that when the government increases public consumption, public investment, and to a lesser extent public transfers, it shifts the peak of the curve to the right, and actually raises the height of the curve. During the Reagan years increases in tax revenue were actually more shallow than previous and preceding years. There is no evidence that 'we' are on the right slope.
sriquinator 1 year ago
@sriquinator
How does the government increase public consumption? Making things more expensive with extra taxes, or less?
Leaving people with less take home pay from their jobs? That won't work.
How do you spur investment? Historically, you drop the Cap. gains tax. Obama has the opposite idea. Reagans' shotgun approach would have done better had it been targeted, but at least he was going the right way.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical -obama knows this well. He is on tape with hiliary during the primary stating that he knows but "he would still consider raising the capital gains in the interest of fairness". Translated, I don't care what it does to the economy and America....my "spread it around" agenda takes priority over all.
Liberalism is a disease!
steelersX01 1 year ago
Comment removed
TLydon008 1 year ago
@TLydon008
No, Reagan was at 20% Capital Gains tax, and BUSH was at 20% captial gains tax. BUSH had unemployment averaging 5%, which is less than Clinton's media extolled "Full employment" of 7%.
Expanding a business and hiring more people is an INVESTMENT you make based on how much it will earn you in the future. NObody is hiring now, because ever sincle liberals took power they have been promising to make investing in people less profitable.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical "There's only one reason to hire somebody... That's the only reason their should be. Grow up, get over it, and start working with reality instead of against it." Well I didn't resort to personal attacks but you seem to have done so. Yep, that is true, which is precisely why tax cuts for the rich won't directly translate to more jobs, you actually just restated what I said before. How about you grow up, you unscrupulous, sophomoric, covetous imp.
sriquinator 1 year ago
@sriquinator
I meant people in general, not attacking you personally.
We're not talking about Tax cuts for the rich, the tax rate discussed in this video has been in place already for Ten years. However, Nobody gets a job from a poor person. If you want to do some work for somebody and get paid for it, they have to have extra money lying around to begin with. As long as this is still a country based on freedom, "Extra money" is not just what's left after an amount set by Washington.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pimpdalyrical "Nobody is hiring now, because ever since liberals took power they have been promising to make investing in people less profitable." More scare tactic nonsense. As for your employment rates. Bush Jr. 4.7-5.8, Clinton 6.9-4.0, Bush Sr. 5.3-7.5, Reagan 7.6-5.3 (yes, I am not too partisan to compliment Reagan on keeping unemployment low), Carter 7.1-7.6, Ford 5.6-7.1, Nixon 3.5-5.6. Yeah don't make up your numbers, unemployment rates when they came into office and then passed on.
sriquinator 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical
"BUSH had unemployment averaging 5%, which is less than Clinton's media extolled "Full employment" of 7%"
Bush's average unemployment = 5.3%
Clinton's average unemployment = 5.2%
Notice that I don't make stuff up to support my claims.. You could learn something from that.
TLydon008 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical Laffer himself has also stated that his curve doesn't really apply to those who aren't rich. Those who are rich in this country have money, but they don't want to invest it in a shaky market, use it for consumption, or hire more workers for personal businesses. What the frightening trend is, is that they are just sticking it in their savings account, with remarkably low interest rates.
sriquinator 1 year ago
@sriquinator
The curve doesn't apply because the rich are the only one's paying significant proportions of taxes, and generate the wealth in the first place, effecting the economy .
The "rich" aren't investing it, because Washington is looming like a guy in a ski mask outside your front door, promising to take what you make off it. The jobs we need, are the ones that exist to help make other people more money. There's nothing wrong with it, the libs just need to get over it.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical "The "rich" aren't investing it, because Washington is looming like a guy in a ski mask outside your front door, promising to take what you make off it. The jobs we need, are the ones that exist to help make other people more money. There's nothing wrong with it, the libs just need to get over it." That is scare tactic nonsense, you completely departed from arguments of reason with that little bit.
sriquinator 1 year ago
@sriquinator
Care to explain why? Or you just want to rant and deny the reality of human nature some more?
Businesses exist to make money, period. We need businesses, because the government can't employ everybody, not even a majority of people, and be sustainable.
There's only one reason to hire somebody: The more money they will make for you. That's it. That's the only reason their should be. Grow up, get over it, and start working with reality instead of against it.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
this is about making the tax rate more fair for ALL Americans. Why does some rich dude pay only about 35 percent in federal income tax when I pay about 38 percent? That ain't right. We should both pay either 35 percent or 38 or whatever tax rate we decide on. It should be the same. PERIOD!
MarkieBee007 1 year ago
@MarkieBee007
If thats what it is all about, then that big red circle would be the same size as the blue ones lol. The government must think most of us are stupid to give a presentation like this using circles.
tmhunter7 1 year ago
@tmhunter7
I don't think your getting the point here. The circles don't represent the % of tax people pay, in fact they don't even represent the tax that people pay. They represent the tax that people don't pay. Say someone makes 100,000 and they get a 10% tax break, then the blue circle would represent 10,000. Someone making 5,000,000 with a 10% tax break would save 500,000 which the red circle represents (thats bigger than blue!). I guess the government underestimated your stupidity
simonium 1 year ago
I understand what the market is about. I interned in a stock brokerage years ago as well. I have a sister who would like to add two employees to her medical practice in Missouri. She and the Doctor she's partners with can't do it because of the uncertainty of employee health care plans, not to mention what the new health care laws are going to do to their business.
Hiker58 1 year ago
Your assertions are ridiculous. Nobody adjusts their work force based on fear of income tax. Businessmen add to their workforce based on if their is a greater demand for their service or product. No businessman is going to increase their overhead costs (by increasing their workforce), if their is no increased profitability from it. People don't hire other people out of the goodness of their heart, they do it to increase profit. This is not a critique of capitalism, itisthe nature of the market.
sriquinator 1 year ago
omg mercy...the man is an idiot for sure like those they try to "white wash!!" Every suppostion can so easily be miscontrued, etc..it is up to each one of us to weed through all the BS!
summalita 1 year ago
'Lammot du Pont complained in 1937, "Uncertainty rules the tax situation, the labor situation, the monetary situation, and practically every legal condition under which industry must operate." '
I've been hearing business people say this for the past year. They can't make any hiring or expansion plans unless they know these idiots won't pull the rug out from under them. It's that simple.
Hiker58 1 year ago
@Hiker58 The only uncertainty is that pushed by those who do not want their taxes increased, the richest 1% of Americans. This does not hurt hiring practices directly, this does not hurt business directly. These people want their revenue preserved and it is as simple as that. If there was more revenue to be made by hiring more people they would do it, if there wasn't they won't.
sriquinator 1 year ago
Listen at 1:03 "$700 Billion that we would have to borrow to give it" . I don't make squat for a living but that sure sounds like redistribution of wealth to me. What is this the second coming of the Soviet Union? No wonder business is afraid to invest in new employees. And it's not about increased profit, it's about staying in business at all.
Hiker58 1 year ago
@Hiker58 "What is this the second coming of the Soviet Union? No wonder business is afraid to invest in new employees." The business sector doesn't invest in new employees, because there isn't enough consumer demand for goods and services to justify a increase in overhead for many companies. Taxes are applied after all the profit and costs of operation. Even if your taxes cut too much into profitability, you would hire, if it increased profitability..
sriquinator 1 year ago
Saddest piece of bullshit I seen in a long time. If ur stinking rich theres plenty of ways to not pay taxes. There is no consensus amongst economists that this is the best solution. If u want the economy to grow? Cut the taxes. Simple as that
bodanerius 1 year ago
It would only make sense that a tax cut should benefit those who pay the most taxes. Poor people don't create jobs and to punish the "rich" even more when they already contribute to over 96% of all federal tax revenue will only prevent any economic recovery from happening. A tax reduction across ALL in conjunction with dramatically reduced spending is the key to prosperity. However, those in control of the spending never ask how to reduce it they only ask how to generate more cash flow.
madhatter0110 1 year ago
@madhatter0110 Businesses create jobs (especially small businesses), not rich people. Taxing luxury is more fair than taxing reasonable or necessary cash, which is why it is fair that the wealthy have a higher percent tax burden.
Blanket tax and service reductions are not a key to prosperity - they're a key to failing infrastructure, an end to education, social injustices, and eventually a third-rate society. Government should be efficient and effective, not emaciated.
pgunn01 1 year ago
@pgunn01 Education and social issues are to be left to the states and any federal involvement in either one is unconstitutional. Therefore, no "third-rate society" would result if federal spending and taxes were greatly reduced as they need to be. Furthermore, your definition of fair punishes those such as small businesses the most because not only do those who earn get penalized with higher taxes but it removes the incentive to earn. Rich people are the only ones who create jobs.
madhatter0110 1 year ago
@madhatter0110 "Education and social issues are to be left to the states and any federal involvement in either one is unconstitutional." Well you actually see a interesting trend when studying federal taxes spent by state vs federal taxes received by state. If we were to leave spending on social and educational issues to the states, you would actually see the south, midwest, the south west and alaska having a lot less money to work with.
sriquinator 1 year ago
@sriquinator Then so be it.
madhatter0110 1 year ago
@madhatter0110 If you want to talk constitutionality, talk to a constitutional scholar. Unless you are one, your words don't really have any weight.
Your "therefore" statement does not follow - even were we to accept your (faulty) premise, there's no reason to accept the conclusion you suggest.
Small businesses are not affected by this. This is both obvious (in that individual and business taxes are different) and suggested by academic economists.
pgunn01 1 year ago
@pgunn01 It does not take a scholar to interpret the US Constitution. If you would take the time and read it for yourself--especially the 10th Amendment, you would see that all powers not delegated to the federal government are to be left to the states. Those who consider the US Constitution a "faulty premise" are not worthy to live in the USA.
madhatter0110 1 year ago
@madhatter0110 It does take a scholar to understand law in general. Without an adequate foundation in Common Law and the legal traditions (and history!) of Britain, it's easy to come to misunderstandings about how our government works or was founded. I am familiar with the 10th amendment, of course, but the hundreds of years of nuance, argument, and context belong to the scholars.
It is not for you to decide who is worthy to live in the US.
pgunn01 1 year ago
How's "globalism" working out for you America? Isn't it fun having monopolies run our govt. and lives by forcing us to compete with wage slaves from around the world? It's a race to the bottom supported by both "choices" of political parties. Don't love your country because that is "protectionism", and we all know one should not want to protect American interests, right? Of course in the "globalists'" excuse for a mind, you can't be a "protectionist" of the illegitimate, "global" govt.
dlucas90 1 year ago
More partisan misinformation in the form of a giant straw man arguement that purposefully ignores the real issue, wage inequality.
Rather than argue about how to redistribute what the thieves have stolen, why is no one talking about how to prevent the thieves from robbing us in the first place?
The reason our monetary system is so screwed up is because money is created by unelected, counterfeit operations, "legalized" by our corrupt govt. from both sides of the isle. They are central banks.
dlucas90 1 year ago
What Marxist crud; IT'S OUR MONEY! They think these tax cuts are the government money? Get your priorities straight; people make money, they should keep it and only pay enough tax to keep the govt going. This govt (all parties) spends every dollar it gets, borrows more and then cries poor. They are a bunch addicts, giving money to friends, buying votes with YOU as the HOST and they as the parasites.
I do not accept the guilt trip. The Govt is the greedy party here.
Cap fed spending @ 20%.
Richdevens4 1 year ago 4
@Richdevens4 We are the government, in the America I know. Don't like how it is run? Think about who you vote into office, and once they are in there ... support them.
President Obama was voted in for four years by a majority. There are two years left. He asked that we hold him accountable, and we will in 2012.. That is the main difference from the last administration, who still shuns any accountability for the policies and actions that have put us in this ditch.
Wolfiemouse 1 year ago
@Richdevens4 Your name is Rich Devens.
sriquinator 1 year ago
@Richdevens4 Well the next time a criminal breaks into your house, steals everything you own, rapes a loved one, kills all your pets, and there are no police to then come and save you because you didn't want to pay taxes, blame that on Marxist views too while your at it. lol
luigi34343 1 year ago
I have been working with GSS data, and performed a simple tabulate on rincom06 (individual income in 06) and class. Of the respondents making over 150,000 a year 20 said they were upper class, 40 middle class, and 6 working class. Really, working class?
sriquinator 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One example of why rich people should pay a larger percent of their taxes is because of the externality of costs, and their benefit being much larger by the government bearing these costs. These include such things as systemic risks, pollution, public investment + public consumption, transportation, education, lowering relative wages, health costs, transfer payments being much larger, ect
sriquinator 1 year ago
Comment removed
sriquinator 1 year ago
Letting rich people keep their money is a bad thing?
News flash people: When was the last time a poor person or 'current' middle class person gave you a job?
Why give give all the money to the government? They don't know how to manage it anyway.
tmhunter7 1 year ago
@tmhunter7 Small businesses are rarely owned by rich people. Allowing the tax cuts on the very wealthy to expire would have negligible effect on growth, and it is a responsible way to prevent our budget deficit from becoming worse than it already is.
pgunn01 1 year ago
@pgunn01 Big businesses employ a lot of people just as small businesses do. Plus, the government is redefining the term 'rich' by lowering the required earnings to be lower and lower all the time. Pretty soon, I will be considered rich.
Perhaps the government should live within their means instead of punishing successful people.
tmhunter7 1 year ago
@tmhunter7 Yes, but corporate taxes are different - this is on individual earnings, and the academic consensus is that allowing the individual tax rate on the very wealthy to rise will not impact employment significantly.
I don't believe you're correct regarding "redefining the term rich" - the term is not used in the law - the tax brackets and thresholds have not been shifted downward.
Tax is not punishment. It is duty. The means of government *is* taxation.
pgunn01 1 year ago
@tmhunter7 What are you talking about? The tax brackets have been static for many years and there has been no redefinition of tax boundaries. However, the top 1% of tax earners have a larger percentage of American wealth, a trend that has been gradually increasing over the last half century. In addition their tax percentage has decreased over this time. The claim by conservatives that the definition of "who is rich" is expanding is a ridiculous talking point.
sriquinator 1 year ago
@pgunn01 Check your facts. What constitutes 'small business' nowadays is way different than I think you imagine.
Wolfiemouse 1 year ago
@Wolfiemouse I am generally content to go with broad academic consensus on matters like this - specialised knowledge takes years to accumulate - it's not the kind of thing that people outside the field can pick up on the spot. I work in a different technical field, and it would not be remotely easy for me to explain topics in my field to people outside it. Economics is the same way, which is why broad academic consensus (not newsfolk!) is what we go with.
pgunn01 1 year ago
@tyu3456 - obviously another libtard who doesn't know how to read!!!! CUT $700 Billion in government spending! Heck, they should cut a heck of a lot more than that! Government is so OVER BLOATED right now!!! We are already are so over taxes right now and I understand that you being a dummy libtard doesn't understand that Income isn't the only tax we pay, we pay fuel tax, utility tax, state tax, sales tax, property tax, import tax (on nearly everything we buy), and the list goes on....
adelyn123 1 year ago
@adelyn123 I know full well about those taxes - it turns out I pay them as well. I also know that the "conservative" (not!) Republicans will not do a better job of cutting spending than Democrats, or as you call them "libtards" In fact, in my view a third political party is badly needed right now but that's not gonna happen anytime soon.
tyu3456 1 year ago
@adelyn123 Most 1st world countries tax their wealthy people a lot more than the United States does. In the first world the United States is often considered a haven for rich people.
sriquinator 1 year ago