Liberal Logic #7 Tax the Rich

[SKTFMfan]

The wealthiest Americans don't create jobs here, they create jobs in China... that's how they get wealthy. I say: “Tax the wealth, not the work!” Better yet: “Write tax policies that encourage American employment, while punishing exportation of American jobs!”

[Deanbass77]

I find it hard to believe that the blundering fool who used to be our president could have made such a wise decision. However, I suppose growing up in a family that owns an oil company just might have taught him a little something about economics, even if fine points of the english language eluded him... This is something to think about, good video.

[micflor531313]

Who are the rich? Well what the Democrats don't tell you, is that YOU are the rich. Cook County, IL where Obama comes from, has the HIGHEST sales tax in the nation 10 1/4%. And POOR people pay this tax too. How about property taxes? Do they go up only for the rich? Check your tax bill. The REAL RICH ARE DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS who use their "tax the rich" rhetoric to scam people into believing they raise taxes ONLY the rich, in reality EVERYBODY pays more under Democrat rule.

[jamesonfire88]

WOW, a Youtube video that has some common sense in it, I'm impressed! Very well done sir!!!

[SupremeAmerican]

If you tax the "rich" (basically the people who create jobs) - Why would they stay in America? Answer: they wont, they will move American jobs elsewhere to avoid taxes. Thanks for destroying the American Job Market liberals. How's that economy fix coming? Oh wait. It's not. Ur making it worse. GJ. Fail.

[superwhiz88]

you are soo brain wash .. you really don't know what you talking about.. go out of country and ck other society and see how other country function .. bush tax work .. are you fking kidding.. we went into depression because bush.. you are such joke.. for your information go study why Ireland why did they go into bankruptcy ... right now rich pay 12% medium class pay 35% .. also bullshit republican rich tax cut don't work ,, this is why Ireland went into bankruptcy

[ixdor94]

@superwhiz88 you sir, are a troll

[bonfirejovi]

Progressives think only about never take into account the long and widespread effects of their benevolent policies. Their arguments are swamped in broken window fallacies.

[304teddy]

i do own a small business and yes 250k is alot of money. what this jackhole doesnt tell you is that the only way your paying taxes on 250k is if that is how much you pocketed.

[304teddy]

LMAO-this whole vid is serious BS!

[bonfirejovi]

@304teddy the truths hurts.

[superwhiz88]

one the senator challenge the CEO of few corp .. say that if they can proof they pay more then their secretary on the percentage wise .. he will give them the million dollars .. no one come forwards to take the million ..

warren buffet also say he pays 17% on his taxes thats without cheating yet the rest of average American paying 32 % on average .. IS THIS FAIR .. YOU STPID FK .... THIS COUNTRY IS FOUNDED BY EQUAL PROTECTION .. SO WE WORTH LESS THEN RICH FK.. IS THAT WHAT U SAYING..

[superwhiz88]

U really need to go to school .. i hate to insult you.. u don't seems to understand basic of how economy function .. except repeat Rush Limbaugh 's word ..

if you said about cutting tax = increase revenues for IRS.. how about this we eliminate tax does ur ideology add up.. will the government get money to pay for u road.. ur kids school

on the subject who is to blame ,, lets put in an simple term .. if ur kids drive an car and got into an accident .. what u saying is that its not his fault

[AtomicBobBomb]

You need to cite the sources for your facts. Where can I find them?

[893160007]

for one the economy is the not the most important thinand secondly tax cuts are not a reward they are for people who can barely get by without them and/or stimulous money taxs are needed who should give the most

[badmuffy]

If the rich don't want to pay their taxes they can always give their money to me and ill pay their taxes for them.

[badmuffy]

We should just make any income up to about 30,000 tax exempt. There is no point in taxing people only to end up giving the money back to the same people in the form of assistance.

[brianbozowski]

Your assessment makes perfect sense. Too bad the "facts" presented by the main stream news and entertainment media do not match up with the truth.

[MuckRaker85]

The ultimate refutation is the history of the National Debt. One look at that and you will see that tax cuts are bad policy. I would also encourage you to look at the history of the top tax rate. It was 90% in the 50's, and that was when the middle class as we know it was practically born. Sorry buddy, but Liberal Logic wins the day again.

[preacherman777]

LOL! You are funny. The post WWII boom had everything to do with the fact that people had lots of money saved up from all the saving that went on during the war, insurance benefits from lost relatives and lots of new technology to spend it on. Read a little history and you will find there is no way to compare that time period with this time period. Would you like to go back to a 90% tax rate? Invite them to come take 90% of your money and then come talk to me about how great it is.

[MuckRaker85]

I'm talking about the Post-War boom. Saved money during war? What are you smoking? We went on a spending spree and came out of it with a huge debt. Could Truman/Eisenhower have payed off that debt, kept military spending high, and invested in infrastructure/education with low taxes rates? And we are taling about the TOP tax rate, not the average rate. Get it right. Now, Obama wants to raise it to 40% at the minimum and everyone's running around screaming "Socialism!"

[MuckRaker85]

Insurance Benefits were lost relatives. How did we pay for that? Taxes! New technologies, how did we pay for that? Taxes!

[MuckRaker85]

The greatest economic expansion in our history occured when the top income tax rate was 90%! The worst deficits, and economic collapse since 1929 occured after Bush cut taxes! The reason is because tax cuts are horrible. They don't create more jobs (that's created by increased demand). Their ultimate effect is deficits. The idea that tax cuts create more revenue is laughable. George H.W. Bush called it Voodoo Economics and he was right. Read "The Triumph of Politics."

[preacherman777]

Your facts are very flawed. The Bush tax cuts produced 52 months of a thriving economy and this came after he inherited a recession from Bill Clinton and after the devastating economic effects of 911. The current economic collapse has little to do with Bush and mostly to do with the high risk loans forced on our banking system by foolish Democratic policies that date back to the 70's, not to mention the horrible effects of the unions on our manufacturing.

[preacherman777]

The idea that the rich pay more in taxes when the rates are lower is a proven fact. Look it up. Couple this with the fact that it's only the top 50% of wage earners who pay any real income taxes at all and the bulk of those being paid by the top 5% and it's pretty easy to see that if anybody needs a tax cut, it's the people who actually pay the taxes. Even Obama has backed off his plans to raise taxes in the short term, because he knows it will be bad for the economy.

[MuckRaker85]

Loans given out under the CRA were actually found to perform better, and most of the high risk loans had nothing to do with it. That talking point has been thoroughly debunked. You're blaming Unions? What Unions? The unionization rate is the lowest in history. And 52 months of growth is pretty pathetic and had more to do with the housing bubble. Just look at the history of the national debt to see what tax cuts have brought us!

[preacherman777]

You are very wrong. Banks were forced to make loans to high risk applicants and Fannie and Freddie were a ticking time bomb, which were protected by the Democrats in congress. The unions have time and time again over priced the cost of labor to the point of making it unsustainable for the companies in question. The current situation with the automakers is proof enough of that. There is nothing pathetic about 52 months of growth and bubbles are often responsible for economic booms.

[preacherman777]

The economy of the 90's under Clinton was propped up by the tech bubble and after it burst we had to deal with the recession that Bush inherited. This however does not change the fact that the economy gained it's footing back after the institution of the Bush tax cuts.

[MuckRaker85]

Thanks to the Housing Buble! How come we can't give Clinton credit for good economic times under his watch, but we can give it to Bush. They were both the creation of unsutainable bubbles. Part of the prosperity of the 90's is thanks to the elimination of Reagan's huge debt. For that we can thank Bush Senior and Clinton for raising taxes. Huge Deficits are BAD and DO NOT MAGICLLY GO AWAY!! Clinton left office with a slight downturn, but Bush leaves office with worldwide economic meltdown.

[preacherman777]

I never said we can't give any credit to Clinton, but we can to Bush, you are putting words in mouth. However, the tech boom did start before Clinton took office. Both booms were the result of Bubbles, which is a fact. Not to mention that the legs of the tech boom were built by Reagan tax cuts. The tax increases of Bush and Clinton were not responsible for the surplus. The surplus was the result of the balanced budget that happened because of the newly elected Republican House and Senate.

[MuckRaker85]

Many economists credit the 1990 Budget Agreement with putting America's fiscal house in order. And Clinton did work to balance the budget.

[MuckRaker85]

You need to stop drinking Cool Aide, few serious economists agree with your assesment of the CRA. They gave out bad loans because they were making incredible short term profit, not because they were forced to. Unions have had virtually no power and influence since Reagan destroyed them. You're blaming a virtually nonexistent force. 52 Months is pretty bad if it's followed by a Depression. I'd rather have slow consistent growth!

[preacherman777]

I think you need to reconsider exactly who is drinking the kool-ade. The greed of lenders did factor into it eventually, but the problem was given birth by Democrats. The fact is that the bar for lending was lowered under Carter, the pressure to make risky loans was kicked up under Clinton, complete with threats from Janet Reno and people like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were able to line their pockets in return for turning a blind eye to the whole mess.

[MuckRaker85]

Tax Cuts create short term economic benefits so the amount of money in the pockets of the wealthy goes up, so they pay more taxes. But in the long term, it does NOT pay for itself because an economic downturn wipes that out. In the long run, it's bad policy. Look at the history of the national debt, does it look like they pay for themselves? You need to increase demand for products, and that is created by increased middle class wages.

[preacherman777]

They pay more in taxes not only because they make more money, but because they expand their businesses, which also results in more employees who pay taxes and thus, the revenue to the treasury goes up. This happened under both Reagan and GW Bush. The problem has always been the unrestrained spending that keeps the deficits high. Under Reagan the Democrats were responsible for that and under Bush we had the expense of war combined with fiscally irresponsible Republicans.

[MuckRaker85]

The only thing that convinces you to expand your business is increased demand for your product, NOT having a couple of extra million in the bank. Even if we COULD cut out all the pork (not likely) it still wouldn't pay for the huge cost of tax cuts. There was arguments about that during the campaign. McCain complained about earmarks, Obama about tax cuts. And Obama was right, earmarks are miniscule compared to tax cuts.

[preacherman777]

Again, that's ridiculous because the rich pay more when the rates are lower. This is a proven fact. Right now, government waste, pork and bailouts are eating up all our money. Obama will be posting deficits like this country has never seen and his tax increases are not even going to begin to pay for it all.

[MuckRaker85]

It's intresting that you are all of a sudden worried about deficits when it was the Reagan and Bush tax cuts that created them. Learn your history!

[DarcPrynce]

For some reason, liberals never seem to be able to grasp the simple fact that ALL taxes harm the poor more than the rich, because ALL taxes trickle down. When you increase taxes on the rich, they increase the price of goods and services, lower employee wages (or fire people) and raise their tenants' rents. The more you attempt to punish the rich with taxes, the more they'll punish everyone below them on the economic ladder. If Barack Obama is so smart, why can't he understand basic economics?

[preacherman777]

Liberals tend to be one dimensional thinkers. Grasping such concepts would be beyond them.

[armageddon91]

Very true right1way! Great video as well, I had never thought about the reprocussions of these tax cuts and increases that the presidential candidates would talk about.

[right1way]

Sorry to babble on like that. Great job Mike, keep them coming.

[right1way]

Spend, spend, spend. What's the difference between a politician and a drunken sailor? The drunken sailor is spending his own money! Gone are the days when those who served in political office weren't paid a penny. It was all volunteer. If they had to live on Social Security when they retired, it would be fixed in a 100 days. New Congress, a year and a half. What have they done? Raised the minimum wage. That's it. 9% approval rating. No wonder!