Cutting Taxes = More Jobs

uh huh wrote:

Fair and Balanced wrote:

There are several things that are simply wrong in your post:

Raising the top marginal tax rate by a modest amount is not going to make the wealthy throw up their hands and say, "I give up -- I'm going on welfare!"

I was not implying that the wealthy would just quit. My point was that the government is penalizing someone to a greater extent because they are more successful. How is that fair?

We do not and never have had a purely capitalist economy. It has been a hybrid of capitalism and government control.

I realize this and see it as part of the problem.

I agree that our lowest class is better off than the lowest class of most countries. But pure capitalism and lower taxes is not what did it. Before there was an income tax in this country, our lowest class lived in abject squalor. When we added an income tax and safety nets, such as unemployment benefits, welfare, etc., the abjectness abated and the gulf between the rich and poor abated. Ever since the Reagan and then the Bush tax cuts, the rich-poor gulf has widened.

They may have widened, but everyone has benefited. Our lowest wage earners make more now than ever. There are even more that are "wealthy" than ever before. Just because there is a gap does not mean that the poor are really poor. You are referring to a relative gap. Think objectively.

Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. The U.S. economy has a capitalistic base with some socialist and government controlled or regulated aspects.

I personally believe the govt. should be less involved. Regulate less and allow the free market to operate.

We have learned through history that a hybrid works best for the economic strength of the country.

Prove it. I disagree.

Lowering taxes does not reduce the size of the government -- it only reduces surpluses or increases deficits. The size of government is cut only when programs are cut.

I agree. You misread my statement. I want a reduction in the size of the govt. This will lead to lower taxes, more disposable income, more spending throughout the economy, more jobs, less govt manipulation, less govt taking jobs away from the private sector.

A new question:

Why do you think the govt. has the right to take my money that I worked very hard for, and hand it out to others who do not (will not) work?

Redistribution of wealth is socialism, and imho, morally wrong. Politicians politic to the poor and marginalized because they mean votes. I would love to see a politician grow a pair and tell people how the real world works.

asdfasdfas wrote:

Pretty much zero money goes to people that don't work. Most tax money goes to corporations (i.e. defense contractors), employees (the army and the rest of the government workers), or benefits that people paid for (Military pensions and health care, SS and medicare). The "social welfare" programs are 10-20% of the budget depending on what you count. Not enough to give any tax relief. Heck taxes would still have to go up 50% to balance the budget. And if you think the lower classes are making more than the did 40 years ago, your either nuts or don't understand the concept of inflation.

As far as regulation not be needed, that worked great in the housing market. Those unregulated credit swaps and derivates sure lead to more spending and jobs.

As far as it being your money, when the US defaults on its debts how much do you think those US dollars will be worth?

uh huh wrote:

asdfasdfas wrote:

Pretty much zero money goes to people that don't work. Most tax money goes to corporations (i.e. defense contractors), employees (the army and the rest of the government workers), or benefits that people paid for (Military pensions and health care, SS and medicare). The "social welfare" programs are 10-20% of the budget depending on what you count. Not enough to give any tax relief. Heck taxes would still have to go up 50% to balance the budget. And if you think the lower classes are making more than the did 40 years ago, your either nuts or don't understand the concept of inflation.

As far as regulation not be needed, that worked great in the housing market. Those unregulated credit swaps and derivates sure lead to more spending and jobs.

As far as it being your money, when the US defaults on its debts how much do you think those US dollars will be worth?

So let's begin to phase out that 10-20% immediately. Phase out SS, welfare, and medicare. Then the govt. must reduce SPENDING so they will increase TAXES. I have no problem with the military and war. I do have a problem trying to be the world police and sticking our noses where they don't belong. A reduction in the size of our military would be perfectly fine with me.

And I'm pretty sure that the lower classes today make more than their counterparts from 40 years ago. I'm not nuts.

Sagarin wrote:

This thread is silly. Just like the "Obama is a coward thread." If Obama was a coward, instead of the brazen, arrogant, one-dimensional ideologue who exhausted all of his political capital alongside Nancy "gravitational Pull-osi" and "Dirty Harry" Reid, Americans wouldn't have voted to change the composition of Congress to the extent they did, forcing his hand now. But the political apparatus exists to keep all of us trivializing issues and fighting, while both parties continue to suck the American taxpayer dry and have their select spheres of financial influence, subsidies, pet projects, and lobbying groups. And as much as I don't affiliate with the Tea Party or Ron Paul's unrealistic desire to return to a gold standard, at least there's a revolt brewing against the current, status-quo Washington apparatus, which is a good thing.

What amazes me is that everyone's pissed off about taxes, while very little mention is made of the Fed. It is the Fed who is creating "asset inflation," which primarily helps the wealthy and misallocates capital (it's dejavu all over again), while also raising the price of energy, corn and soy, cotton, etc... a regressive tax on those who can least afford to accommodate it with higher gasoline, food, and clothing prices. That's where people should be directing their ire, because it is predominantly the Fed who is responsible for the tech bubble, the housing bubble, and now the sovereign debt bubble.

In the grand scheme of things, this "tax debate" is just ridiculous. The more you raise taxes on anything, the less of it you get, and the same is true of capital. Normally, I would be ok with a higher tax rate this far into a "recovery," but it could be disastrous in this economic environment. Bill Clinton and JFK both understood this simple concept. Extending the cuts, along with the Fed's counterfeiting operation, may even work in the short-run, which would, ironically enough, help Obama, despite his incessant grandstanding and demagoguing. I suppose then that he will take all the credit for it as having been his idea.