1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

Top 1% would give up their tax cuts

Discussion in 'Economics, Business, and Taxes' started by 888888, Dec 27, 2011.

  1. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    In the context of paying federal taxes on income???? it means nothing. Since there is no "defined benefit"

    So IOW $1 collected from your taxes via FICA is somehow magically different from the $1 collected from the same paycheck via a different law - BOTH laws deriving from the Internal Revenue Code...

    UHUH.

    And magically the federal $$ spent keep that magical distinction in the electronic form they take as they flow through the Federal General Fund... RIGHTT...


    And the tooth fairy exists as well.
     
  2. ya-ta-hey

    ya-ta-hey Mayor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,368
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Mr. 8s,

    So how exactly would taking money from those that create jobs give them incentive to create more jobs?
     
  3. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    So our system of government is designe not to be a society?


    Our system of government is designed to support the goals of our society. ALL societies throughtout history have been primarily focussed on wealth redistribution.

    Um no. The ideal government espoused by Marx is a democracy in which workers own the means of production. That's not wealth redistribution.You are making up a strawman arguement that has no basis in fact

    Incomplete. Our system of government enforced laws on slavery - which is wealth redistribution, on women and children as chattel which is wealth redistribution, etc. etc. Franklin underscored this as I have cited to you numerous times.

    how so? Does the person doing the work gain any wealth or benefit from those efforts? Does the law enforce the stripping of those benefits?

    No it is not a "broad redefinition of the term" in any way. Wealth redistribution is just that - redistribution of wealth and assets from one member in society to another. Slavery does that.

    So does two people cooperatively moving a log out of the way of both their carts since one of them will invariably be stronger or more agile or have a better grip , or a more valuable load than the other and thus either benefit or contribute disproporitonately from the "value" created by their mutual efforts. And that TOO is "wealth redistribution".

    ALL Societies exist primarily to redistribute wealth. HOW they do so is what the social compact is all about. a 2 person consesnsus society is going to be different than a divine right monarchy than a constitutional democracy than a polytheistic theocracy. But they ALL are fundamentally focussed on the creation and redistribution of wealth as a collective. Otherwise there is no purpose to society whatsoever.
     
  4. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Two false premisses in that

    1) that taxing the wealthy takes money AWAY from job creators. The reality is that the middle class are the job creators - CALPERS which is One pension plan in One industry in One State, has by itself more "job creation" investments than the top 10 wealthiest Americans combined have.

    2) That the goal is to incent the wealthy to create jobs. The reality is that the Fiscal Multiplier for tax cuts to the wealthy at rates below 70% have LESS than a 0.7 Fiscal Multiplier. Compare that to the non DoD governemnt average of an FM of 1.5, and you can see that simply by taxing the upper 20% of earners at higher marginal rates and having The Government spend that money on domestic spending priorities GROWS THE ECONOMY MORE.
     
  5. ya-ta-hey

    ya-ta-hey Mayor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,368
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Mr. Degsne,

    Government already spend the money, whether they have it are not, and still no government job creation.

    With regard to your first irrelevency, you prove my point. CALPERS creates jobs by investing it's assets, so how would reducing investment capital to it, or to those who investment create more jobs?

    Thank you for supporting my points.
     
  6. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    In refuting your ridiculous notion that people who support single payer health care are registering in the "repeal Obamacare" camp...
     
  7. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Actually that's not true. The prediction for the stimulus was that it would create/save between 2.5 and 3 million jobs. Depending on who's scoring you use, the ACTUAL MEASURED savings/creation was between 3 and 4.5 million.

    That's not "no government job creation"... and in fact when the stimulus expired, we saw about 100,000 jobs lost almost immediately out of teaching and other public sector work. IOW the stimulus worked better than predicted. It just needed to be continued and it wasnt for purely political reasons


    Again different groups are better and worse at investing. Governemnt spending is MORE EFFICIENT in creating jobs than MARGINAL INCOME increases for the wealthy. IOW if you take $1 away from high earners in taxes, you do not SIGNIFICANTLY reduce their rate of investment.

    That's your myth.

    i supported none of your points. because your so called "points" are predicated on soemthing that does not occur: efficient investing of Marginal Income by the wealthy.
     
  8. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Except that didn't support your claim. Since it did not demonstrate a broad statistical sample.
     
  9. 888888

    888888 Council Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,761
    Likes Received:
    73
    Maybe it wouldn't if those who are/have been given money to create jobs would/should.

    Millionaires and billionaires have not shown that they are job creators but they were given by far the greatest amount of the TAX CUT in dollars. The truth is most small business owners create most jobs and they are not making millions for themselves each year or are they averaging 85,000 in tax cuts to do so like the top 1% does.

    As an incentive to create jobs, how long should we give them a big fat tax break when they don't/won't use it to do so. Shouldn't we be asking for them to either use it for the purpose that republicans said it was for or GIVE IT THE FXXK BACK? Why do the rest of us need to suffer while the rich get richer as we help them and want to punish the average guy by making them cover more of the cost of local and state govts that far exceed the pit-tally amount we have gotten in real money.

    The top 1% got .75 million dollars each and everyone of them to create jobs over the last 9 years, where are the jobs, gone way of BAIN capitol?
     
  10. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    A) The Economist is NOT a "conservative" publication. Pffft!

    When the newsmagazine was founded, the term "economism" denoted what would today be termed "economic liberalism". The Economist generally supports free markets, globalisation,[15] and free immigration, has been described as neo-liberal although occasionally accepting the propositions of Keynesian economics where deemed more "reasonable".[16] Furthermore, the Economist has also long supported government health and education spending[citation needed]. It also supports social liberalism, including legalised drugs and prostitution. The news magazine favours a carbon tax to fight global warming.[17] According to former editor Bill Emmott, "the Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative."[18]

    B) US growth during the Bush years is moot because your argument that Germany surpassed our growth (according to your admission) is only achieved by "adding back in the costs of unification" (of course, without deducting out its contributions). So it doesn't matter WHAT US growth was because your entire argument was based on an unsupportable claim vis a vis German growth rates.
     
  11. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    And none of that changes the fact that people who pay only wage taxes overwhelmingly get back more in SS & MC benefits than they paid in (so, in essence, they are paying a negative tax rate every bit as much as those who qualify for EITC). And, where I come from, that ain't "paying taxes!"
     
  12. 888888

    888888 Council Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,761
    Likes Received:
    73
    50% of the population doesn't even know what Obama care is going to do, they have just been scared to death from right wing nuts who put outlandish reposts with no real facts except the ones they want you to believe.

    But the truth is these polls have taken all those who are against the affordable health care and added to it those who are not happy with it because it doesn't go far enough and make it look like 69% are against affordable health care when in all reality they are not. You have 37% on your side, and 32 % want more change, that does not mean you have 69% agreement that it should be scrapped.
     
  13. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    No, just a common sense, practical viewpoint, relevant to our discussion. Feel free to find a quote from a prominent single payer advocate who says they support "repeal." I don't think you can do it...
     
  14. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    Horse pucky!

    http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/se...macare-repeal-four-polls-show-strong-support/

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/poll-americans-favor-supreme-court-repeal-of-obamacare-62918/

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Gallup-Obamacare-health-repeal/2011/11/16/id/418237

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...6/most-americans-obamacare-repeal-gallup-poll
     
  15. 888888

    888888 Council Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,761
    Likes Received:
    73
    who only pays wage taxes? If SS money was invested in govt bonds at the same rate of return that savings bods got over the years there would be plenty of money in peoples SS accounts.

    Not everyone gets the top amount in SS, it depends on your income that you paid SS taxes on from work.
    but what point are you trying to make LURKEY?
     
  16. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    Maybe you need to contact Greg Mankiw - he is unaware of your "settled facts" with respect to fiscal multipliers:

    In a previous post, I suggested that, in light of the substantial uncertainty we now face, the marginal propensity to consume is likely larger than normal. As a result, multipliers would be larger than normal as well, as Christy Romer suggests. But I will be the first to admit that all of these arguments--Clarida's, Romer's, and mine--are essentially theoretical. I don't know of much empirical work on state-dependent fiscal multipliers to establish convincingly which side of this debate is correct.

    Facts Degs, we need facts! And you don't have them...
     
  17. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    47% of income tax filers pay no income tax - how many of them do you suppose pay wage taxes?
     
  18. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Again what you consider "common sense" is neither. It just means it is something that accords with your belief. As for practicallity, its not that either

    Kucinish http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/kucinich-gop-healthcare-bill-repeal-b and that's just one
     
  19. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    None of that refutes 8888 point. Citing selective blogs without demonstrating how they represent "50%" of the public tells us nothing.
    Secondly the polling has to do with SUPPORT or REPEAL not of content and understanding

    You are not addressing 8888's point.
     
  20. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    LOLL!!!!!

    So much for you notion of what the political spectrum is.
     

Share This Page