Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
stonecircle
2052 Followers
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
Sean Mulligan
347 Followers
morningDigger
1022 Followers
novenatorDec 17, 2010
FTA- "This essentially puts a strain on DEMAND for products. The wealthiest can only consume so much and we all know it is CONSUMPTION that drives our economy. In fact it is 2/3rds of our economy. In 1926 and now in 2010 we are at the same crossroads. The top 2% are holding a majority of the wealth and the pool of consumers has shrunk to pre-depression numbers."
I think this nails it. It is the wealth consolidation itself that is causing this economic bust, and that is the key scenario that must be rectified in order for the wheels of a strong economy to get back on track. Working folks must be able to keep a greater percentage of the wealth that they create through their labor.
markglDec 17, 2010
So you want class warfare. I see. So let's have the government steal more money from the rich jerks.
usarugulaDec 17, 2010
Giving better tax cuts to the rich than the poor and middle class is class warfare. If you are coming from a stance of non-preferential taxation, I might digg you up for at least being ethical.
duncan202Dec 17, 2010
They're not "better". Only a liberal brain can come to the conclusion that since taxes on the wealthy aren't X times higher than everyone else's they are somehow "better" and less equitable to everyone else.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
blackinthmiddleDec 17, 2010
Seriously, can we stop with the sophomoric name calling? I'm a "liberal" and agree with you, so stop with the bulls**t. We're too f**king busy acting like kids on a playground while we are *collectively* going to hell in a hand basket!
letherialDec 17, 2010
you cant tell a kid to stop acting like a kid...fact is, maturity is something that happens over time; some longer then others
particleman420Dec 18, 2010
and what does that make you, DiggFerkel?
makushimirianDec 18, 2010
I wish I could digg you a thousand times.
duncan202Dec 22, 2010
Ok. I apologize for the "liberal brain" part. It was not necessary to make my point and as you asserted, was really only inflammatory.
markglDec 17, 2010
Singling out the rich to tax them more is class warfare. It goes both ways. I'm not rich by far but how does taking more money form the rich help anyone out?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
suicideluvkittyDec 17, 2010
taxing people according to their means isn't class warfare it's reasonable taxation.
it's like how some places offer their services on a sliding scale based on ability to pay.
there was a time in my life when i needed 100% of the income i had in order to survive, now i can live on less than 100% of my income. the more my income goes up the more i can live without.
and to answer your question, capitalism and consumerism work by people spending money. however any one person or family can only spend so much.. hard to believe when your live pay-check to pay-check, but once you have enough money you can start saving that money... and for the rich most of their money goes into savings or high end stuff that only spreads the money around in more affluent circles of the economy. one rich person buying a designer handbag is less beneficial to the economy than a bunch of people buying cheep retail handbags.
now i liked the tax cuts as they were before they added in the extra tax cut for income over 200k. reducing taxes on a portion of income is a good way to give everybody a tax cut. adding an addition reduction on higher income is totally an extra taxcut for the rich.
and really if you're income is so much higher than 200k that a significant portion of your income is still taxed at a higher rate, you're well enough off that it's not hurting you. and killing the economy so you can put another billion dollars into your investments portfolio is ridiculous.
ponyponiponeDec 17, 2010
People really forget that we have a graduated income tax when discussing this. This means that we all (before deductions) are taxed at the same rate on the same amounts of earning. Taxing the "wealthy" is not a correct way to look at graduated income taxation since you are not taxing wealth, you are taxing income. To be really progressive, there should be a flat wealth tax (like property taxes). That way wealth is encouraged to be productively reinvested, rather than wasted.
phphreakDec 18, 2010
Bottom line is: the money that people earn is theirs. Some money needs to be paid in taxes, however taxes the job creators is not the way to do so. When the government gets a dollars in taxes, it usually does not demand the same type of productivity for those who seek that dollar.
guitardreamsDec 18, 2010
You are saying that taxing someone more because they earn more is reasonable? And that it is not class warfare. All this does is punish success. And any argue you use to justify this tax discrimination IS class warfare.
thecoolestguyDec 18, 2010
It's straight socialism. You'r not taking from people according to how much they use government services, you are taking from people based on how much they can afford, so that people's success in life is neutralized, and you redistribute and 'level' fortune. It's a drastic intervention in society. It's tyranny yet your ideology is too immature to see.
suicideluvkittyDec 21, 2010
@thecollestguy
you must really hate insurance programs as well. the whole idea is that everybody pays in so that if any of them should needs coverage for something it'll be covered. it's not just a special savings account. it allows for the people who need it to use the money, even if it's more than they were able to put in, and the people who never need it are helping pay for the ones who do.
usarugulaDec 17, 2010
Coddling the rich by offering lower tax rates and loopholes unavailable is also class warfare.
And having them carry their weight helps others by covering the cost of benefits that we share as a society, like infrastructure, health & safety standards/enforcement, national security, social programs, education and wars.
Have you been made aware that America is in debt and operating under a deficit? Are you also aware that Exxon Mobil, recognized legally as a person by the U.S. Supreme Court – a very rich person, made $45 billion in profits last year but paid $0 in taxes? My tax burden was larger than that of Exxon's. And I suspect yours was too.
patrickhenryiiDec 17, 2010
Corporations don't pay taxes. Their customers pay taxes. Effective corporate tax rates should be 0. You and I pay those taxes whenever we buy the product. Or, we pay capital gains taxes when we sell the stock.
The idea that a business pays taxes is just silly and the sign of sloppy thinking. You have to follow the money all the way to the end of the line. I pay Exxon's taxes. If their taxes go up, their price goes up to cover the cost the the taxes. If their taxes go down, I pay less for the product.
And, don't forget, Exxon, a publicly traded company, is owned by all sorts of funds, including unions, grandma & grandpa, governments, your 401k. If Exxon loses money, and their stock goes down, then all those people lose money. If their profits go to taxes instead of shareholders, then the shareholders lose money. Think people! Think!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jhw539Dec 17, 2010
"how does taking more money form the rich help anyone out?"
Do you drive on roads? Use the internet? Use the FAA? Benefit from military protection of sea lanes? Rely on extensive contract law courts and enforcement?
In general, yes you do. And the more you earn the more you rely on these valuable government services (both directly and indirectly - Bill Gates cares a hell of a lot more about a good police service than a hobo living under a bridge).
markglDec 17, 2010
What do roads internet and the FAA have todo with poorer people cause that is what everyone here is complaining about.
cybrmikeDec 17, 2010
Bill Gates would probably opt out of police services if he could, since he has his own private security team and presumably wouldn't need the help of the police.
skatopherDec 17, 2010
why is anyone digging you up? you don't think bill needs the roads, the internet, and the FAA to make his millions? his workers teleport from city to city, updates for windows are hand delivered to your door by these teleporting employees?
please, saying the rich don't need those services is to ignore how they got and stay wealthy... next argument plx
markglDec 17, 2010
Lay off the roads speech it's kiling me. You know what this is about. I hate when people try to pull that crap. It's so annoying.
guitardreamsDec 18, 2010
In fact the more you earn the less you rely on the government. To take your argument the hobo owes his house to the government, Bill Gates does not. Bill Gates would do just fine if there are no police, he would create new jobs by hiring security.
I am not sure of your point in your first paragraph, but I think most would agree that you need some taxes but I would argue the current system is biased and less about paying for common services and more about "redistribution of wealth". I see a better tax system in either a flat tax or the Fair Tax.
thecoolestguyDec 18, 2010
1) Why would the rich use government services like roads, police etc in GREATER proportion to their wealth? Yes Bill Gates with $3 billion in income might use $300 million in government services, but why would he use $600 million, meaning 20% on every dollar, rather than the 10% on every dollar that every one else uses?
2) What about all of the government programs that the rich use less as a percentage of their income, like Social Security and Medicare?
3) What about the cost savings on scale? It might cost $5,000 in policing to protect a regular person, which would be 10% of their income, but a person who makes $10 million a year might only require $200,000 in policing, due to benefits in scale, meaning they only require policing costs equal to 2% of their income.
There is NO reason to tax the rich a GREATER percentage of their income than any one else.
ultimisDec 17, 2010
"for the rich most of their money goes into savings or high end stuff "
There is a simple concept of interest. Rich people do not have pools full of money they swim in, it is invested in businesses. This money produces jobs, expands companies, gives people like you pay raises, let's companies produce better products with more capital. Where do you think the vast majority of Bill Gates money is at? It's tied up in Microsoft. They only keep a small percentage of their money in a spendable form.
Money not invested is money wasted. As inflation is a key part of our GDP growth, you will lose money by sitting on it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
usarugulaDec 17, 2010
"This money produces jobs, expands companies, gives people like you pay raises..."
The rich did not get rich by hiring employees to build products no one wants; they got rich by meeting consumer demand for their products.
In short:
1. Consumers demand products
2. Producers hire people to increase production and meet consumer demand
3. Producers profit
It's not the other way around.
ultimisDec 17, 2010
"The rich did not get rich by hiring employees to build products no one wants;"
Exactly. Than you lost it within the next line. They produce a product that people want. If they don't, they lose money.
Economic growth doesn't magically come into existence. Consumers don't just have money, they get it from jobs, those jobs come from businesses. If a company does not have the right business platform (not selling hybrids, not selling food that is good, etc) than they don't stay in business, and consumers don't have money.
The vast majority of consumers work for businesses. If the businesses fail, consumers fail.
In a consumer based economy based on your depiction; it would be purely impossible for economic growth. It wouldn't happen.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FirstMackerelDec 17, 2010
It's not that you are wrong, but that you are incomplete in your thinking. This is clear from "Where do you think the vast majority of Bill Gates money is at? It's tied up in Microsoft." Just how do you think that money invested in Microsoft stock helps anyone or anything? Really, the only way it serves any function is to keep up the price of the stock. If Bill Gates ever decided to sell all his MS stock, the price would drop below a dollar a share. Investment money chases return. Unless the investor is very altruistic, that means it goes to Wall Street or overseas, where it may indeed produce jobs for workers who are Chinese, Indonesian, Indian and so on.
bobcat7407Dec 17, 2010
@First
Aren't stocks used to raise money for the company to invest and expand?
FirstMackerelDec 18, 2010
@Bobcat Only at the IPO or new issuance.
thecoolestguyDec 19, 2010
FirstMackerel, you're ignoring the increase in total market liquidity that having companies the stock of companies like Microsoft contributes to. Without the ability of people to trade and profit from stocks of large companies in the secondary market, the incentive to buy stocks in the primary market from issuers is diminished.
jacquelynekDec 19, 2010
Bulls**t they invest it in businesses. They invest it in derivatives and s**t that have 0 .. f**king 0 Value! Tell me that helps the economy. Somehow they make a profit from these things and then leave us in the end to pay for it.
letherialDec 17, 2010
when the poor do class warfare, its generally a real war and rich lose there lives; this of course is almost always because the rich have all the money and the poor cannot survive
The trend in the USA is the fact that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are not able to survive, however, its not gotten to the point where the poor are desperate (there is still food, sorta, and somewhat shelter), but the current trend does not look good as the middle class is falling more and more into poverty while the rich argue for more tax cuts.
chilidogsDec 17, 2010
How does artificially keeping wages stagnant help? They do that we tax them.
yibbutkeenDec 17, 2010
Well since the poorest 47% pay no net income taxes at all, of course any benefit is going to seem skewed to the rich.
ncmusicDec 17, 2010
That's not as true as you think, I don't have time to explain all the math right now. But if they paid no taxes there would be no difference between their pre and post tax growth, but there is, so obviously they pay taxes. And the chart is showing income growth in relation to pre-post tax. It's not only focused on how much better their taxes are but how much of a difference there was income growth between the top and the bottom.
usarugulaDec 17, 2010
"Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4342535.shtml
That means the middle class is carrying the burden for wealthiest in America.
And to your 47% point:
"The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years...have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.
"But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.
"Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
ultimisDec 17, 2010
Corporate taxes and income taxes are the same? Corporations =/= Rich people. Though rich people do have money invested in them. If a corporation doesn't make a profit, it isn't taxed, but the Rich person with money invested doesn't make any money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ericschc1Dec 17, 2010
"Corporations =/= Rich people."
Actually, you are mistaken. The way our tax laws are written, that's exactly how they are classified: as a very wealthy "person".
novenatorDec 18, 2010
Thank you for all of the great data backed up with solid citations. I had no idea 2/3rds of corporations pay no taxes. wow.
mercedrocksDec 18, 2010
? You're talking about corporations. The reason why most dont is because of high CORPORATE TAXATION (39%).
Corporations have to pay taxes wherever they have facilities located in the world (to host country) and then to Uncle Sam if any of their revenues are returned to the US as profits. Thats why they either stash their profits overseas or incorporate their HQ in countries like Ireland with corporate taxes of a meager 12.5% (microsoft). Chart > http://tinyurl.com/yee4qvo
"That means the middle class is carrying the burden for wealthiest in America.." ????
The top 20% of income earners pay more than 86% of all federal income taxes.
guitardreamsDec 18, 2010
Corporation do not pay taxes ever! You can tax them 1000% and all that will happen is the price of their product or service will increase.
Closed AccountDec 17, 2010
Its not class warfare. The upper class currently pays the highest % to the government for every dollar they earn. The lowest 1/3 of americans barely pay any taxes (by percentage of money they earn) so if anybody deserves a tax break it is the upper class. Even with the tax cut they will still be paying a higher percentage than any other bracket.
miklkitDec 18, 2010
That is simply not true. The haves and the have mores end up paying a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than the vast majority of Americans.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/
nycjapDec 17, 2010
So when the money flows up to the rich, it's "trickle down" economics, but when it goes the other way, it's "class warfare"?
markglDec 17, 2010
No.
morphotosonetDec 17, 2010
Yes.
markglDec 17, 2010
You know it's class warfare. You just don't want to admit it.
nycjapDec 17, 2010
Ha! This is just more right wingnut re-branding. Queensland gooseberry not selling? Just rename it "the kiwi" and watch it fly off the shelves! Guess what? It's still the same fruit.
markglDec 17, 2010
Stop it your breaking my heart...
jeffshaughtDec 17, 2010
you mean "you're", right? It's a contraction for "you are." How is anyone supposed to take you seriously with your horrible spelling and grammar?
bobcat7407Dec 17, 2010
@jeff
You may want to capitalize "you" at the beginning of your sentence.
markglDec 17, 2010
Jeff, grow up.
chilidogsDec 17, 2010
I know that's f**king retarded.
sunuvDec 18, 2010
markgl, you know you're an idiot. You just don't want to admit it.
adaguyDec 18, 2010
Why is one considered class warfare, and yet the other is not?
ultimisDec 17, 2010
"flows". The government is taking money from them, not giving it to them. If they take less money than before does that mean they're "flowing" money to the rich?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitDec 17, 2010
There has already been class warfare for the last 30 years, and you rich are winning it. Every statistic shows this to be true. Warren Buffet says so and he is in your class. He is also for increasing taxes on the richest people in America, since the top 10% has by far the most money and wealth.
You are using the tired old republicon tactic of accusing others of what you yourself are doing.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/09/businessinsider-15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL
markglDec 17, 2010
Me rich? I wish! But someday if I do become a millionaire I want to keep my money not have the government take a giant chuck of it while others get to keep most of theirs. The left is always crying about being fair and equal social justice but when it comes time for the tax man to show up hey don't take my money get it form the rich down the road!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicDec 17, 2010
As opposed to borrow it now and get it from the middle class later.
subjectdeniedDec 17, 2010
man, if you become a millionaire, you will have far enough money to spend. if you still think someone steals from you at this point because of taxes to pay, you might have to consult a mental doctor, because it would mean, that somethings not quite ok with your live at all
ultimisDec 17, 2010
People with money do charities and investments. This allows them to spend money on what they think is important, instead of some politician. Charities such as Bill Gates trying to get more computers put into schools over the last decades. Investments would be the vast majority of his money tied up in Microsoft to make sure the company stays strong and doesn't lose jobs/production. I doubt there are very many rich people that just sit on their money and do nothing with it, considering if they're not making at least interest they're losing money to inflation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitDec 17, 2010
Charities are a tax break. Why do you think the New York Philharmonic's conductor gets over $1million a year?
bobcat7407Dec 17, 2010
Who care's if it's a tax break? It accomplishes the same thing no matter the motive.
WreckedEmDec 18, 2010
If you're a millionaire, you're barely upper middle class. If you're fortunate, your household might be making $250k/yr. After federal, state, property, vehicle, etc taxes, you'll be lucky to keep $100k. Add a mortgage for a modestly nice, $700k house, and you're down to about $65k. Add a couple kids, groceries, fuel, car repairs, home repairs, and you'll have about $20k left. A nice annual family vacation will run you $5k minimum. That leaves you $15 to invest for retirement, or blow on toys, cars, home upgrades... Yes, it's a very nice life, but you're not exactly living the life of luxury. You definitely won't be quitting your job any time soon, and are likely working your ass off.
The whole "rich people get huge tax breaks" idea is purposely and misleadingly promoted as "rich people pay no taxes". It's a tool used by politicians to generate votes via the foolish masses sense of entitlement.
particleman420Dec 18, 2010
well rectum, maybe those "poor" millionaires shouldnt buy so much of that s**t if it depletes their funds so that can barely scrape by.
ncmusicDec 20, 2010
@WreckedEm you're going to have to be way more specific if you want someone to beleive anyone making 250k/year is paying an effective tax rate of 60%. My effective tax rate is about 25-27%.
u2canfailDec 17, 2010
But the rich do not want more rich people. Consentration of all wealth makes keeping wealth easier. The idea here is to keep you in place, by paying more in taxes, as a percentage of income, than they do. They can effectively keep you from having discretionary income. Then controlling the available funds for venture capital. You can't break out without capital or something the wealthy need. It is working, we have fewer middle class and more poor every year. Soon, all wealth will be controlled by the few, then you will "slave for food" as they control labor or die.
I am not looking forward to it. I am old I will pass on, but your children will be thrilled you supported their rich masters! Keep thinking you will be wealthy someday, it is funny!
eraptorDec 17, 2010
markgl,
I pity people like you because you're so caught up in the ideological BS you've been fed that you fight to undermine your own economic opportunities. The reason you don't know this is because you don't have a clue about economics or how economic/fiscal policies REALLY work.
If you believe in capitalism, as you assert, and want to live in a Democratic country with a healthy economy, then there's no escaping a progressive tax system. Why? Because absent a progressive tax system, a capitalist society's financial resources become concentrated among an ever-shrinking segment of its population over time (depriving people, like you, of economic opportunities). The only way to prevent this and ensure the viability of a healthy economy (i..e, economic opportunities (aka chance to become rich)) is through a progressive tax system. A progressive tax system isn't designed to "punish" rich people as Republicans/Conservatives mistakenly claim, it's simply a means of protecting healthy economic activity throughout society (and the market). Without it, your dreams of becoming a millionaire are simply a pipe dream that could NEVER come true.
Finally, where do you think the government spends those tax revenues? Answer: the MARKET (aka private sector). It's NOT a financial black hole as Republicans would have the ignorant among us believe.
markglDec 17, 2010
You are scary my friend. Scary.
particleman420Dec 18, 2010
i know, facts and knowledge are scary.
but you get used to them the more you expose yourself to them.
Closed AccountDec 17, 2010
You act like the lower class won't still be paying a large portion of their income to taxes.
I call troll on this one.
anarchy2465Dec 18, 2010
Okay say you made 10 million a year and the government taxed half. You pocket 5. Now tell me that's not enough for you.
"The left is always crying about being fair and equal social justice but when it comes time for the tax man to show up hey don't take my money get it form the rich down the road!"
-uh huh because the 'left' wants only the rich to pay taxes? That's sure what you made it sound like. Anyways I don't identify with whatever you are calling the left. I think everyone should be taxed and that percentage should be appropriate so that the government has enough money to run (i.e. isn't starved of money) while the people have enough to meet their basic needs (food, shelter, water, heat, health, transportation, etc.).
bugsy187Dec 18, 2010
You are never going to be rich. I can say that with over 99% certainty. You're living in a self-deluded fairy tale. Wealth is consolidating and it's actually harder and harder to become rich. People far smarter (and richer) than you are filling your head with bulls**t.
u2canfailDec 18, 2010
markgl And the the wealthy do enjoy the sentiment. Please leave the wealthy alone, more tax breaks please, deductions anyone, because I will be wealthy someday! And go on dear, win the lottery, it is a shot at wealth, and probably the only shot you have!
trdrstvDec 17, 2010
The issue I see with that is that Warrent Buffet himself and the Gates foundation can make a much larger impact with their money directly rather than giving it up to bureaucrats where they piss it away on pork pet projects.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitDec 17, 2010
There has already been class warfare for the last 30 years, and you rich are winning it. Every statistic shows this to be true. Warren Buffet says so and he is in your class. He is also for increasing taxes on the richest people in America, since the top 10% has by far the most money and wealth.
You are using the tired old republicon tactic of accusing others of what you yourself are doing.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/09/businessinsider-15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL
novenatorDec 18, 2010
Another great citation. Thanks to you!
rethreadDec 18, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/2b8n98a
This was approved, 7 to 1 on the vote.
subjectdeniedDec 17, 2010
"class warfare", i bet you even don't know what this really means, or studied marxism to be able to join a discussion in such a offensive manner. making people believe that "class warfare" has dissappeared in our current form of capitalism, will finally be it's downfall. it's not stealing it's distribution of wealth, that is needed also in the bottom of the system, or else those located there will revolt, or gather in radical groups. by the way you might look also into theories that deal with past fascism in europeComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
guitardreamsDec 18, 2010
Are you advocating "redistribution" Taking income that is earned from one person and giving it to another?
chilidogsDec 17, 2010
So consolidating wealth at the top and keeping wages stagnant for a decade is just business but raising taxes 3% is class warfare?
u2canfailDec 18, 2010
Absolutely, the GOP has said so.
dustbunny52Dec 18, 2010
We have had class warfare for the last 10 years. Rich have pretty well beaten the snot out of the poor and middle class. I am always amazed when the lower classes start standing up for themselves how quickly the rich start screaming about how they are being oppressed. Believe it or not, you are not the victim here.
ghendricDec 17, 2010
bs... Then as now, government SPENDING was the driving force that collapsed the economy... SPEEEEENNNNNDDDINNG..... What we have is a bunch of Progressive @ssholes trying to collapse America with massive SPENDING.. What most people don't realize is that the Progressives ARE NOT American friendly. They don't believe in the American individual. They only think in a centralized hive mentality where the government gives you your born with rights as a human being, not God.. may they be d@mned...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitDec 17, 2010
Again, you are accusing others of what you yourself are doing. It has been your republicon borrow and spend policies that have put us in this ditch. You are the damned criminals.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6
ghendricDec 17, 2010
I'm not a republican nor a democrat. I am first and foremost an American. Screw the politics..those sob's think that tax money is their private stash..
adambomb5060Dec 18, 2010
You're right about that, but it directly contradicts your previous statement. It's not spending that's the problem, it's what the money is being spent on. In your words, "those sob's think that tax money is their private stash..."
After the depression hit, taxes went back up, and in the subsequent years, we saw our greatest period of growth to date.
kinserDec 18, 2010
But it still wasn't gov spending that lead to this. It was the richest people's crooked schemes to get richer that put us in this mess. I thought this was clear by now, the banks and the republicans that deregulated them are at fault.
bobcat7407Dec 17, 2010
Why do you insist on posting this disingenuous link? Show me how Congress voted and then we'll see how partisan you want to be.
miklkitDec 18, 2010
You owned all three branches of government when all of this happened except for the stimulus. This deficit belongs to you republicons, lock, stock, and barrel.
http://reaganbushdebt.org/
bobcat7407Dec 18, 2010
You just don't get it do you? It is bi-partisan. Can you be so blindly partisan that you can't see that? How about the trillions Obama has added then?
novenatorDec 18, 2010
bobcat, the additional debt incurred in fiscal 2010 is a concern, but understandable considering that we need direct spending because of this mother of all recessions. Remember the budget for fiscal 2009 was submitted and signed by Bush.
The more important question is why fiscal conservatives ran up the debt so high when times were good.
countess666Dec 17, 2010
seriously, how has spending sunk the economy? that doesn't make ANY sense no matter which economic theory you worship.
the only way that could possible happen is with hyper inflation, which hasn't happened, not even close.
and it likely wont as long as there is a large world wide demand for dollars to buy oil.
dusanmalDec 17, 2010
Spending of money one does not have. General population, companies, Government. Result - economic bubble (housing is the best example): things look as there is higher demand and prices raise but there is no real money to support it. Hence most of the wealth is fake/borrowed. House of cards. Any economic flutter brings it down. Only real exit: hyperinflation so that value of money and wealth in general can drop to what we actually have.
Spending of money one actually has (again on all levels) - good, no bubbles or crisis.
u2canfailDec 17, 2010
Housing Bubble: That "spending of money one didn't have", was fueled for us, by banks. By the folks who were paid extra dollars to do the loans, resold them for more money as AAA, when they were absolute junk, and then insured themselves against default. It was a ponzi scheme played out on gullible Americans who believe in something for nothing and their chance at the American Dream. Done to us by the wealthy, for the wealthier. And then we, average working Americans, not in their debt, got to clean up the mess, and lost our jobs.
cosmicsurferDec 18, 2010
It wasn't just Americans...The entire world invested in the crap that was created by the scam artists and banks...That is why Greece is bankrupt, and the EU nearly collapsed
ghendricDec 17, 2010
Government spending causes inflation because when they create bonds to sell to the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve creates a whole bunch of new money and gives it the Federal government. Then the Federal government throws that into the economy which in turn causes prices to rise because too many dollars are chasing goods. Then, You the consumer has a much harder time purchasing those goods because you don't get an increase in your salary to cover the increased costs. That makes you really mad and you start rioting because you can't afford to buy food and pay your rent/mortgage and utility bills. Then, the federal government declares that it must clamp down on the rebellion that has ensued and starts stripping away your freedoms and liberty all in the name of keeping you safe.. are you following this ok or do you need a picture?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ghendricDec 17, 2010
Government spending causes inflation because when they create bonds to sell to the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve creates a whole bunch of new money and gives it the Federal government. Then the Federal government throws that into the economy which in turn causes prices to rise because too many dollars are chasing goods. Then, You the consumer has a much harder time purchasing those goods because you don't get an increase in your salary to cover the increased costs. That makes you really mad and you start rioting because you can't afford to buy food and pay your rent/mortgage and utility bills. Then, the federal government declares that it must clamp down on the rebellion that has ensued and starts stripping away your freedoms and liberty all in the name of keeping you safe.. are you following this ok or do you need a picture?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicDec 17, 2010
Do you need a picture to prove that all the government spending doesn't come from progressives? unless you're taking the line that there haven't been true conservatives controlling the government in 30 years.
ghendricDec 17, 2010
The Progressives have taken over the Democrat party and have infiltrated the Republican party.. that's why they're so much alike.. If you hear someone say they are a Progressive Republican, that's a pretty good indication that they are a Progressive..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ghendricDec 17, 2010
...also, maybe the people should stop voting for the same people all of the time... putting term limits on congress and the senate would fix that..
ncmusicDec 17, 2010
I agree with term limits so it does sound like you're saying the republican party isn't conservative on spending only on social issues.
usarugulaDec 17, 2010
ghendric: get back to me when you can properly name the two, main political parties operating in the U.S.
bookantDec 17, 2010
"The Progressives have . . . infiltrated the Republican party?"
Wow. If you actually think there's anything even remotely progressive about the extreme-Right Republican party (who've moved so far to the right they actually make Nixon and Reagan look liberal by comparisson), that's all the proof we need that you live an alternate reality bubble that bears no resemblance to the real world the rest of us live in.
ghendricDec 17, 2010
re:"The Progressives have . . . infiltrated the Republican party?"
... a Progressive Republican is one that swings left.. they might as well call themselves a Progressive Democrat because I don't see much difference..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicDec 18, 2010
I assume then ghendric you vote for 3rd party candidates since there isn't really a party that seems to represent your conservative and/or libertarian ideals.
u2canfailDec 17, 2010
I must need a picture. What you said made 0 sense to anyone but you. But you do rant well!
countess666Dec 17, 2010
yes inflation... I mentioned that already
so where is it?
its not in the graphs leading up to the economic crash.
the only 'inflation' that happened was in the beginning of bush's presidency, on purpose, in order to stimulate exports.
"Then the Federal government throws that into the economy which in turn causes prices to rise because too many dollars are chasing goods. Then, You the consumer has a much harder time purchasing those goods"
wait.
first too many dollars causes prices to inflate because of increased demand... which causes decreased demand.
while true, that happens at the same time.
one does not follow the other in this way.
if too many dollars are in fact chasing to few goods that would mean the economy was rolling again, because goods were being sold and invests made to increase production ect.
"housing is the best example"
housing wasn't the bubble that burst, it was the unregulated derivatives market based on it. but it could have been based on anything and the results would have been the same.
TARP would have fixed the problem if it was just housing by providing enough money to buy all the sub-prime mortgages, turns out it wasn't even close to what was needed.
ghendricDec 17, 2010
Have you been to the grocery store lately??? I know for a fact that food prices have increased 20-30% because I go to the store and buy food and track that spending.. I'm not eating better or more.. Why don't they throw food and energy costs into that "calculation"?? They don't want us to know that's why.. we might get mad and do something about it..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailDec 17, 2010
Good, at least now your on my level, groceries. Groceries in my area are up, not by 30% over last year, and most of the price increase is fuel cost. (AS IN DELIVERY COSTS) I guess the oil companies did inflate their prices, they were not making enough profit. EXXON 2009 made $45.2 billion and paid $0 taxes to the USA. They just had to inflate cost to us. Next please. You rant well.
letherialDec 17, 2010
One reason on food prices has gone up is gas is higher, and since the last gas scare, they haven't lowered there prices (and why should they) if the right would get there head out of there ass, maybe we could reverse the trend on energy cost.
Also food has not gone up 30%...don't spout s**t without some type of proof. maybe you need to find another store.
ghendricDec 17, 2010
re:"Also food has not gone up 30%...don't spout s**t without some type of proof. maybe you need to find another store."
It has gone up that much where I live.. I can do the math.. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.. You just keep believing the "news"..
countess666Dec 18, 2010
@ghendric, then maybe you live on a island or something that has its supplied derived by a special boat or aircraft.
and in that case, your numbers aren't representative for the nation AT ALL.
a 30% increase isn't representative of the nation period, no matter where you live.
netantDec 18, 2010
Meat prices have increased because during 2007-2009, meat producers were slaughtering their stock, left and right. They could not afford to feed them and recoup their costs. Starting in 2010, there's less available cattle to slaughter, thus less product available to buy, therefore prices rise. That is not inflation. That is supply and demand economics.
Also, in 2007-2008, grain producers were taking away available grain to rend into ethanol, because there was a speculator driven shortage of gasoline which made ethanol more profitable. With the economy going down the drain, growers did not increase their production of grain. Therefore, high grain prices remained in 2009-2010. Again, this is not inflation. This is supply and demand economics.
Food prices are not increasing because the gov't is increasing its deficit spending. The gov't increase in spending could not match the drop in consumer spending that occurred during 2008-2010. When the Fed increases M2 or does QE's, that does not directly impact on consumer inflation. IF the Fed screwed up in its stimulus, it would still take a year for that money to trickle into the consumer economy before inflation would ignite. And we would see a skyrocketing stock market before that would occur.
Energy costs are BARELY starting increase in this QUARTER (2010). Before that, prices were still depressed, due to the speculator driven shortage in 2007, and the worldwide recession, which drove down demand for fuel.
Look Chicken Little, learn a little more economics before you go whining about an inflationary meltdown. At least understand you cannot create inflation and DEFLATION at the same time!!! (Unless the Fed chairman and its board literally understand economics as well as you do, ghendric.)
And you whining tool, if you really believed the gov't was embarked upon a hyper-inflationary death spiral, this is what investors call a LIFETIME investing opportunity. Put all your money into gold, silver, commodities, and non-inflationary foreign currency, and become filthy rich.
biotchDec 18, 2010
Have you been to reality lately?
Inflation has been extremely low since 09. We even went into a period of DEflation. Either your grocery store is ripping you off, or your memory isn't serving you correctly. I wouldnt be surprised of the latter considering your comment history.
Source:
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Annual_Inflation/annual_inflation_chart.htm
ghendricDec 19, 2010
re:"Have you been to reality lately? Inflation has been extremely low since 09. "
You seriously believe that? We're still living with the hyper inflation that was generated in the 70's! I'm an old guy and I remember when gas was 16-20 cents a gallon. I remember when bread as 25 cents a loaf! Do you really expect me to believe that having the Federal Reserve inflate the money supply is a good thing?? You must think that I'm some stupid little punk still wet behind the ears.. lol.. All the Fed does is dick with the economy and we all suffer for it one way or another. They constantly destabilize it and the world economy..
u2canfailDec 19, 2010
ghendric, Poor boy. Yes, why don't you go to another store, or perhaps stop buying groceries at a store. Or simply move, i have lived in TN and NC recently, just traveled to TX, groceries are not up 30% in any of those places.
countess666Dec 22, 2010
wow... still mad at gas not being 20 cents a gallon. you hold a grudge.
well, to ease you mind, the fed had little to do with that, it was exporting countries realising that what they had was finite and wanting more for it while their supplies lasted.
ultimisDec 17, 2010
Government spending that does not go directly back into the economy has either no impact or a negative impact on the economy. A lot of the spending done in the last few years has gone into projects that do no grow current businesses in the U.S. Either they went towards "shovel ready projects" that don't exist, or they went to businesses over seas. I'm sure you're quite aware that money going to foreign countries is going to have little effect on our economic growth.
Throwing money towards non-existent jobs, is just throwing money away. That money is already going through a lot of overhead due to government, but creating a job that will disappear as soon as the money runs out doesn't help the economy in any way.
u2canfailDec 17, 2010
So your saying that the great GOD of WALL STREET had nothing to do with the collapse?
It was all spending, and government spending at that? Interesting. Actually my civil rights are government granted, they have nothing to do with Your God. Just so you know.
Now to WAll Street and GOD
What they did was pure capitalism, the outright worship of money and wealth. Uncontrolled unregulated industry with Church Lady greed to their benefit for their profit GOD only. It sure worked out well. I really really really want a WALL STREET MELTDOWN to happen again!
Thank you ghendric and your great money GOD!
rethreadDec 18, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_great_depression
I followed you down here, and I'm glad I did. Sarcasm detectors are often faulty around the Digg radiation. I would like to point out that, aside from the Corporate bailout and the unemployment extension; the tax cuts and condition of the world economy and U.S. tax structure are eerily similar to the precursor conditions of The Great Depression.
I'll just start the clock, because the goose is in the oven, and when these subsidies run out, it's cooked.
After checking you profile, I'll just follow you out of here now.
u2canfailDec 18, 2010
This I do for fun. I work for myself.
My grandmother was a heroine in her town during the depression, she gave away food. She paid people to come with wagons to take food from her house. Granddad was a country Doc paid in produce, poultry, and beef. The 2 of them could not consume all the goods. People were starving and she had food. (Probably why I am not rich today, she was always generous, I learned much from her.)
thxs for the link and the pointer Interesting.
rethreadDec 19, 2010
I follow people for a reason. Or not. I followed you, because you are that, above. Some, I follow to achieve a balance for someone I might shouldn't have followed.
I f**k up occasionally, s**t happens.
I have no regrets for anyone followed here by me.
There will be a time you will want to remember that, above. I saved it for ya. Anytime.
yurmutha412Dec 17, 2010
It's true that the rich have done the best since 1979, however all income groups have increased.
http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/07/22/income-inequality-a-deeper-look/
Notice the charts, which even though taxes varied wildly, from 70% down to 35%, the lower income levels maintained pretty much the same incline. What this means is basically, there are more rich people, but everyone else is still doing better, and the rich pay a combined higher portion of taxes than they did when there were fewer of them. The only thing increasing taxes will do will bring down the number of rich people and poorer people will be required to pay more taxes. Talk to people that actually lived in the 20s and they will tell you those were good times for everyone. The 30's were bad times for everyone.
miklkitDec 17, 2010
There is not one about inflation in there. The vast majority of the people in this country saw their real income go down, not up.
yurmutha412Dec 17, 2010
It says "inflation adjusted" average on the first graph.
netantDec 18, 2010
Talk to centenarians, and they'll tell you times were good? I'd be lucky if they're still coherent. Times were good in the 1920's is meaningless. They were living in an economic bubble. Of course times seemed good then. The 1930's were bad times for anyone without assets. The Great Depression did not impact in the slightest the consumer spending of the wealthy. Only rich Republicans gave a damn, because that pesky FDR was preventing them from robbing the country blind!
yurmutha412Dec 18, 2010
Point is, the division between rich and poor is meaningless. There was a greater division in 1929 than there was in the 30's, but everyone was doing worse in the 30's. It's a stupid and meaningless argument. BTW, I have talked to people that went through the great depression. My stepfather did. What matters is how the people on the low and middle are doing and they are doing about the same whether taxes are 70 percent for the rich or 35 percent for the rich. The only difference is there are less rich and they don't have as much money, and the GDP is lower.
herojonDec 17, 2010
That is an economic fallacy at the finest.
If the rich were keeping all their money buried away, it has the net effect of reducing the supply of money in the economy. In a truly free market the result is always a drop in price level.
But it's a fallacy anyways since money is rarely ever buried away. Instead it's put into financial investments. This increases the supply of loanable funds, generating a demand for burrowing, leading to small businesses popping up. The problem is that, like in 1929, the supply of loanable funds and the interest rate were not being dictated by the free market. They were being controlled by the Fed. This means that when people, rich or poor, change their personal savings rates, the market does not react accordingly. Pretty obvious that if the market isn't allowed to behave naturally, supply and demand are going to get out of whack and bubbles are going to burst.
Further, consumption alone does not drive an economy.
ALL economic growth is a result of investment, that is, deferring present consumption. If there were never people saving and investing, we'd still be in the dark ages.
Closed AccountDec 17, 2010
I'm not sure how I agree with all these problems being due to the Fed, but you're spot on about the fallacy of the rich sitting on their money, so I gave you a digg.
I was actually going to post something similar, so it's nice to see that there are other beacons of rational economic analysis here.
herojonDec 18, 2010
Well I can't prove that it's the Fed; if supply and demand curves haven't been reacting in economically expected ways to changes in the personal savings rate, the only reasonable explanation I've ever heard for that is that the money supply and loanable funds market is being manipulated.
If they have been acting in "expected" ways, then the results aren't there and fundamental economic theory needs to be revisited.
rethreadDec 18, 2010
Allow me to clarify the essence of all this. Business success is all about making enough money to grow. This means paying the absolute least to the worker as is rationally possible in order for them to survive. Yes, this country was founded on slavery using the same model that is in use today.
Labor unions were founded to allow growth and opportunity to the work force. Businesses hated them with a passion. Monopolies were outlawed in a similar vein of thought. All of these protections built over the years have been abused to every extent possible, patriot act, Corporations as a person, tax code that could hide a white elephant in a bathroom.... in order to get back to the golden dream of business. Workers working just to survive. Business owners (think slave owners) living in the lap of luxury. Trouble is, you have to make something to sell it. All of that is being done in foreign countries, because of currency... ie cheaper slaves. No more unions, look around at some of the hidden monopolies in the world (big oil, looking at you), patriot act for intimidation. It's really all quite straightforward. It's business, plain and simple. Pay less, earn more, grow. But, in true growth you build, produce, grow something. Invest in those who do so.
cowteetsDec 17, 2010
this is retarded... the higher income brackets are already paying 40-60% of their income in taxes... if you want to use history to prove a point, don't leave out the fact that taxing the rich and "wealth distribution" has never worked in any society.
ghendric is right, government spending is the true culprit.
blackinthmiddleDec 17, 2010
Well to me, the real culprit is the fact that the unemployment rate is hovering around 10%. I agree, taxing the wealthy is not the way to go. The problem is that there are too many unemployed who are draining the system dry (unemployment benefits for two damn years) and not paying their taxes (can't pay taxes when you don't have a job).
Honestly, I think this is going to be the new normal. It's different than during the depression because the Dells of the world are looking to maximize profit and are shipping the jobs that many Americans used to do overseas. When's the last time you called a company like Dell and actually got an American voice on the other end?
See, the problem is no politician wants to be truly honest and say this. Stimulus package. Tax the rich to death. That's all great. But every time that unemployment number goes up, those are more people who aren't paying taxes AND sucking up unemployment benefits. Nobody is buying are stuff anymore. Our labor is too damn expensive. These are the real problems.
subjectdeniedDec 17, 2010
the real problems of the usa, might also be found in the fact that there were 4 wars since 1990, and a deregulated financial sector, which partly seems to act similar to some criminal organizations
suppasonicDec 17, 2010
Pretty sure the people getting unemployment benefits are spending almost all of that money while those in the highest MTR bracket save most of that marginal income.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
blackinthmiddleDec 17, 2010
And what's your point, exactly? That the money that we're giving them is somehow coming from the magic money fairy and that it's not contributing to our deficit? That these people, although they don't have a job are somehow paying taxes?
I don't want people to think I'm against people getting unemployment benefits. However, my point is that every person who doesn't have a job can't pay taxes (other than the taxes paid when they actually buy something) AND is helping to increase the deficit. Sure, tax the rich. That's only putting a band-aid on the problem and is not getting to the root cause, which is the fact that nobody can find work right now.
u2canfailDec 22, 2010
If the choice is: tax breaks for the wealthy vs unemployment benefits, then the effect on the deficit is far less with unemployment benefits. It is the same if we are looking at the economy as a whole. The rich won't spend more because of a tax cut, the unemployed spend every penny of their benefit just to survive. The unemployed do pay taxes on that money.
taiyoryuDec 17, 2010
Most people elect to have their income taxes deducted before receiving their unemployment check, just like any other paycheck. (That's why you fill out those W-4s.) I certainly did when I was filing claims. Made my accounting much easier.
blackinthmiddleDec 17, 2010
That's correct, but I'm not exactly sure what your point is. That they're paying taxes and don't get the whole unemployment check? I'm sure you realize that they're not generating that income, the people still working are.
What's the better scenario? That I earn a paycheck that gets taxed and some of my taxes (unemployment check for somebody else) also get taxed? Or both of us earning paychecks that get taxed? Obviously, the more people that work = the more tax money that comes in for the government. It means more people feeling comfortable saying, "Yeah, I'll take out a five year car note. I can pay it off." It means more people saying, "Hey, it's Friday. I'm going to treat myself to breakfast at McDonalds." It means more restaurants getting money. It means more rooms booked at hotels.
When the economy is bad *everybody* thinks twice before spending a dollar. My wife and I both work and make in the top 3% of wage earners in this country. Guess what? Since the s**t has hit the fan, all we're doing now is paying off debt and hording money. We're not getting the granite countertops we wanted. I'm not getting the BMW I always wanted. We're not taking that trip to Disneyworld. Because we see all of our friends losing their jobs and figure, hey, don't be a fool. Save, save and save some more! Every time I decide to brown bag it, the economy suffers. I'm not sure what about my argument you don't like.
taiyoryuDec 18, 2010
My point is that those who are unemployed still pay taxes on their unemployment benefit because it's still income. Your statement that the unemployed don't pay taxes is patently false. (Let's not forget that the unemployed still have bills to pay and purchases to make which are also taxed.)
I limited my response to that one statement, but based on what you said, you have a poor understanding of how unemployment works. So let me educate you some more. Your unemployment benefit is an insurance policy paid for by your employer. It's part of the overhead for every employed person. In a normal economy, you personally are NOT taxed. Your unemployment benefit is your money, and no one else's. When an unemployed person makes a claim, they are not stealing anyone's money, no more than if they made a car or health insurance claim.
Unfortunately, some states' unemployment insurance pools ran out of money. Simply put, more claims were filed than there was money to cover the claims. Insurance only works if the actuaries correctly predict how many claims will be filed. I'm sure no one expected unemployment numbers to be this high.
So with some states without unemployment benefits, they're forced to borrow the money from the federal government. If they didn't, any unemployed person could rightfully sue the state for unpaid insurance claims, further straining state budgets.
So the federal government (i.e., every US tax payer) loaned money to those states requesting money to fulfill their obligation to payout claims. The federal government was generous enough to provide enough money to extend benefits beyond one year which is the typical cutoff for unemployment claims. If Wall Street can get a federal loan and pay it off with interest, why can't Main Street?
Now, the fact that you're lamenting over not being able to buy kitchen upgrades, a new car, or go on vacation, only reinforces the perception of how out-of-touch the rich are. For some, that unemployment check may mean the difference of having to choose between paying the heating bill or buying an adequate amount of groceries.
blackinthmiddleDec 18, 2010
Ugh, where to begin? Let's start with the basics. I'm 38 years old and have been unemployed once or twice myself about ten years ago, so I understand how unemployment benefits work perfectly well. So that long multi-paragraph rant where you think you're educating me? You've COMPLETELY missed the point!
Let's look at what you said.
"My point is that those who are unemployed still pay taxes on their unemployment benefit because it's still income. Your statement that the unemployed don't pay taxes is patently false."
Ok, I didn't think I had to break it down that much, but for you I will. Obviously the unemployed still have to pay taxes on their benefits. However, there are two problems with this. One, they're not earning this money (as I've said before). It's borrowed money. So for every dollar the government overextends itself, it "gets back", let's say, 33 cents. From a bookkeeping standpoint, it's obvious that the government is losing money on this transaction. The point in paying taxes is that money comes into the government not, you pay taxes yet the government still loses. I hope you're getting this and are still not going to come back with "well technically the unemployed pay taxes" because they're paying taxes on borrowed money. The government still loses here!
When I give my daughter $200 and she goes and buys something, she's paying taxes too. Hey, great for the government! My daughter is paying taxes! Looks like the government is in great shape then, right? RIGHT?
And you think I was "lamenting" not buying stuff like granite countertops? See, this is what happens on digg more and more. People skim someone's post and think they got the gist of it. Why don't you go back and re-read my post? My point is that even people who have money are fearful of spending in a bad economy, so it's something that creates a snowball affect. The fact that you thought I was upset that I couldn't buy these things or that I'm "rich"? Reading is fundamental!
u2canfailDec 17, 2010
So what you are saying is: You want to work for 1/2 your current wage? And then send every job overseas, not just yours? That will solve it.
OR is it?
Let people starve to death and we have no unemployment benefits anymore.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
blackinthmiddleDec 18, 2010
Wow, how the f**k did you get that conclusion from what I said?
My assertion was simply that people not working is killing this country, not anything else. It's simple. The less people working = the less people paying taxes = the less money coming into the government = well why don't we tax the s**t out of the rich, they can afford it = not getting to the root of our problem, which is no jobs. Now if you want to debate me on *that* point, let's go. If you want to put outlandish words in my mouth (let people starve to death??? wtf???) and not comprehend what I actually wrote, you're on your own.
Closed AccountDec 18, 2010
So the true culprits are those lazy unemployed people. For example, students who finish school and can't find jobs and people who were laid off by greedy business men...
You know what? Honestly, this isn't worth the effort. I see your post as widely ignorant and slightly racist ("American voice," really?). Your "blame the unemployed" attitude doesn't help people who are struggling to live. The poor and middle class spend their extra money on food, transportation, and shelter. Why not extend their benefits and let them continue to survive? The money they spend stimulates the economy, even you agreed to that point.
blackinthmiddleDec 18, 2010
I dugg you down the moment I read your first sentence. Do you think that's my belief? That because people aren't working they're "lazy"? Re-read ALL of my posts, PLEASE! Did you *ever* read that I called people who are not working lazy? Sounds like you're a little sensitive and your sensitivity is causing you to not be able to read what people wrote.
I didn't say I don't want people to get unemployment benefits (again, please actually read my posts). Racist? I have no f**king clue where you're getting any racist tone from any of my posts. You've gone off the deep end! Like I said, your bias is causing you to not read my posts and to make s**t up.
I'm not "blaming the unemployed". I'm blaming the fact that for every job posting out there, there are six people looking for that job. There are more people looking for work than jobs and this fact is getting worse and worse. Again, if you disagree with me ON THIS FACT, let's go. I don't see how anybody could disagree with me here on this, other than people who are a little too sensitive about the subject and will not argue objectively.
jacquelynekDec 19, 2010
Unemployment is WAY higher than that.
countess666Dec 17, 2010
works pretty well in Sweden, and it is a true land of equal opportunity. the wealth of the parent has almost no influence on the chances for success for a child. unlike in the US where it is the main factor. (and no, that's not because Swedish kids fail more often)
trdrstvDec 17, 2010
Sweden has wonderful social programs, but also a 25% VAT so generation of wealth comes slowly, especially to the poor who use a higher portion of their income for 'general consumption'.
countess666Dec 18, 2010
and yet, they are among the wealthiest people on the planet on average.
trdrstvDec 18, 2010
http://www.success-and-culture.net/articles/percapitaincome.shtml
I suppose 26th out of 208 aint bad.... but if you notice the US is #3.
taiyoryuDec 18, 2010
@trdstv
The wonderful thing about averages is they hide the outliers and the distribution. The US's rank of #3 does not show the income gap.
countess666Dec 18, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
Norway has similar economic policies and is ranked above the US in all 3 collums
and here again
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc_percap-gross-national-income-per-capita
Sweden is right below the US, but without the huge income differences.
miklkitDec 17, 2010
the higher income brackets are already paying 40-60% of their income in taxes...
That statement happens to be untrue. Warren Buffet pays less than 18% in taxes while his staff pays almost 33% in taxes.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/
cowteetsDec 17, 2010
right. that's because the bulk if warren buffet's income is capital gains, which is taxed at what, 15%?
FICA ends after $100,000... after you factor in write-offs, charitable giving, other forms of assets and investments, thats not exactly apples-to-apples
.
blackinthmiddleDec 17, 2010
Yeah, I've gotta disagree with you on this one. On the one hand, I agree with the article. Consumption drives the economy and we all know it. But the solution is *not* to take from the rich. The problem is easy to identify: JOBS! Or in this case, a lack thereof.
So people who are unemployed are complaining that the government isn't extending unemployment benefits. I have to tell you, if you've been out of work for 99 weeks and you're still looking for more, there's a problem. Namely, who's paying for all of this? And if you haven't found a job in two years, maybe it's time to reevaluate your search?
Bottom line, we wouldn't have to tax the rich if more people were working, not sucking up unemployment benefits and paying taxes. You can tax the rich to death! At some point, if enough people lose their jobs then it won't matter.
Now the problem is, politicians can only do so much to spur job growth. Give tax subsidies. Give sweetheart deals for business owners. But at the end of the day, no politician (democrat, republican or otherwise) wants to say, "Look, it's simple. We've now become a truly global economy. We can't stop Michael Dell from shipping his call centers to India. THIS is the reason why we're screwed and there's not much any of us can do about it!"
subjectdeniedDec 17, 2010
the whole discussion sounds like those in former europe before fascism took hand, "those not willing to work" after the great depression were said to be guilty of the bad situation. hitler then "knew" what to do, he "removed" part of the citizens and the germans/austrians took over their workplaces by dividing the "not working" capital (those gaining money from herding it, the rich, for him the jewish people), from the "working capital" the typical working-class and middle-class citizen
afterwards he started war to employ the unemployed in the military industry. thats not all of course, i just wanted to speak about the "economics"
history repeats (even the reason for the crisis is similar), and if this time the proper (namely based on human values) solution still isn't found, radicals will rise in a glimpse. by the way, i would see your tea-party already connected to some kind of working-class/middle-class type of fascism
fasicsm to some is simply a "peak" of lost trust to each other within capitalism, it's the dualism in the system that must be overcome (without killing it), by slowly working on atlernatives. it's already happening, look at those new kinds of distribution and production, namely open-source and decentralized networking, that are showing a new form of organization and distribution completely different to the current, and already doesn't seem to fit in the pyramid structure made of stone
blackinthmiddleDec 18, 2010
"the whole discussion sounds like those in former europe before fascism took hand, "those not willing to work"..."
Wait, where do you read me saying anything about "those not willing to work"? Maybe because I said "suck up", people are reading what I'm saying wrong. Ok, let me rephrase this.
The problem right now is that there are not enough jobs and therefore the government is not getting enough in taxes and not enough money is circulating throughout the economy.
Better?
subjectdeniedDec 18, 2010
this was not meant against you, but should show a bigger picture
and wait until they start to tell you, that there are not enough jobs, because costs per working place are too high - happened and happens in germany and some other european countries, and people are getting really pissed now, because of the spending-cuts done by our governments to social welfare and education
u2canfailDec 17, 2010
Could we at least NOT give Michael Dell a tax break for sending those jobs overseas? Some countries charge a company for staying in business, but outsourcing all jobs to gain profits. Would it be possible for EXXON with $45.2 billion in profits, to pay some tax in the USA too? They paid $15 billion in taxes, to other countries, can we share, or do they have to use the infrastructure here for free? 3 out of 5 US Corporations paid $0 taxes from 1998 - 2005 according to the GAO. I paid every one of those years. I did not even make much, but every year I paid taxes. Did you?
blackinthmiddleDec 18, 2010
Damn good question. This is one I've asked many a time. "Well if companies are going to shift jobs overseas, take away their tax breaks and see how well that works out for them".
I'll be lying if I said I know "for sure" what would happen if we did that. The only thing I can turn to is what Governor Whitman tried to do in New Jersey years ago. She thought auto insurance companies were raising premiums without control, so she decided to limit the amount of profits insurance companies could make. And they promptly took up their shingle and moved their business out of the state! So what started off as a great idea ended up being New Jersey now having the highest car insurance rates in the country!
My *guess* is that if you tried to punish the Dells, IBMs, etc., of the world, they could hit back harder and we'd land up losing. Maybe they could move all of their operations overseas. I don't know. It's definitely a question I've asked.
u2canfailDec 22, 2010
But with those insurance companies, had 49 other States to keep going. If all 50 States had done the same thing, they would have adjusted, to stay in business. Exxon made $43 billion paid not one dime in taxes here in the USA, they did pay substantial taxes to many other countries. It is not that they will close up, there is oil and gas here. It is all the loopholes. They send earnings offshore. They have an office in one of those tax free islands somewhere and route US profit there. If they are now, a person, and can contribute to campaigns, I think they at least support the system, maybe?
I don't think business will close here, if profit is here. The problem as I see it, is this has gone on so long, that profit may just leave here. 10% unemployment could become 20% if we keep bleeding jobs. NO JOBS HERE, no one to purchase goods. Wages here have to higher than China, it has to do with actually eating. There are no easy answers, and our Congress, both sides of the asile, are owned.
matts0344Dec 17, 2010
consumption doesn't drive the economy, never has, never will. read a damn economics book.
We consumed like drunken sailors the last 10 years and look at where we are.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shauncorleoneDec 17, 2010
"we all know it is CONSUMPTION that drives our economy."
This is the crux of the problem with our economy. We don't produce anything, because 1.) Companies are taxed all to hell and 2.) countries like China mass produce the cheap crap we consume at a much cheaper rate.
20th century capitalism (read: consumerism) is not sustainable in the US given the interconnected world we live in. We need to develop solid hybrid businesses that provide a good or service but also do some kind of social good. I just don't want the Federal Government continuing to try to pick winners and losers, because they do so by who contributes to their campaigns rather than what might be actually be good for the American people. Our existing institutions, both private and public, are behemoths unwilling and incapable of becoming more agile.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailDec 17, 2010
Taxed all to hell? GAO stated 3 out of 5 US Corporation paid $0 taxes from 1998 - 2005, so where is your information coming from? Start there and talk more.
blackinthmiddleDec 18, 2010
Well he does make a good point that we no longer are producers; we're consumers. Nobody wants to buy our stuff. There are a number of reasons behind this, but this is a fact. In terms of the tax stuff, maybe he's referring to small business? I don't know.
u2canfailDec 22, 2010
My tiny little company pays about 25 to 35%. But I am lucky, I have almost no expense. I could hatch "write offs easily" to take the number down. When I travel for pleasure, if I drop in to see a client, the trip is now business? But I won't do that, my tax rate is OK, I have many benefits. I am not dollar driven, I will never be wealthy. I spend as much time as possible, being happy. I volunteer a lot. My largest expense for being self employed is health insurance, not taxes. With them, I am totally pissed off.
shauncorleoneDec 21, 2010
Not every private business is a large corporation. Something like 70% of the country is employed by a small business, not multi-national corporations. Large corporations I will agree are more capable of finding the loopholes to lower or erase their tax burden. However, my desire to institute the FairTax and remove the need for the IRS is a completely separate topic.
drndown2008Dec 17, 2010
I agree. I'm a conservative, just barely republican (I hate what they're doing, but I like the dems even less), and pretty well off. I'm going to save a lot in taxes because of these tax cuts, but I won't spend much more. I care more about the country not going to hell (money doesn't mean much if the country collapses), so I wish the tax breaks hadn't happened even though they benefit me personally.
We need some sort of grassroots approach to turn the country around where everyone is willing to sacrifice some to benefit the whole. Unfortunately, I think too many people only care about self ("what do I GET?!?"), and that's what's driving us towards the cliff. Everyone wants the benefits of government spending (lower tuition, cheaper health care, better roads, etc, etc) but no one wants to pay. I don't see this changing :(
subjectdeniedDec 17, 2010
exactly "it's the economy, stupid", but this time earth's population will overcome it, i'm pretty sure, as more and more people are seeing chances that there could be another alternative to communism or capitalism, if only all of us are working together for the good. people careing only about theirself is needed by capitalism, where every bad human behaviour can be sold and get you rich. hell you can even stabalize economies by going to war. this is ridiculous. our current system is based on "hate" and mistrust, or on darwinian principles of "only the strong survive", where as it should be based on "love", "giving" and "getting", and helping each other as an unity based on diversity
shauncorleoneDec 17, 2010
I hope you don't actually buy into that the crap you spewed in that last sentence. "people careing only about theirself is needed by capitalism"? Self-interest != Selfishness
subjectdeniedDec 18, 2010
it transforms to selfishness, if competition is getting harder. and yes i buy into this crap, because it's happening from top-to-down ("not willing to work, have to pay for their lazy live") as well from bottom-up ("those greedy bastards"). you know what i mean? and no it's not the state spending to much, it's the state having to repair damage coming from rationalization of working-places, caused by technological progress (50 year old who lost their job at the steal company, can't do as web 2.0 middle-class workers all of the sudden). and by the way, greed for me IS selffishness, capitalism is even giving bonus to them. maybe the trueth hides in the middle, and it's on everyone to overcome the prejudices, see the system as the problem generating those values leading to a wider gap. i don't know what's the solution, but i guess it's about time to work on it as productive as we are used to work on economic growth
guitardreamsDec 18, 2010
Love is hard and it is much more than having empathy or caring for another. Often it requires you to stand by and watch someone fail, even suffer because only then can they learn the lessons of life. Too often our emotion compels us to jump in and help and this can be good, but often too it actually interrupts the learning process.
u2canfailDec 17, 2010
Well si Sir. I am so tired of the fighting over stupidity.
We have debt. It is called a DEFICIT. It does not matter who contributed to it more. It needs to be paid. These tax cuts were stupid when passed the first time, 2 wars, anew Medicare benefit, and insane now. Americans are spoiled brats. They want everything, but do not want to pay for it. I am not well off. This tax thing will give me a few bucks, I could have let them go easily to pay down the deficit. I do not think my tax bill is high, and I like what I get in return. My values lean left, but I believe in paying for services. I also think Wall Street should pay for unemployment expenses, they ended jobs for many with the meltdown.
netantDec 18, 2010
Hey guys, its one thing to bury a guy, but at least give the courtesy of explaining why you think he's wrong (or bury-worthy).
I'm all for seeing some sacrifice. How about investors actually suffer the consequence of their crappy investments in 2006-2008? If all the banks would clean up their balance sheet, the housing market could finally recover. If they were threatened with 30% foreclosures in their portfolios, they'd be damn more motivated to renegotiate their toxic mortgages.
Here's another wild one. The US has 13 supercarriers, and the rest of the world does not have a single supercarrier. How about mothballing and/or selling half of them? They're only good for beating up on remote 3rd world countries. If they go against a 1st world military power, they'll be sunk by missles or a nuke. Then stop volunteering to be the world's policeman. Let the Middle East get overrun by Iran (ha ha). Let North Korea shell South Korea. Its pretty pathetic that South Korea is allowing Kim Jong Il to attack them, considering their military could wipe the floor with North Korea, in this day & age.
And finally, allowing the public option or single payer health care would DRIVE DOWN the costs of health care (and the US deficit). Only the US pays double the rest of the developed world for health care.
thecoolestguyDec 18, 2010
---And finally, allowing the public option or single payer health care would DRIVE DOWN the costs of health care (and the US deficit). Only the US pays double the rest of the developed world for health care.---
Allow the public option at the STATE level.
u2canfailDec 22, 2010
No, we are too "mobile society, health care needs to be federal, even if administered by the individual State. Texas and Alaska have oil money, they would have the best policy. Poor States would be a joke, as their education is now. It would mean, do not travel there, or go at your own risk.
lastvisibledogDec 19, 2010
1. many DO NOT believe that suckling at the teat of mommy government is the highest goal.
2. the top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of federal taxes
3. nearly 50% of the bottom wage earners pay 0% of federal taxes
How much more should the top earners pay for the benefits of those that don't pay tax?
Closed AccountDec 18, 2010
I think that if i USE a lot of capital LETTERS in my POST then more people will BELIEVE that what I am saying is CORRECT.
novenatorDec 18, 2010
That was not my writing, it was a quote from the article (thus the FTA which stands for From The Article).
Closed AccountDec 19, 2010
Yeah, I know. I was making fun of the article. Been around a while Nov. I know what FTA means.
skyscapeDec 18, 2010
There has been no tax cuts for the rich. They are only trying to extend Bush tax cuts. Obama pledging to increase taxes only on the the rich does not mean they are getting tax cuts right now.
This article is a classic example of how the Lenin divided the nation. First he attacked the rich by cleverly siding with the poor and middle classes, and turning the lower classes against the rich. After he was done with the rich, he stripped the money from everyone else. If you become silent right now, and allow the govt to tax the rich, you watch, because you're next. Taking money from the rich, means penalizing them for achieving success in the american dream.
novenatorDec 18, 2010
"First they came for the rich, but I did not speak up because I was not rich..."
Is that what you are getting at? It is actually based on leftists not speaking up and standing together when the fascists were overrunning Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6
Closed AccountDec 18, 2010
This article is right for the most part. Let's take two examples. Person A makes $20,000 / year and Person B makes $200,000 / year.
Person A:
Person A pays $500 / month for rent + utilities, $300 / month on their car + gas + insurance + repairs (lowballing!), and $200 / month on food. That means she has set monthly expenses of $12,000 / year. Person A get's taxed at 20%.
Person A grosses $20,000, nets $16,000 and has $4000 left over every year.
Person B:
Person B Pays $2000 / month on rent + utils, $1500 / month on cars + etc, and $750 / month on food. Their set expenses are 51,000 / year! Say Person B is taxed at 45% (but that's not all taxes, it's taxes + health care and other benefits through her employer).
Person B grosses $200,000, nets $110,000, and has $59,000 left over.
Who is more likely going to be hurt when an unexpected expense occurs? Who is more likely to hide their money in a tax free shelter? The rich /should/ pay more in taxes because they have nicer things and can /afford/ to pay more in taxes. You can argue that Person B earned her money. Maybe she went to college and worked really hard to be recognized at her job. Maybe Person A dropped out of high school. Maybe Person A abuses drugs and alcohol and doesn't deserve any kind of promotion at work.
I went to college. I finished my degree (BS Finance), started a Masters program, but didn't finish. I worked hard, I studied hard, I am responsible. I'm in Person A's situation. I make around $1250 / month working at a health club (a gym, the same job I had during college). I send two resumes to different companies five days a week. So far I have not had a single interview. I've been looking for 10 months now. If I had a job that paid me $200,000 / year, even $30,000 / year, I would GLADLY pay taxes. It must be hard being rich, and not asking your parents for money every month, just so you can pay for food, rent, and student loans.
u2canfailDec 22, 2010
Student loans are going to bankrupt America. To get that education everyone boasts about, unless your parents are wealthy, you get a degree and a substantial debt. Then being jobless, or working a lower paying profession means you will stay in debt most of your life.
Mr. Boehner should cry, the American Dream that he had, is NOT POSSIBLE today. I am his age. I too worked my way through college, many of us did (and not for the family business). It took 30 hours of work to pay for 1 class. Today, 30 hours of work would not pay for 1 book, much less a class.
I do hope you find work and get to become a taxpayer. And let Boehner know it. I spit, every time he cries over his hard work for the dream! At his Country Club, he must be proud, to tell his hard luck story.
gkisystemsDec 18, 2010
Consumption USED to drive the economy back in a time when we could print up paper money and trade the Chinese our paper money for their real products. That is all starting to unwind now. We need more savings in our country. Whatever the rich don't spend on consumption, they save/invest the rest. We need more investment in America to make her great again. Taxing it away and wasting it on government programs is a bad idea when it could be used to build factories and create jobs for Americans.
Closed AccountDec 18, 2010
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the Japanese economy. The Japanese saved and invested too much of their money and their economic growth slowed to about 1.5% / year. Saving and investing is not the answer.
We never traded "paper money" with the China in exchange for actual goods. We ship China our broken goods and waste. They recycle the parts and metals, creating new goods to send back to us. China is expanding their economy by artificially keeping the yuan lower than the dollar (making trade with them more appealing).
Taxing money doesn't make the money go away. It gives it to our government that will spend it. Obviously business owners have no interest in building new factories in the US, and US workers have no interest in "menial" labor.
gkisystemsDec 18, 2010
What evidence do you have that a government can direct dollars in an economy better than a free market? Look what happened to the USSR. Look what is starting to happen to us.
The Japanese economy performed better than it otherwise would have if it not were for its savings.
There is a huge gap in amount of goods we ship China vs. the amount they ship us. That is the reason they are holding over $1 trillion USD.
All the Chinese need to do is decide they are going to spend that money and our economy will seize to function. A hamburger at McDonald's will cost $30 if they unleash the flood of that paper money.
cosmicsurferDec 17, 2010
Most people willing to see the simplicity of the answer understand that the more complexities discussed, the more bulls**t is blown to cover that basic simple reality. What really IS the problem?
SIMPLE - the top 1% are actually perpetuating the depression (this is not a recession for the majority of people who are in a downward spiral and that IS the majority of people).
When the wealthy controls most of the money and business, it is only because they have been allowed to take over the government. The government now works for them and perpetuates their rape of the biggest commodity of the country, it's workers.
No matter how much the propaganda game of "free enterprise" and "capitalism" is perpetuated; no matter how much toe willfully ignorant want to deny reality; no matter how he slick sound-byte artists spin - The co-mingling of government with corporations is fascism and it is also oligarchical
Until the majority of the people stand up for RIGHT and JUST and MORAL and ETHICAL and stop allowing the oligarchy, the oligarchy will remain and the rape of America will continue...
Are you sick of it yet?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bobcat7407Dec 17, 2010
I agree with you that government works for the corporations. What is your solution to that? Do you think that government can be changed?
EDIT: Corporations owning the government means that "free enterprise" and "capitalism" are not in play.
akairennDec 17, 2010
Theoretically? Of course. Little thing called the ballot box. Makes it rather easy to change the path our government has taken.
In reality? Absolutely not. Despite the fact that we've willingly traded liberty for chains, our system still enables us to receive the government we deserve and nothing more. Judging by the current state of Washington, we Americans are completely f**king retarded. The current crop of drooling mouth breathers that we've handed power to (and note, that's a bi-partisan insult) - is exactly what we deserve.
bobcat7407Dec 17, 2010
I completely agree with your assessment. My thought would be, then, that the only solution is to limit the power of the government. This would limit the power of the corporations as well. This is what I believe the Constitution was designed to do, but that was thrown out long ago. It would be great if we could just fix it at the ballot box, unfortunately that is all theory, like you said.
duncan202Dec 17, 2010
The only real solution. People who think the corrupt government can be fixed are fooling themselves. Fixing bad government with more government power is foolish.
clvngodessDec 17, 2010
Limit power is good. Campaign reform is good. Take away personhood for corporations. Stop supporting them, vote with your dollars. Or, even better yet, get off your ass and start throwing rocks and bricks. (I'm sure admiring what's happening elsewhere.)
bobcat7407Dec 17, 2010
@clvngodess
I'm with you except for the rocks and bricks part. At least, not yet...
Closed AccountDec 17, 2010
"Or, even better yet, get off your ass and start throwing rocks and bricks. (I'm sure admiring what's happening elsewhere.)"
This is absurd. You'd encourage violence? How many cops were seriously hurt in London recently?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
clvngodessDec 17, 2010
@quirkopatra: Two words. Warsaw Ghetto.
The point is this; that those who fought back, using violence, actually survived or lived longer than those who did not.
I would suggest you read Derek Jensen's works on violence, as well as Zizek's book, "Violence."
u2canfailDec 17, 2010
The entire problem boils down to money. To get a better government we need to have real election reform. OUr current Congress will never vote for the kind of reform we need. And yes, people get what they deserve. Giving to the wealthy seems to be in vogue this Christmas.
nickymouseDec 17, 2010
Get rid of crony capitalism. Our whole tax structure is in place to favor certain industry, professions, and products. Let's have a simple tax code with no subsidies, no special tax rebates written in some garbage legislation, and that is relative to that person.
miklkitDec 17, 2010
You are right about capitalism not being in play. You set up the playing field so that we have a corporate welfare state and a social Darwinist state.
clvngodessDec 17, 2010
Actually, if you read any Zizek at all, what we have is exactly what capitalism creates. It is in play, not for you or me, but for those who would benefit from this system.
bobcat7407Dec 17, 2010
The free market is not in play from the beginning since the fed manipulates everything right from the get go. Capitalism is not in play. What we have is the result of a government that is way past Constitutional bounds and manipulates the markets in favor of those who can afford it.
datastorageguyDec 17, 2010
More irrelevant, left wing garbage on a s**tty, irrelevant web site.
dredgmoDec 17, 2010
I was getting the feeling the only people who actively viewed Digg were raging Liberals.
ferretmanDec 17, 2010
The bulk of them, yes. Most conservatives are out actually working for a living, while Diggerals are lounging about in their parent's basements.
dredgmoDec 17, 2010
Or suing McDonalds for baiting their children with toys to make them fat and lazy.
countess666Dec 17, 2010
that's funny, because the more liberal a state the higher its average income.
or its the other way around, you decide.
bookantDec 17, 2010
What an insightful analysis of the economic issues of our times! It sure is a good thing we have "scientists" like you here to illuminate the discussion with your intellectual vigor. Without you, Digg would clearly degenerate into the kind of pointless name calling and baseless stereotypes that'd make a retarded twelve-year-old embarassed for you.
miklkitDec 17, 2010
There is your basic class warfare in action.
usarugulaDec 17, 2010
Do all righties righties dismiss verifiable data as left wing garbage?
bdog2g2Dec 17, 2010
If it conflicts with their world view, yes.
However some staunch lefties do the same thing.
clvngodessDec 17, 2010
Good point. Ideology is just that, right or left.
glbernsDec 17, 2010
Why is it whenever someone writes a concise, well thought out, common sense argument that goes against what the Republicans want the people to think it is "left wing garbage"?
clvngodessDec 17, 2010
ideology.
patrickhenryiiDec 17, 2010
http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/ - it's imperative that you read this.
Government is the problem, not the rich. Government was what perpetuated the great depression, not the "wealthy" not spending their money.
The solution is a return to constitutional government. Repeal the 16th & 17th amendments. Deal with the issue of the Federal Reserve. Return to a real money standards. Teach people basic economic principles. http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/
amaoicanDec 17, 2010
There is not enough lawful money in the world.
ferretmanDec 17, 2010
Well said sir!
herojonDec 17, 2010
I would digg you 1 million times if I could.
laminacDec 17, 2010
FTA - we all know it is CONSUMPTION that drives our economy. In fact it is 2/3rds of our economy.
This article is very mis-leading. It is currently 2/3rds of the economy. Back in 1929 it was much smaller than that since we had steel mills and a lot of factories working back then. We didn't import a lot of stuff from china, ect.
There are just too many differences in our economy to draw this conclusion directly from the 1920's. They need a lot more information to back a better argument
hawkmoon78Dec 17, 2010
Consumption driving our economy would be like saying that consumption drives farming. Investment (into the right things) drives our economy.
Investment into raw land (tilling, planting seeds, caring for crops) drives farming, which creates consumable items. When everyone has consumable items, then trading and consumption begin. That is how the economy is driven. Remove the means of production, remove the initial investment, and consumable items begin to disappear, everyone has less, and noone can trade or consume what they need.
countess666Dec 17, 2010
investors only invest when there is money to be made, when there is demand for (consumption of) the product or service that's being invested in.
"Investment into raw land (tilling, planting seeds, caring for crops) drives farming."
if nobody wants any more food... investing in land isn't going to make you any money, so you don't invest.
having lots of money floating around doesn't do the economy any good if nobody is willing to buy anything, because then there is nothing worth investing in.
nycjapDec 17, 2010
It's actually closer to 70%.
arschgaudiDec 17, 2010
Redistribution of the wealth doesn't solve the problem it simply addresses a symptom. Reinvigorating our manufacturing base and creating jobs which pay sustainable wages is the answer.
lupefiascoDec 17, 2010
Silly republicans, tax cuts are for the poor.
duncan202Dec 17, 2010
The poor already pay little to no taxes. And many of them, due to entitlement programs actually come out with a net gain.
nycjapDec 17, 2010
Yes, the poor pay little to no taxes. They're too busy looking after more important matters, like food, shelter and other essential items.
jhw539Dec 17, 2010
Those lucky ducky poor folks! I am sooo jealous of them, how do I sign up?
neurn2Dec 17, 2010
This is an overly simplistic analysis of taxes. The poor, as a function of income pay a very high percentage of their income in the form of sales tax, gas tax (which is partly federal), property taxes (whether they rent or own) and more. The poor help pay their way in their communities and help build infrastructure with gas taxes (even if they take the bus). The Fed gives them a break on income taxes, but not others.
mdfrakeDec 17, 2010
The top fallacy of the November elections was that the wealthy will do more with their tax money. They already can buy as many groceries or clothes that they need. The middle income families are struggling to do those two things.
duncan202Dec 17, 2010
Even if that were true, and I'm sure the reality is some wealthy spend and some don't, it's irrelevant. Just because someone has more money doesn't mean anyone has the right to take it from them, even if they stuff it all under the mattress. Economic freedom is one of the most basic ones.
countess666Dec 17, 2010
taken away? because of the tax cuts they are now longer pulling their weight, shifting the burden too those that have less, or even have just enough. and that's FAR more damaging to their economic freedom.
jhw539Dec 17, 2010
"Just because someone has more money doesn't mean anyone has the right to take it from them, "
Your religious belief in property rights is not borne out by the entirety of human history. When wealth distribution become too extreme, there is a revolution. Period. Now the US won't have gullitiens in the streets, but I do fear a President Kucinich in 2016 if this blind religion of greed doesn't peter out. Personally, I'd rather pay an extra $10k in taxes now than face a (well ordered, electorally delivered, but still extreme) revolution.
neurn2Dec 17, 2010
Look, if you don't want taxes move to Somalia. They have no government and no taxes...oh wait even they have taxes. You get what you pay for. Wealth is a simple indicator of how much living in the United States has benefited you. Millionaires get the same tax breaks that the poor get for matched income levels. It's just that as you make more, your rate goes up. But everyone pays the same tax rate for the same amount of earned money.
nycjapDec 17, 2010
And they're stupidly going to "invest" that money into businesses to create jobs to fill illusory demand, because they're the ones who create jobs. Yeah.
markglDec 17, 2010
Why do you think that's false? How many jobs have your created for America? I bet Sam Walton has created more jobs and more wealth for poor Americans that you can ever imagine. Evil Wal mart and big wig fat cats.
norman619Dec 17, 2010
Funny how companies and small businesses are owned by people with money and not the poor or middle class folks who are getting by.
countess666Dec 17, 2010
Walton didn't create those jobs. the customers in his store did.
if Walton wasn't there, they'd go somewhere else and spend their money on stuff they need, requiring people to service them.
Walton also put a lot of smaller stores out of business.. he might actually be a net drain in terms of jobs.
markglDec 17, 2010
God help me.
nycjapDec 17, 2010
And you're basing this on...?
Sam Walton has created more jobs for Americans by popping up Wal-Marts and Sam's Clubs all over the map, then filling them with cheap good manufactured in China, India and other low-wage countries and thereby driving those manufacturing jobs overseas and forcing those low-skilled manufacturing workers to go work for Wal-mart at a fraction of what they used to earn. Is that what you mean?
I'm not calling Sam Walton the devil, but I'd hardly call him or his company champions of the working poor in America.
markglDec 17, 2010
Oh IDK, the thousands of workers he employs, the cheap products, low cost prescriptions, etc. He's one example. Would you rather I said Fender or Ford, etc.
countess666Dec 17, 2010
doesn't matter, they exist because people want their products.
its not like people want their products because they exist, it just doesn't work like that. but that is what you trying to prove.
miklkitDec 17, 2010
Around here walmart employees are so poorly paid that full time employees qualify for welfare. There is nothing good about about a company that won't even pay its employees a living wage. That turns out to be a lose-lose situation for everyone except the robber barons running the company.
norman619Dec 17, 2010
Thinking like yours is amazing and incredibly annoying. So if I have less than you do and I see that you have what deem is "more than you need" I can break into your home and take what I want? That's pretty much what you are advocating here. You are not entitled to their money in any way. No one is actually. now please get your hands of of their pockets and focus on busting your arse to EARN your own money.
countess666Dec 17, 2010
Thinking like yours is amazing and is incredibly annoying.
you think that because they have more, then they deserve to be passed by when the collection bin comes around to fund the workings of this nations, shifting the burden to those who have less.
warren buffet said it himself. he pays LESS taxes then his secretary. how in the world is that fair? and i do believe that that was BEFORE the tax cuts.
yibbutkeenDec 17, 2010
If the left would stop demonizing them. For example when the class rhetoric gets really thick and flashy consumption aggravates things, the rich stop buying jets and cars and yachts. So the companies that make jets and cars and yachts slow down and lay off people. And who gets laid off, but the middle class worker who had a good job because nobody is buying what he produces.
We saw this with the luxury taxes. Of all the taxes imposed, only the one on cars still remains, as it saw the least negative impact. The taxes on jewelry, yachts, rvs etc were all repealed because of the negative impact on the workers producing those items. You want the rich spending their money on frivolous high dollar stuff like that. That spending produces lots of good paying jobs.
ray745Dec 17, 2010
This article leaves several important facts out. In 1921 the top tax bracket was 73% for anyone making more than 1 million dollars per year. Remember this is 1921, only 246 people in the entire country made more than 300k, so the amount making over a million had to be incredibly small. By 1925 the top tax rate was reduced to 25%, however this was for people making more than 100k, so really just the old top tax rate was dropped out, which affected maybe 100 people in the country, probably not even that.
And here is some more information for everyone.
http://net.valenciacc.edu/forum/v02.i01/v02.i01.03.jchambless.htm
"During World War I the Wilson administration increased the top tax rate on the wealthy to 77%. Subsequently, the number of people with incomes over $300,000 dropped from 1,296 in 1916 to only 246 by 1921 and the demand for tax-exempt municipal bonds increased by threefold, costing the federal government millions of dollars in lost tax revenue.
With capital investment being withdrawn from the economy at an alarming rate, treasury secretary Andrew Mellon remarked, “It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower rates.”
What followed were The Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924 and 1926 that slashed tax rates from 77% to 25%. Tax rates on those earning under $4,000 were reduced from 4% to ½ percent and those in the $4,000 – $8,000 bracket saw their tax burden fall from 8% to 2%.
From 1921 to 1929 total federal income tax receipts surged from $719 million to $1.16 billion – an increase of more than 61% in a period that saw record economic growth with virtually nonexistent inflation. Moreover, the Progressives who argued that higher rates would lead to lower tax burdens on the wealthy were proven incorrect as the share of the tax burden paid by the rich climbed to 78% (from 44% in 1921)."
jhw539Dec 17, 2010
"From 1921 to 1929 total federal income tax receipts surged from $719 million to $1.16 billion – an increase of more than 61% in a period that saw record economic growth with virtually nonexistent inflation. "
You are citing the single most destructive asset bubble in modern history as a mark in *favor* of your argument? That's... an interesting approach.
norman619Dec 17, 2010
So tax cuts for the rich brought us to this point? LOL!!!! That's adorable. Let's keep feeding the class envy and ignore what many economists have been saying for decades. The ones who predicted this mess we are in and the former head of the GAO who's been warning us about this as well and of even worse things coming if we don't force or government change it's horrible fiscal policies.
miklkitDec 17, 2010
You have had your tax breaks for nearly a decade so...Where are the jobs?????
norman619Dec 17, 2010
LOL!!! Your ignorance and your simplistic view of how the economy works are adorable. *pinching your cheek*
And I'm not "rich." If anything I fall under the middle class. so sorry I have no jobs for you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitDec 17, 2010
So....where are the jobs!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/09/businessinsider-15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL
enantiodromiaDec 17, 2010
norman, your stupidity increases with each post. i am actually shocked to find out you are in your 30s, as you come off like a high schooler who gets picked on a lot.
did something traumatic happen in your teens which arrested some of your development?
by the way, let me know when you get some jobs created by those already wealthy. personally, i have worked at dozens of companies, and all of them were founded by people either right of out of college, or by middle class types who had an idea and a line of credit.
jobs created by the top 1% is a myth.
bookantDec 17, 2010
"You have had your tax breaks for nearly a decade so...Where are the jobs?????"
Actually, they've had their tax breaks for *three* decades now.
mogebierDec 17, 2010
Well, since the other 98% of the people need more money it's a good thing that Obama passed that future-bankrupting stimulus bill that helped the middle class. Oh wait, that money went to giant banks and giant corporations.
Well maybe Obama will actually DO something before he's either voted out in 2012, or physically thrown out of office in 6 months when the people finally get fed up with his s**t.
kalvinbDec 17, 2010
Why are liberals so obsessed with making the government rich rather than the people?
markglDec 17, 2010
I seriously doubt that going from 73% to 25% is what caused the 1929 stock market crash.
usarugulaDec 17, 2010
Your comment makes no sense. The left believes the rich should be taxed, therefore, it is in their best interest that the rich maintain prosperity.
kalvinbDec 17, 2010
They're the idiot that is trying to cut open the golden goose to get all the eggs.
usarugulaDec 17, 2010
Your golden goose analogy also misses. The literary benefit of golden geese is that people can access its eggs.
nickymouseDec 17, 2010
Because they believe government creates jobs and not the individual. A "true" conservative believe the government must create an environment for job growth. Libertarians don't do anything, the government is just offer protection and limited order.
duncan202Dec 17, 2010
" protection and limited order." which a Libertarian would argue is mostly all that is required for job growth
glbernsDec 17, 2010
Why are conservatives so obsessed with making millionaires into billionaires and billionaires into trillionaires while making everyone else poorer?
shauncorleoneDec 17, 2010
We don't make millionaires into billionaires. Millionaires and billionaires do not make everyone else poorer. Stick your rhetoric where the sun where the sun don't shine.
miklkitDec 17, 2010
But that happens to be the truth. If you pulled your head out and looked around you would see that. Half the people in this country have been and are getting poorer while the haves and the have mores are getting richer. That money has to come from somewhere.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/09/businessinsider-15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL
enantiodromiaDec 17, 2010
oh right, hardly any rich people in silicon valley, san francisco, l.a., san diego, chicago, or new york.
all the rich people live in kansas and alabama, am i right?
your argument is a strawman, sorry. liberals ARE the rich people, in case you hadn't looked at a map of income and net worth by capita.
Closed AccountDec 17, 2010
Unfortunately, the US population is far too retarded to understand these points.
The insane sickening push for ever lower taxes is what makes this country a borderline third world country today and a full fledged one within 10-15 years.
While other countries are working hard on improving and progressing - the US is hard at work going backwards! Thanks to the R and D!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ferretmanDec 17, 2010
But of course YOU have it all figured out...you're "special", ain't ya?
I love foolish comments like earl's....
Closed AccountDec 17, 2010
Foolish? Really? You may not have payed much attention to where the US currently is placed in relations to other countries? You do understand that the US is so far from being #1 it's not even funny? Or do you, rather then live in the real world with the rest of us, live in a political fantasy bubble?
If you want to see how well you country is currently doing, knock yourself out: http://www.nationmaster.com/statistics
markglDec 17, 2010
73%! Good god! You all talk as if 73% was an acceptable percent of money to be taken from people in the first place. I'd like to see how you would act if 73% of what you made was taken form you by the government. Spread the wealth right. You know income tax was only suppose to be 1% of your income. Didn't take long for the Wilson to shoot that up to 77%!
laurahoustonDec 17, 2010
Federal gov has been allowed to squander taxpayer money forever! The spending has got much worse and agencies like BLM/DOI know exactly how to snooker congress into passing their budgets. "Use it or lose it" is what these agencies always say! For example the BLM has millions of acres of public lands where wild horses have evolved (for over 50 million years) The wild horses can be managed on their home-ranges! Yet the BLM insists on paying contracts to their friends for millions of dollars every year to round-up the horses using aircraft and paying rancher friends to house the wild horses in poor conditions. Then the BLM leases the public land to rancher (friends) for 12 dollars a year!!
If congress (and Pres Obama) would demand the BLM manage the wild horses on the PUBLIC lands-stop giving almost FREE grazing to foreign owned beef companies...that change alone would save more than a billion dollars a year!!
I as an American demand the wild horses be free and able to stay on their home ranges, the public lands!! I want to see my public lands in beautiful condition as they were when wild horses and the land was PRISTINE before cattle ..not torn-up with foreign owned beef cattle.!!
fx666Dec 17, 2010
Tax cuts work only when the economy is expanding – this is the axiom that the majority of Republicans fail to understand. Currently the economy is not expanding because there is no demand for the goods, so the tax breaks for the rich are USELESS. On the other hand, taxing the rich temporarily would help to bring the national debt down. But, for some reason that is beyond me the Republicans steadfastly refuse to understand how the tax breaks work. This has nothing to do with class warfare and similar staff, this just an economic reality. No, I am not one of those liberals who accuse Obama of betraying their ideals; I just understand how the economy works.
devnulldoodDec 17, 2010
Obviously you don't. The problem with your logic, is you believe "there is no demand for the goods". In actuality, theres no "money" for the goods.
You and other liberals believe that it is important to have "temporary" relief. Temporary relief will only delay the recovery of our economy. The government needs to stop taking money thats not theirs, and stop spending so much.
That will give us long term relief.
fx666Dec 18, 2010
Apparently, you do not understand how the principle of supply-demand works (although I am not an economist, I studied this topic in the high school instead of taking biology classes). The companies cannot expand because there is no need for their goods – this is a very simple yet powerful idea.
“In actuality, there is no "money" for the goods.”
I’m not sure what this phrase means, so I wouldn’t say that it is completely meaningless.
All leading economists, including the Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman, came to conclusion that the companies cannot expand in the current economic climate, so what you think is my idea is, actually, not; although I wish I could take a credit for it.
I do not consider myself a liberal because I am opposed to the gay marriage, although I support the right to have an abortion. But these are my personal views that have nothing to do with the economic reality.
vsaulDec 17, 2010
come on tax cut for the rich didn't get the economy to this point! it's too much borrowing and shipping jobs oversea, pet projects and lavish spending especially on a war that isn't going anywhere!
ferretmanDec 17, 2010
Sigh--*this* inaccurate old canard again.
Class warfare isn't going to work any more, Diggerals....give it up. The cuts in 1929 were of a completely different class than the Bush cuts and the economy wasn't in the same shape.
The issue today is purely one of keeping investment capital as free as possible. If you hike taxes on the wealthy you'll contract their investment interest, since it's better to simply sit on their money or to invest it overseas.
Honestly taxes *everywhere* should go DOWN, but leaving them alone is at least a start.
glbernsDec 17, 2010
I don't understand what is inaccurate about saying that when middle class people have money, they spend it.
enantiodromiaDec 17, 2010
seems like glenn beck was calling for class warfare just last week when he told his drones to prepare for a revolution.
but yeah, lets just pretend only the left does that.
spartan777Dec 26, 2010
No one is as Marxist or as class-conscious as the rich people on Wall Street. The difference between Pete Peterson and Karl Marx was that they had inverted values.
"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
-Warren Buffet
stubearDec 17, 2010
While getting ready for work this morning I heard Sarah Palin on GMA talking about the tax cuts for the wealthy being good for job creation. While I did lose a couple IQ points just for having heard her shrill voice and idiotic ramblings, I though to myself, fine, the wealthy got their tax cuts, the Republicans should be happy. Now, let's see the Republicans get behind measures to ensure the wealthy actually spend the money they saved on taxed and make a serious dent in an ever increasing unemployment problem in the U.S. It's all fine and well to talk about tax cuts being capable of creating jobs but if the Republicans don't follow through on the job creation end of things then the Democrats need to make this a MAJOR issue in the run up to the 2012 elections.
miklkitDec 17, 2010
But that isn't going to happen. The unAmerican republicons have filibustered every attempt to keep jobs here in America.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/28/AR2010092806143.html
bobcat7407Dec 17, 2010
From your link:
"Four Democrats and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) voted with a united Republican caucus to block the bill"
As usual it was not only Republicans (or as you childishly call them "republicons").
devnulldoodDec 17, 2010
I think you lost a couple of IQ points when you "though to yourself".
patrickhenryiiDec 17, 2010
I'm not saying anything about Palin here, but remarking on your comment abouts about the wealthy. Let me ask you this: When is theft OK?
People keep saying the "wealthy" need to pay their fair share? What the heck does that mean? In my part of the world, the wealthy, who own "expensive" property, pay more in property tax. That's fair, isn't it? Most of the "wealthy" I know buy more (and more expensive) food, so they pay more in sales tax. That's fair, isn't it? Most of them have started businesses and employ people. When was the last time a poor person ever hired someone?
You see, taking from one group and giving to another is ALWAYS theft. Taxation for things that are truly the common good (national defense, being the best example, along with running the court system) is not theft - as all equally benefit from these things.
Who get's to decide how much is "too much"? Then, who get's to decide who gets the loot? Read up on life in communist countries. There was (and still is) equal and "more equal". How about it if I'm the grand king of everything and I decide what's fair and not fair. That's fair (for me). You see, when you start deciding how much is "too much" and then who gets it, you open the door for all sorts of additional immorality and abuse of that power.
The only safe system is one with limited governments, the rule of law and free-markets (which are not necessarily capitalism). With those three things the entire world can prosper and will have far fewer poor people (and those who are poor will remain so for a much shorter time period).
frugalfartDec 17, 2010
I guess that's why people keep electing Republicans into office :(
madtechnologistDec 17, 2010
This article is pure class warfare drivel. It's ridiculous to think that taxing the rich is going to somehow put more money in my pockets - something made up by communists wanting to get you to cede more freedom in the form of punitive tax policy. Our government has a spending problem, not a tax collection problem.
shauncorleoneDec 17, 2010
# 80% of our millionaires are first-generation affluent, that less than half received a cent in inheritance funds, and only 19 percent get any income from a trust fund or estate.
# Most Americans - 80% -- are not self employed. But of those that are, two-thirds are our millionaires.
# 75% of these self-employed millionaires are entrepreneurs and the remaining quarter are self-employed professionals like doctors and accountants.
enantiodromiaDec 17, 2010
I see what you are trying to say but nesting fractions inside of percentages looks pretty dicey.
sniperslapDec 17, 2010
But why can't anybody figure it out?
skews13Dec 17, 2010
Havn't you heard, economic policies that benefit 2% of the country is more important than economic policies that benefit the other 98%.
gregstechblogDec 17, 2010
Everyone knows that tax breaks for the wealthy don't help the economy. But when you're a wealthy politician, why would you vote against yourself?
isenborgDec 17, 2010
Why don't we quit taking baby steps and just bludgeon, cannibalize and steal all possessions from the rich? Then finally we all can live in a new utopia of equality where everyone is afraid to excel and risk the wrath of the oppressed/under performing.
Wait, won't that make the middle and upper-middle class the nouveau rich? ... Better get them all in one fell swoop and save time.
A new mundane world rises!
atomheartmotherDec 17, 2010
Many on the left would rather see universal misery than any kind of inequity.
enantiodromiaDec 17, 2010
Oh right, that's why all them dudes from Google and Microsoft and Yahoo and Facebook and the Hollywood studios and record labels gave away their billions of dollars.
mtnmusicmanDec 18, 2010
Your just not a nice person are you ?
particleman420Dec 19, 2010
because you are so in touch with the left and are an expert on them.
atomheartmotherDec 20, 2010
enam, you've demonstrated on prior occasions that you're not exactly lighting it up intellectually, but I'd have figured you would know the distinction between "all" and "many."
bookantDec 17, 2010
"Why don't we quit taking baby steps and just bludgeon, cannibalize and steal all possessions from the rich?"
I know you think you're being sarcastic, but historically that's what's always happened when the oppression of the masses by the tiny percentage of aristocrats at the top has gotten too far out of line. Let's hope we've come far enough as a people to put things back on a sustainable path via civilized means this time and it doesn't come to that.
atomheartmotherDec 17, 2010
You're absolutely correct, so when any real oppression occurs we'll have to take note of it.
particleman420Dec 19, 2010
so because people arent rioting yet there's no oppression?
is that what your corporate masters (the aristocrats) are feeding you? you are such an obedient dog to your masters.
isenborgDec 20, 2010
If you think the common man rioting won't be doing the bidding of the masters, you've completely missed the point and become nothing but a tool.
atomheartmotherDec 20, 2010
I know that phrases like "corporate masters" have a nice ring to them but let's face it- leftists such as yourself are the people all-too-willing to surrender their liberties.
particleman420Dec 20, 2010
how so? i dont see liberals opposing anything that doesnt result in some sort of profit for them and i didnt see them fighting for tax breaks for paris hilton and other corporate masters, i didnt see them denying health benefits for the people dying slowly and horribly because they tried to save people on 9/11. I also didnt see them holding up the show so that their corporate masters wouldnt have to pay the estate tax.
reality seems to contradict your lame accusations. but i'm not surprised that you have to resort to the classic "i know you are but what am i" defense. it's all you have anymore.
atomheartmotherDec 22, 2010
Like I said, you're perfectly willing to surrender your liberties... turn over life and death decisions to the state, support the state seizing your assets once you've died and supporting ever-increasing federal seizure of private property 'cause you're jealous of others' success.
roddackDec 17, 2010
So the contraction of the money supply didn't play a role despite all economic evidence pointing to that being the cause of why the depression was so terrible.
roddackDec 17, 2010
The real cause of why the depression was so bad had nothing to do with a decrease in taxes but instead was the result of a massive contraction in the money supply by the Federal Reserve. This has been pointed out by virtually every economic study on the depression. Combine that with the passage of Smoot-Hawley Tarrif made it even worse.
Oh and by 1932 Hoover had the top marginal rate increased to 63 percent from 24 percent, with the estate tax doubling and corporate income taxes rising by 15 percent. Roosevelt continued in this fashion, raising the top marginal income tax rate first to 70 percent and eventually to 90 percent.
bipolarmomentDec 17, 2010
I much prefer the round tax... it's elegant and looks an awful lot like the number zero.
jaxxbatDec 18, 2010
personal income tax is not even Constitutionally legal.. was never ratified.. Only corp profit after deductions was taxable..
Dugg_E_FreshDec 17, 2010
I wish I could make people read the book Perfectly Legal.
http://www.amazon.com/Perfectly-Legal-Campaign-Rich---Everybody/dp/1591840694/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1292610507&sr=8-1
harrisbradleyDec 17, 2010
the move might have created a large disparity, but it was done because the previous tax hike on the rich was being blamed for prolonging the depression. I see economic stability more valuable then lessing the income disparity. That being said, I believe the title is inaccurate. The economy is how businesses are doing, not households.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
monvalleyDec 17, 2010
So, let me see if I understand this. If I take away earned money from the top 2% of earners and give it to the government to distribute however they please, this will expand the economy? So, you are telling me that the little bit the government gives to the poor, will impact the economy and the majority of the money the government spends, such as more government workers, pensions, etc. helps us all? Seems like all this will accomplish is dumping more and more into the bottomless government pit and create more and more debt. And after they confiscate all the rich peoples income, then where do they get the next windfall; from Mother Goose?
haleymDec 18, 2010
Review your history of American economics. The 60's were pretty dang good economically - a full decade of solid, stable growth, and tax rates were much higher then, especially on the rich (the top progressive tax bracket ranged from 70% to 90% at different parts of the decade). Obviously a properly-funded government and a prosperous economy can co-exist:
http://elcoushistory.tripod.com/economics1960.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
monvalleyDec 18, 2010
What happened in the early 70's historically speaking; loss of jobs, super high inflation, high gas prices and shortages of everything, as I remember it.
cosmicsurferDec 19, 2010
Look at the 50's - the actual GROWTH of the US into the leading World power with a tax on the rich higher thanb ever before...The wealthy invested in the COUNTRY...Now they sit on it and invest outside while claiming tax credits for moiving international..
But the wrong wing doesn't want to even consider that...Guess we were all pinko commies under Eisenhower the Red
illinestDec 17, 2010
correlation does not imply causation. Try harder.
twetteroffDec 17, 2010
since when are the rich being coddled these cuts are very small campared to the total rate they are taxed its not like they are not already pulling their weight.
from taxfoundation.org:
"The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes."
is five percent of the country providing 60% of the income tax revenue not enough?
eyeowedubbyaayeDec 18, 2010
You know there's corruption, for f**k sake man. Everyone knows what a Swedish bank account is, laundering money is a lot easier than you think.
mike941Dec 17, 2010
this is total liberal BS. None of these arguements hold water.
enantiodromiaDec 17, 2010
neither does the argument that "rich people create jobs".
fantasyland....
o76923Dec 18, 2010
If you give a starving person a dollar, they will buy a sandwich. If you give a full person a dollar, they will save it for later when they are hungry. To stimulate the economy now, we need to give money to the hungry. That means we need to follow trickle up economics where the poor buy sandwiches and then the rich sandwich makers make money.
mtnmusicmanDec 18, 2010
touche
blackjackjesterDec 17, 2010
I fail to see how higher taxes on the rich leads to a better distribution of wealth. All it does is make a person's maximum income low, giving the illusion of 'more equality', when in reality, you're just robbing people of potential. If person a has $5, person b has $10, and person C has $85 dollars, thats poor distribution of wealth. If you 'tax' the top buy 70%, he now has $25.50. Now our numbers are $5, $10, and $25.50. THE INCOMES ARE MUCH CLOSER NOW YAY. Wrong. All you did was take potential spending power from $100 down to $40. Nobody is better off in this situation, except the politicians who absorb the excess. Besides, that extra tax money will come in anyway, after being spent, then respent, then respent several times. It's not that the money doesn't come in - it just doesn't come all at once.
The ONLY way it can at all work, is if for every extra dollar taxed from the rich, is a dollar the sub-200k (lets call them the 'not-rich') earners do not have to pay. Giving more money to the government won't solve the 'income disparity' fallacy.
Also, taxing corporations is stupid. It doesn't do anything. It just raises the cost of doing business, which raises the costs of good and services. Companies don't pay taxes - their consumers pay the taxes for them.
Do I think that taxes on the rich should be higher? Yes, why not, but only if it comes coupled with cuts for those who need them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
adaguyDec 19, 2010
' All you did was take potential spending power from $100 down to $40'
Those of you who attempt to use this scenario to argue against the increased taxes for the wealthy always say it takes money out of circulation that would otherwise be spent and put back into the economy. But you all conviently leave out the same point. What do you think the government will do with the money they took in through taxation??????
SPEND IT!!!!!!!!
That's right, it all gets put right back into the economy in one way or another through the spending of government. Why pretend that this doesn't happen?
patrickhenryiiDec 19, 2010
Tell you what: You read this http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/, then tell me that government spending makes any sense at all.
If taking more money from the wealthy is good, why not just take ALL of it? That's fair, isn't it. They can make some more, right?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
adaguyDec 19, 2010
Not gettin' mad are we?????
Sorry bub, but there is now way that you can deny that the upper class have never had it any better. We have allowed their taxes to be cut to the bone, and all this wealth and growth that was supposed to happen just didn't fly! Now we need to take a second look and change course. Two things need to happen. Raise taxes and cut spending!
Regarding your book you recommend, There are books out there that offer every solution known to man. But none of them come with a guarantee.
patrickhenryiiDec 19, 2010
Feel free to point out the other books... but the "solution" known to man is simple. It's based on human behavior. Human behavior is complicated - people are motivated by different things. Some people have a desire for power over others. If we let them, they'll take as much as they can (Chavez just got dictatorial powers - this is a good thing?).
Our constitutional government was designed to divide power so that it could be checked. Power between the states and federal government was divided, power between the various branches of government was divided. The founding father's understood how people behaved and set up a system to mitigate the negative tendencies as much as possible.
Markets work under the same human behavior rules. So, we free the markets, make sure the rule of law is intact and let people go about their lives.
Quite simply, more government has never been the answer and it won't be in the future. More "democracy" isn't the answer, either. It's a return to governing under the Constitution and free markets.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
adaguyDec 19, 2010
The free market worked great for John D Rockefeller. It also worked great for Joseph Kennedy. I could go on and on, but the fact remains that without regulation, there is no reason for the corporate giants to concern themselves about the welfare of the consumer. You can't have a free market when one third of the world still uses child labor and sweat shops. Or do you expect the "free market" to correct this?
nevariusDec 17, 2010
Keep the tax cuts for the middle and poor classes while letting it sunset for the rich.
This in itself should hopefully reverse income disparity between the upper and middle classes which would allow the middle class to have more money to spend (creating demand). With more demand, employers will need to hire more people to make the service and/or product.
Seems simple enough, hell maybe cut government spending where we can and put that on the deficit.
alyxvanceDec 18, 2010
This article is a load of crap. Let me say a few things about it.
The first is that this article claims that the wealthy are holding a large portion of the country’s wealth and that is bad for the economy. Later, it says that that money is sitting in banks and stocks. Do you really think that individuals at banks and corporations take money just for the sake of paying a return on it? The banks take deposits in order to have a pool of money to lend out. This money is either handed out to individuals to make a purchase (house, car, etc.), or to companies looking to grow, but don’t currently have the financial resources to do so. As for stocks, they work similar to a loan from the bank as far as the macro-economy is concerned. If I owned a company, there is no way I would sell part of it to a wealthy individual just so he could have more money in the future. I might sell some of it though if I had a great idea but no money to execute my idea.
The next issue I take is that I don’t understand why a gap in income is an issue. Someone being a billionaire doesn’t necessitate that my quality of life is diminished. Why would I care that someone else is successful? I feel the argument that more people are poor today than ever to be a flawed one. One of the biggest issues facing the poor today is obesity. Not saying that life is easy for “poor” people, but wealth has grown in the country as a whole to where the average person is far better off today than where they were a few decades ago.
My last issue is with the statement that consumption drives the economy. I would argue that value creation drives growth, and consumption is a result of value creation. Consumption itself is not inherently a good thing. To say that consumption drives the economy is like putting the wagon before the horse.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorDec 18, 2010
Lifted from another digg user on this discussion board, but it deserves it's own thread, more evidence about how pandering to the rich does not help the rest of society: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/09/businessinsider-15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL
lonshaneyDec 18, 2010
One of the reasons this country is in the shape it is , is because every thing from the toothbrushs we use to the food we eat is made overseas. When countries that we helped out have better credit rating then us it's bad.Our leaders have to change the tax and the enviromental laws to get the companies back here.
patrickhenryiiDec 19, 2010
I spent 2 years trying to get a relatively simple, low tech product manufactured in the US. "Made in the USA" was supposed to be one of our main marketing points. After wasting time and money on getting prototypes made by American manufacturers we were told by the leading manufacturer, who used to make things here, that it wasn't possible. Tax, labor and regulatory costs had driven manufacturing oversees and that even if they wanted to, we don't have the skilled labor to do it. After seeing the quality of our prototypes vs. the quality of the oversees prototypes, I believe it.
How to fix it? Repeal the 16th & 17th amendments. Deal with the problem of the federal reserve. Return to constitutional government (which means slashing 70-80% of the current federal government). Teach everyone what's found here: http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/
That's how to get it back.
lonshaneyDec 19, 2010
Totally agree! The problem is our leaders both sides are too worried about the own pockets and not what is good for this country, and a lot of the people now want the easy way out.
fauozDec 18, 2010
iT'S OVERSPENDING....said the little red hen
jaxxbatDec 18, 2010
how bout "Big Gov = little people"
timeshifterDec 18, 2010
Dick Cheney
moonkeeperDec 18, 2010
This completely ignores the fact that 1929 began the reign of Herbert Hoover - one the biggest government interferers in the economy.
phphreakDec 18, 2010
The economy was not killed in 1929, it was killed under FDR and his socialist policies during the 30s. This is a known fact for anyone who takes 5 minutes to investigate it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jaxxbatDec 18, 2010
yup. he started the "progressive age" < commie movement
patrickhenryiiDec 19, 2010
The progressive movement started before FDR, but FDR was the first to implement it. The seeds we're harvesting now started earlier. 1913 was a very bad year: 16th Amendment - income tax; 17th Amendment - direct, or popular vote, of senators (completely destroying the careful balance between federal and state power); and the establishment of the Federal Reserve banking system.
Closed AccountDec 18, 2010
politicususa never lets us down. Always great for a good laugh. And of coruse, heir is novenator...a man with no life other than to scour Digg and first comment on EVER poltical submission. How sad.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountDec 18, 2010
By the way, politicususa...there wre no tax cuts. You know you are a f**ked up idiot when you think not raising taxes is a tax cut.
Also...no country has EVER taxed itself out of a recession.
But I am sure we'd be the first one to be successful at it!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
netantDec 18, 2010
Well, GHWB Sr. raised taxes during the recession, and Bill Clinton raised them again on the rich. From that point on, screaming prosperity.
(Don't mistake this as advocating raising taxes. Just pointing out the stupidity of adhering to nostrums.)
mercedrocksDec 18, 2010
The premise doesn't make any sense. All people making $250,000 and above can hardly be characterized as having limited consumption potential. In many cities, i..e. NYC, 250,000 is just enough to get by on with a wife and kid.
Additionally, for the additional money to "increase consumption" if you will that would mean that the money would have to be redistributed back to the masses (i.e take from the rich and give to the poor) but thats unlikely to happen.
The best solution would be to end the tax breaks for people making say $1million and above and break out Al Gores "lockbox" and guarantee that the additional monies kept by the Feds would be used to PAY DOWN THE DEBT.
I think its delusional to think that the govt knows how best to spend our money.
anakastDec 18, 2010
Statism kills economies not the rich you economically ignorant lefties.