Can someone explain to me how GOP is saving face with this current UI/tax cuts deal?

[Genx87]

Everyone did better under Clinton. Median household income for blacks went up 32% from 1992 to 2000. Median household income for hispanics went up 24% in that time.

Why?? Once you figure out that why then you will understand that raising taxes on the rich for the purpose of trying to diminish the wealth concentration will work.

That is what happens when you have a booming economy. Now explain to us how increasing taxes leads to a "booming" economy.

 

[Craig234]

1. Bill Clinton RAISED taxes.

2. The rich did better under Bill Clinton than under Reagan or Bush.

Why?? Once you figure out that why then you will understand that raising taxes on the rich for the purpose of trying to diminish the wealth concentration will not work.

Why is there such a near 100% rate that responses to PJ have to correct errors?

Bill Clinton raised taxes on the top 2% (which the right universally said would cause low growth/high unemployment/economic disaster, proving them hugely wrong).

The concentration of wealth was LESS under Clinton than under Bush (and probably less than Reagan/Bush 1, though I haven't double checked the numbers).

As another poster noted, unlike Republicans before and after, everyone did better under Clinton than under the administrations before and after.

Even while the deficit was eliminated.

The thing is, Clinton's policy was modest - so while it was better than the Republicans, it wasn't an FDR type major shift, it had modest change and modest result.

Had he done more - say, gone back more to pre-Reagan rates - we could have done a lot more.

You say that raising taxes on the rich doesn't help with concentration of wealth.

You're wrong. Again.

Look at more history - the levels of concentration of wealth under FDR, that went from all-time highs just before the great depression to far lower levels until Reagan.

There's more to it than tax rates, but they're one big thing that does help.

 

[Craig234]

That is what happens when you have a booming economy. Now explain to us how increasing taxes leads to a "booming" economy.

For one, taking money out of the hands of the rich, where it does nothing but let them own a larger share of all wealth and drive up prices of income-earning assets which reduces opportunity to everyone else, and instead has that money fuel things from infrastructure to debt reduction to other things that help the economy in various ways, and increasing opportunity, and economic activity for the rest of the people.

 

[Acanthus]

Raising income tax rates may slow the economy even further and reduce tax receipts in the immediate and the future.

We have the lowest tax rates in modern history.

This deal will make them even lower.

We are way beyond the point of diminishing returns here. Keeping taxes artifically low will only starve the social programs out and make our budgeting problems worse.

It is bad for all of society to have taxes this low on the increasingly wealthy few.

While i agree we should be creating new high end brackets for this, the short term solution is to let the bush temporary cuts expire and then work on legislation to improve our tax and budgeting policies.

 

[Genx87]

For one, taking money out of the hands of the rich, where it does nothing but let them own a larger share of all wealth and drive up prices of income-earning assets which reduces opportunity to everyone else, and instead has that money fuel things from infrastructure to debt reduction to other things that help the economy in various ways, and increasing opportunity, and economic activity for the rest of the people.

You run under the assumption the govt can spend the money better than the private market. The wealth\money the rich have is reinvested into the economy. It isnt stuffed into a mattress or in a box and buried. So taking it out of their hands means less capital flowing for people\business to recieve as loans or investment. So contrary to your bullshit. Money in the hands of the rich does more than "nothing".

 

[Throckmorton]

You run under the assumption the govt can spend the money better than the private market. The wealth\money the rich have is reinvested into the economy. It isnt stuffed into a mattress or in a box and buried. So taking it out of their hands means less capital flowing for people\business to recieve as loans or investment. So contrary to your bullshit. Money in the hands of the rich does more than "nothing".

Then why is the multiplier only .4?

 

[Genx87]

Then why is the multiplier only .4?

Gee, how do I answer this question with so much information provided for by the responder?

 

[Craig234]

I still get amused every time these liberals talk about other peoples money as if it really belonged to the government.

So, all taxes are wrong to you? We should have none? Or do you just believe some of other people's money belongs to the government, but a different amount?

What would be the effect of following the implication of your post - that not one cent of anyone else's money should ever be required as tax? Disaster, yet you post this drivel.

 

[Craig234]

You run under the assumption the govt can spend the money better than the private market. The wealth\money the rich have is reinvested into the economy. It isnt stuffed into a mattress or in a box and buried. So taking it out of their hands means less capital flowing for people\business to recieve as loans or investment. So contrary to your bullshit. Money in the hands of the rich does more than "nothing".

No, Mister can't read, first this has nothing to do with the red herring, apples and oranges issue of 'government versus private spending'.

It has to do with the effects of higher taxes on the wealthy (the top 2% in Clinton's and Obama's case, we could use the 1% or top 0.1%), increasing government revenue.

I'm wasting my time, but other might benefit.

First, money ultimately means nothing per dollar - it's just a way of assigning a share of our wealth to one person or group over another.

One effect of higher taxes on the rich is to reduce their wealth - which, as much as it affects you like holy water and vampires to say it - effectively raises others' wealth.

If you are competing on home buying with people who have one level of money, you face one market; if you triple the money they have, it makes you 'poorer'. You have to spend more to get the same house. Assets in the US are priced based on how much people have to pay for them. When the rich get richer, the things they buy - income-producing assets, mostly - are higher, and when they have less, they're lower. When you have more money compared to them to buy assets, their poverty is your wealth.

An excessive concentration of wealth, for one thing, reduces opportunity, it locks assets in the hands of fewer and fewer people and they are less affordable.

Now, a second effect of taxing the rich more is more money for the government.

My last post already laid out some of the economic benefits of this. We're nowhere near the other side of the issue, where too much government revenue is a problem.

Rather, we have a plummeting share of the wealth for most Americans, and a huge deficit paying for our spending by future citizens - theft from them, in effect.

We need to spend on things that help the economy, to grow the economy; much government spending does that, other bad spending does not, which is a second effect of an excessive concentration of wealth - corruption of our political system to benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else. Even paying down the deficit would provide economic benefit, reducing future interest costs that could be spent on good spending or even a tax cut.

You don't understand a bit of this - the government spending a dollar is like burning it, to you, so this is a waste as I said. But, when you grow up, you might understand it.

You don't get the effects of concentration of wealth - why, if they rich owned 99% of everything, that wouldn't hurt you one bit. Good for them!

In the meantime, go back to using your political right to fight for the rich. You're doing a heckuva job, genx.

 

[Lemon law]

First, we must understand where the money of the rich comes from. Its by in large simple, they rig the playing field and get the money from those with more limited income.

Which works fairly well in times of normal economic semi prosperity, but when the middle of the food chain loses what we call the the middle class, most our the disposable income from the middle class has to be allocated to just survival. The first to suffer are restaurants, as they lay off low wage workers. Then the service Joe the Plumber type businesses take the hit next, as semiskilled amateurs already on the unemployment line will work for barter. Meanwhile the traditional manufacturer finds he can employ cheaper
workers, but when it comes time to sell those goods in a depressed American market, fewer and fewer people can afford to buy. Meanwhile highly skilled professions suddenly find themselves in the same boat, as Doctors, Lawyers, and similar find they get no takers for their services without drastically cutting fees.

So basically the rich have to run harder and harder to make fewer and fewer dollars. Wealth concentrating in the hands of fewer and fewer people is always the sign of a sick economy.

 

[JS80]

That is what happens when you have a booming economy. Now explain to us how increasing taxes leads to a "booming" economy.

To be fair though it was because of the internets and Al Gore invented the internets.

 

[HendrixFan]

That is what happens when you have a booming economy. Now explain to us how increasing taxes leads to a "booming" economy.

Ill just cut and paste from a post of mine in another thread:

You must not have been around during the early 90s when Clinton raised taxes and cut out wasteful government spending and the economy rebounding fairly well. The Republicans at the time said Clinton would be to blame for the economic collapse after the tax hike. 22 million jobs were created the rest of his term. It may still be the case, I'm not sure, but Clinton's tax increase in 1993 was the largest in history at the time (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993).

Hell, in 1982 while unemployment was rising in the middle of a recession Ronald Reagan signed in what was, at the time, the largest tax increase in history (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982). He increased taxes a few more times after that and 17 million jobs were created during the rest of his term.

Furthermore, we had a booming economy in the 2000s under Bush, but it did not impact blacks or hispanics at a better rate than whites, as we saw in the 90s. In fact, median household income dropped during the 2000s after going up from 1992 to 2000 over 15% in adjusted dollars. Explain the difference between the two decades.

 

[HendrixFan]

To be fair though it was because of the internets and Al Gore invented the internets.

To be fair, Al Gore was the leading champion behind commercializing the internet which was a large part of our technological boom.

 

[halik]

Simple:

1. Keeping the tax cuts in place is good for the economy.

2. Extending unemployment benefits is good for the economy as well.

Most of the other stuff is BS and should be left out. The Republicans are probably better to wait till Jan when they have more control and then pass a 'clean' bill that extends the cuts and the benefits without any pork.

I understand that, but you cannot oppose #2 on the basis that it will expand deficit, and at the same time support #1 + #2 when both of them expand deficit. It means that you're either lying about the deficit principle or you're lying about supporting unemployment.