Higher tax rates on the rich kill jobs.....really?

[fskimospy]

You brought up a survey that you claim shows unemployment numbers counting those who no longer receive unemployment since there is no other way to get this data because they are no longer registered for benefits. I stand by my point because this survey tells us nothing. The people surveyed could have answered anything they wanted and surely they would have said they were still unemployed since the survey was coming from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You think they are going to say otherwise if they think there is a carrot on a stick. How are you going to say that you know, with any confidence that everyone who found a job indicated that when asked on a survey that comes from a division of the government from which they get their monthly handout. People who answer these kinds of surveys have an agenda.

What are you basing that on, and why would that bias be occurring at a greater per capita rate now than in other periods? (if it were a systemic bias as you appear to be arguing, it would be easily controlled for as it would be consistent.)

It's pretty clear to me that you're just pulling things out of your ass at this point, btw.

 

[evident]

i think the main question should be why couldn't obama propose a seperate "buffet" bracket for people making over $1 million, instead of just letting the bush tax cuts expire and screwing over married couples who make a combined $250k? in most places of the country, $250k is still middle class, and by everyone definitions, are not "millionaires"

 

[Chiropteran]

in most places of the country, $250k is still middle class,

No, it isn't.

http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/02/01/cnn-and-the-250k-middle-class/

Households that make $250,000 or more a year make up 1.5 percent of the U.S. public.

edit: in fairness, this is 1.5 years old, but I doubt the numbers have changed too much. Clearly still a small minority make that much.

 

[Craig234]

Reading skills, they are lost!!!



For example, if you put out a survey that asks do you buy Coke or Pepsi, I can answer Coke even if I buy Pepsi. You could ask this of 100 people at a grocery store. You could get different results from the survey than you would from looking at actual sales receipts. This is an oversimplification and I, in fact lied on the survey. Doesn't have to be the case, I could have misunderstood the question, answered incorrectly by circling the wrong one, forgotten my preference, been in a different mood etc, etc. Same goes for any survey. The receipts on the other hand, contain no ambiguity.

EDIT: Just in case you missed it. The receipts are fact, the survey is opinion/non factual.

You're off base here. It's not clear you understand statistics. Yes, if the issue is one people will lie about a lot, that would create a problem in the accuracy of the survey.

There are a couple things you're missing off the top.

One is that additional measures can be taken if that's the case, but is it? We have no reason to say it is here other than than your speculation without any factual basis, and not a convincing speculation. A second is that any such bias would be expected to happen each survey, so that the trends will tend to be accurate even if there is a bias. There is also other data to check against the survey.

 

[xBiffx]

You're off base here. It's not clear you understand statistics. Yes, if the issue is one people will lie about a lot, that would create a problem in the accuracy of the survey.

There are a couple things you're missing off the top.

One is that additional measures can be taken if that's the case, but is it? We have no reason to say it is here other than than your speculation without any factual basis, and not a convincing speculation. A second is that any such bias would be expected to happen each survey, so that the trends will tend to be accurate even if there is a bias. There is also other data to check against the survey.

Again, you are making my point that surveys alone are meaningless. A survey only is valid with empirical data in which case you don't need the survey in the first place.

 

[dank69]

You guys are being completely trolled by this clown. He has derailed this thread into a fucking statistics class.

 

[werepossum]

Fair enough, but you're presenting a somewhat different, more balanced, argument than the one I am responding to. I keep hearing "it's the uncertainty" as a mono-causal explanation for the lack of hiring, and little or no credence given to what is happening on the demand side, as if our economy ISN'T driven by consumer spending. And so far as the empirical evidence goes, surveys of businesses are tending to show a lack of demand rather than a concern about taxes and regulations, while conservatives tend to hold up isolated statements made by this business leader or that to support the uncertainty argument.

I have no doubt that regulations can sometimes have a harmful effect, which must be weighed against whatever benefits they confer. However, I'm not seeing evidence that it is even the most important factor of many, let alone the sole factor.

I wouldn't argue that it's the sole or even most important factor. In a good economy, companies who foresee additional profit (or sometimes even market share) will expand regardless of any regulatory uncertainty, but in a bad economy, uncertainty hurts. That's why I've said that Obama should unveil his second term regulatory and legislative agendas now. Most things people fear never come to pass, and almost every piece of legislation has winners and losers, so if he disclosed his intentions and was believed, some of the uncertainty goes away. Note that this is a bigger issue as costs increase. To a company considering a new factory or assembly line, regulatory uncertainty is pretty important; to the company considering hiring some help, not so much. Uncertainty about the economy is in my opinion much more of a factor though in any case, but every bit hurts.

Demand and supply is very much a chicken and egg problem. If a company sees additional demand and needs additional workers to meet that demand, it will probably add them. But if the demand is artificial (i.e. generated only by government stimulus spending), there's little point in hiring new workers unless your work is so simple that there is literally no learning curve.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, you are making my point that surveys alone are meaningless. A survey only is valid with empirical data in which case you don't need the survey in the first place.

 

[xBiffx]

You guys are being completely trolled by this clown. He has derailed this thread into a fucking statistics class.

Sorry, I should have know when to detect his trolling. I did start to feel like I was in his statistics class for a bit there.

 

[dank69]

Dude, lol at your location...it's clear you are either arguing because it's me posting or you simply are clueless.

Yes, I have never posted in P&N before you decided to drop in. This is my first post here and it is only because it is you and not because what you are typing is ridiculous.

Do you think it's the Upper Class 'costing' us? the Middle? (i don't know, probably you do)...

The poor fill our jails, force us to provide for them and then while they stay home on disability they go out and break into our homes.

Yes, welfare has a cost, as do other government programs that benefit all of us. You made the claim that our biggest problem is poor people leeching off the system. I do not believe that. I think we spend way more on wars, for example and that is just one thing that is a much bigger problem than food stamps. Unfortunately, you can't think beyond your own personal world. All you see is poor people because you see them every day in your shitty neighborhood so you think that is all that matters and that is all that's wrong with the world.

It's like you asking for a fucking study to show the planet is mostly covered by water or that the ice caps are really ice and not just Ready Whip...

Let the grown ups talk and go back to your gameboy.

This is just you herping and derping in your usual manner.

**edit** BTW Dank69, it's spelled FORECLOSURE....such a silly little lad you are.

Thank you for pointing out my typo. I will fix it straight away. 🙂

 

[dank69]

Sorry, I should have know when to detect his trolling. I did start to feel like I was in his statistics class for a bit there.

2nd instance of your blatent trolling. I think there are rules against trolling in P&N.

 

[xBiffx]

2nd instance of your blatent trolling. I think there are rules against trolling in P&N.

Here I thought I was having a discussion with someone and disagreeing with his opinion. Not sure why I'm the troll. If disagreeing = trolling then I am guilty.

 

[Craig234]

Here I thought I was having a discussion with someone and disagreeing with his opinion. Not sure why I'm the troll. If disagreeing = trolling then I am guilty.

You're wrong. You don't understand statistics, so you have wild-eyed paranoia about 'everyone taking the poll is as likely to be lying as telling the truth!'

Let's take one of your objections. Maybe you forgot whether you bought Pepsi or Coke, and give the wrong answer.

Now, let's put aside the fact that you don't remember is a valid answer, and go with your claim that some people will give the wrong answer.

People are equally likely to do that whether they bought coke or pepsi, so *the errors will cancel each other out*, leaving a valid comparison between the two.

So we have your exaggerated notion of coke buyers who think they're pepsi buyers, dismissing the 'don't remember option', and the fact they cancel each other.

That addresses the concern, but you are going to have a paranoid response.

 

[woolfe9999]

Again, you are making my point that surveys alone are meaningless. A survey only is valid with empirical data in which case you don't need the survey in the first place.

Why are surveys used by industry for market research? Why do we use opinion polling in politics? Are you aware that opinion polls tend to accurately predict election outcomes? The whole world uses surveys, but you've decided they're useless. Because you of course know more than everyone else in the world.

 

[alkemyst]

2nd instance of your blatent trolling. I think there are rules against trolling in P&N.

much like your location...sigh...the troll's mind.

 

[alkemyst]

Yes, I have never posted in P&N before you decided to drop in. This is my first post here and it is only because it is you and not because what you are typing is ridiculous.

Yes, welfare has a cost, as do other government programs that benefit all of us. You made the claim that our biggest problem is poor people leeching off the system. I do not believe that. I think we spend way more on wars, for example and that is just one thing that is a much bigger problem than food stamps. Unfortunately, you can't think beyond your own personal world. All you see is poor people because you see them every day in your shitty neighborhood so you think that is all that matters and that is all that's wrong with the world.

This is just you herping and derping in your usual manner.

Thank you for pointing out my typo. I will fix it straight away. 🙂

First, Herp Derp is copying my location and symbol.

Second, welfare was created just to keep the people from rebelling and killing the wealthy...of which as far as I know you are part of the former.

I never involved wars or any other issues we have because none of the other wrongs make any of them any more right.

The poor directly affect us. Wars do not.

You are clearly out of grasp with reality yet think you are some world speaker.

 

[mizzou]

Bush era tax cuts to the wealthy should end. We aren't in a fiscal position to continue that dead horse.

But I don't see where we should "raise" taxes on the wealthy. Obama makes it sound like the villagers with pitchforks will be storming the ranches.

 

[Craig234]

But I don't see where we should "raise" taxes on the wealthy.

Let's help you with that.

 

[dmcowen674]

I don't see where we should "raise" taxes on the wealthy.

Obama makes it sound like the villagers with pitchforks will be storming the ranches.

That is exactly what the "Villagers" should be doing and should have been doing long ago.

Go stormers. :thumbsup:

 

[soccerballtux]

That's all we've heard as an excuse not to include a rise in tax rates for people making over $250,000. It will kill jobs. You can't punish job creators. You have to lower tax rates on the rich so jobs can be created.

But wait a minute. We have the rhetoric of the GOP and then we have a pesky little thing called facts. Take a look...

Now I'm not nor is anyone else arguing a return to 90% top marginal rates but a small but modest increase in the top rates as part of an overall plan to help the economy a job killer? Don't think so.

magrinal tax much less important than the % of people falling in each bracket. IE everyone loves to quote WW2 and the top tax bracket being 90% but nobody mentions that NOBODY was in that tax bracket. As it is now much more people are in higher tax brackets than back in WW2. So honestly these arguments are piss poor and just complete shit. Not worth even reading. It's the truth.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me at all if a 90% tax rate past [a large number of monies] did little. Why? Because by then it's about the power.
Actually it would need to be like 70%. You still need to be able to differentiate between the haves and the have-mores if you want to drive greed-based growth [which personally I think is a bad thing but we won't go there]. IE so the people in McMansions can wish they had mansions.

So why not do this?
Because it doesn't stop there. Never in the history of mankind has government EVER shrunk in size. Why would you give them more revenue? They can just leverage their debt higher. It's apeshit reasoning to tax more TBH.

This leaves us the only option that actually would work, which is to starve the beast and let the private market work the rest out, and let the churches sort out providing for the poor. Such logic is lost on most forum denizens though. Nobody seems interested in REAL truth just whatever aligns with their perspective.

 

[alkemyst]

It's not that statistics are worthless, it's that they are normally used for bias rather than unbiased results.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

magrinal tax much less important than the % of people falling in each bracket. IE everyone loves to quote WW2 and the top tax bracket being 90% but nobody mentions that NOBODY was in that tax bracket. As it is now much more people are in higher tax brackets than back in WW2. So honestly these arguments are piss poor and just complete shit. Not worth even reading. It's the truth.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me at all if a 90% tax rate past [a large number of monies] did little. Why? Because by then it's about the power.
Actually it would need to be like 70%. You still need to be able to differentiate between the haves and the have-mores if you want to drive greed-based growth [which personally I think is a bad thing but we won't go there]. IE so the people in McMansions can wish they had mansions.

So why not do this?
Because it doesn't stop there. Never in the history of mankind has government EVER shrunk in size. Why would you give them more revenue? They can just leverage their debt higher. It's apeshit reasoning to tax more TBH.

This leaves us the only option that actually would work, which is to starve the beast and let the private market work the rest out, and let the churches sort out providing for the poor. Such logic is lost on most forum denizens though. Nobody seems interested in REAL truth just whatever aligns with their perspective.

The private markets are going to continue doing what they've always done, which is to lookout for their own interests and screw the general population. What on earth makes you think they give two shits about you or anyone else in this country?

I just don't understand why both sides have to be so black and white on this issue. We need to increase tax revenues, cut all of the loopholes, AND cut back on our spending. You can't do one without the other and expect to get out of this mess.

 

[WackyDan]

Stupid chart that I've seen liberals hosing all over the place as some sort of scientific discovery...Proving once again that you can choose any statistic to prove your argument.

I'm sure someone has already pointed this out... But in 1950, 1960, and 1970 and even in 1980 we were not exporting jobs in large quantity over seas. So to try and extrapolate the correlation implied by the OP is somewhat short sighted.

 

[soundforbjt]

I'm sure someone has already pointed this out... But in 1950, 1960, and 1970 and even in 1980 we were not exporting jobs in large quantity over seas. So to try and extrapolate the correlation implied by the OP is somewhat short sighted.

And in 1950, the highest tax rate was 90% and rich were not fleeing the country or out-sourcing jobs.

 

[Ausm]

i think the main question should be why couldn't obama propose a seperate "buffet" bracket for people making over $1 million, instead of just letting the bush tax cuts expire and screwing over married couples who make a combined $250k? in most places of the country, $250k is still middle class, and by everyone definitions, are not "millionaires"

LOL X 10 to the 100th power :biggrin: