how did bush fix the economy?

[Shad0hawK]

pretty simple,as most things are until people overcomplicate them for various reasons. and while this is simple it is accurate. occum loves sme.

bush's "tax cut for the rich" was a tax cut for YOU in 2 ways.

first off the obvious people got a bigger tax break, so they got some more money back. usually around 400 bucks.

second, many businesses and corporations got a tax break as well, so how was this a tax break for you?


well because in the real world the consumer always carries the bottom line, any increase in cost of operation is passed to the consumer. examples:

when the tax on flour goes up, so does tortilla prices. so your burrito costs more along with everything else made of flour, plus flour at the grocery store

decreases in business operations(such as a tax cut) usually lead to a decrease in prices in a free market economy(where competition forces the decreases).

example: taxes on flour are lowered, 3 tortilla companies are all affected, company A lowers it's prices to attract more consumers. companies B and C eventually do the same to remain competitive.

what happened? well by giving the consumer a direct tax break, he had more money to spend by giving businesses a tax break that lowered prices, not only did the consumer have more money to spend the products he had to spend it on in many cases cost less at the same time.

some people say 300-400 bucks is not much money..well, if they can take this kind of attitude about that much money ,they must already be doing pretty well for themselves. in my neighborhood 400 bucks buys alot of stuff. like a nice computer upgrade!

 

[SViscusi]

Why not lower taxes on consumers instead? They're consumers, their money is going to make it's way back up to the company, only this time they'll get a good or service out of it.

 

[mfs378]

My problem isn't that families making $40,000 are getting back $400, its that people making $5,000,000 are getting back $200,000 (or whatever it would be) during a time of huge deficits.

And while your theory sounds really pretty, you don't have any facts to back it up. What happened to the average price of goods? I assure you it did not go down. Back to the drawing board...

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: mfs378
My problem isn't that families making $40,000 are getting back $400, its that people making $5,000,000 are getting back $200,000 (or whatever it would be) during a time of huge deficits.

And while your theory sounds really pretty, you don't have any facts to back it up. What happened to the average price of goods? I assure you it did not go down. Back to the drawing board...

Well, there is a reason those people that earn $5,000,000 get more money back than someone that earns $40,000. They paid more. Sounds pretty fair to me. Doesnt sound like anyone is getting ripped off to me.

Bottom line, you want a bigger tax rebate, start earning more money.

Oh, and quit bitching about it. Redistribution of wealth only causes the masses to become lazy and complacent. The 'something for nothing' attitude is nothing to be proud of.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: mfs378
My problem isn't that families making $40,000 are getting back $400, its that people making $5,000,000 are getting back $200,000 (or whatever it would be) during a time of huge deficits.

And while your theory sounds really pretty, you don't have any facts to back it up. What happened to the average price of goods? I assure you it did not go down. Back to the drawing board...

Well, there is a reason those people that earn $5,000,000 get more money back than someone that earns $40,000. They paid more. Sounds pretty fair to me. Doesnt sound like anyone is getting ripped off to me.

Bottom line, you want a bigger tax rebate, start earning more money.

Oh, and quit bitching about it. Redistribution of wealth only causes the masses to become lazy and complacent. The 'something for nothing' attitude is nothing to be proud of.

That's assuming the only way to cut taxes is to cut income tax. What's stopping them from cutting payroll taxes, or making credit card interest tax deductable?

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: Genesys
Well, there is a reason those people that earn $5,000,000 get more money back than someone that earns $40,000. They paid more. Sounds pretty fair to me. Doesnt sound like anyone is getting ripped off to me.

Bottom line, you want a bigger tax rebate, start earning more money.

Oh, and quit bitching about it. Redistribution of wealth only causes the masses to become lazy and complacent. The 'something for nothing' attitude is nothing to be proud of.

I can just see your intelligence oozing out in this post.

We are in a time of deficits and a stuttering economy. If the argument for reducing taxes is to reduce strain on individuals during this difficult time, then there is no case for reducing the tax rate on the highest bracket. Deficit spending is not sustainable. Why cut taxes for those who need it the least when you aren't even taking in enough money to cover what you are spending?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: SViscusi
Why not lower taxes on consumers instead? They're consumers, their money is going to make it's way back up to the company, only this time they'll get a good or service out of it.

read the post again...you obviously did not pay attention.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: mfs378
My problem isn't that families making $40,000 are getting back $400, its that people making $5,000,000 are getting back $200,000 (or whatever it would be) during a time of huge deficits.

And while your theory sounds really pretty, you don't have any facts to back it up. What happened to the average price of goods? I assure you it did not go down. Back to the drawing board...

so what percentage should the top 1% of wage earners pay? what do you think would be fair?

as far as backing my assertions up...

do you remember what happened when the tax on sweet light crude oil went up? i do... the price of gas went up.

this is not a threory friend, cold hard fact.

 

[mfs378]

You're talking about a tax on a product, not a tax on a company. Two entirely different things.

And the top 1% have more invested in the country than do the remaining 99%. They have a bigger stake. They should pay proportionally to their share in the wealth of the country. At least when it comes to things like national defense.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: SViscusi
Why not lower taxes on consumers instead? They're consumers, their money is going to make it's way back up to the company, only this time they'll get a good or service out of it.

read the post again...you obviously did not pay attention.

Ok let me rephrase the question. When giving a tax cut specifically to spur the economy, why not focus the majority of that tax cut on those consumers who are guaranteed to spend it?

Here let me rewrite your little example.

A tax cut is given to the consumer, the consumer spends that tax cut on a taco from taco company A. Seeing the demand for taco's increase, Taco company A goes to by more tortillas from Tortilla Company A. Tortilla company B wants in on this so they lower their price to get Taco company A's buisness. Tortilla company respons by lowering their price and so on and so on.

So flour company A sells flour to a tortilla company, that tortilla company sells tortilla's to a taco company at a lower price, and that taco company sells you a taco. Everyone wins and no has to pray that the taxes cut on flour are eventually passed to the consumer and not pocketed by the companies.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: mfs378
You're talking about a tax on a product, not a tax on a company. Two entirely different things.

And the top 1% have more invested in the country than do the remaining 99%. They have a bigger stake. They should pay proportionally to their share in the wealth of the country. At least when it comes to things like national defense.

So when you say they have a bigger stake, are you implying that their vote should count more than the other 99%?

KK

 

[mfs378]

No. What warped logic brought you to that conclusion?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: mfs378
You're talking about a tax on a product, not a tax on a company. Two entirely different things.

And the top 1% have more invested in the country than do the remaining 99%. They have a bigger stake. They should pay proportionally to their share in the wealth of the country. At least when it comes to things like national defense.

i am talking about taxes in general that increase business expenses, which would be all of them , most manufacturers buy material with which to make thier goods that they sell. taxes on materials directly affect the prices manufacturers charge for finished products.

BTW here is a good article from the washington post. that provided a perfect example of what i am talking about.


http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031209-023523-9900r.htm


hmmm but acccording to the democrats we should not give these guys tax breaks.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: SViscusi
Why not lower taxes on consumers instead? They're consumers, their money is going to make it's way back up to the company, only this time they'll get a good or service out of it.

read the post again...you obviously did not pay attention.

Ok let me rephrase the question. When giving a tax cut specifically to spur the economy, why not focus the majority of that tax cut on those consumers who are guaranteed to spend it?

Here let me rewrite your little example.

A tax cut is given to the consumer, the consumer spends that tax cut on a taco from taco company A. Seeing the demand for taco's increase, Taco company A goes to by more tortillas from Tortilla Company A. Tortilla company B wants in on this so they lower their price to get Taco company A's buisness. Tortilla company respons by lowering their price and so on and so on.

So flour company A sells flour to a tortilla company, that tortilla company sells tortilla's to a taco company at a lower price, and that taco company sells you a taco. Everyone wins and no has to pray that the taxes cut on flour are eventually passed to the consumer and not pocketed by the companies.

that sometimes happens. however price wars can be destructive(as in california power companies) a business can only lower it's price so much and remain profitable. also when a business gets a tax cut it lowers the business bottom line, so it has more room to lower prices than it would without it. plus with a lower bottom line. business have more money with which to gives raises with. giving the people that work for them more money.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
that sometimes happens. however price wars can be destructive(as in california power companies) a business can only lower it's price so much and remain profitable. also when a business gets a tax cut it lowers the business bottom line, so it has more room to lower prices than it would without it. plus with a lower bottom line. business have more money with which to gives raises with. giving the people that work for them more money.

Okay, I see what you're saying. The problem is I don't want to be dependant on the company spending the extra capitol gained from the tax cut.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
that sometimes happens. however price wars can be destructive(as in california power companies) a business can only lower it's price so much and remain profitable. also when a business gets a tax cut it lowers the business bottom line, so it has more room to lower prices than it would without it. plus with a lower bottom line. business have more money with which to gives raises with. giving the people that work for them more money.

Okay, I see what you're saying. The problem is I don't want to be dependant on the company spending the extra capitol gained from the tax cut.

i understand that! but competition in the free market setting usually(not always though) takes care of that.

 

[GoPackGo]

The full effect of the increased Military Budget wont be seen on the American economy for a few years yet....but it will.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
that sometimes happens. however price wars can be destructive(as in california power companies) a business can only lower it's price so much and remain profitable. also when a business gets a tax cut it lowers the business bottom line, so it has more room to lower prices than it would without it. plus with a lower bottom line. business have more money with which to gives raises with. giving the people that work for them more money.

Okay, I see what you're saying. The problem is I don't want to be dependant on the company spending the extra capitol gained from the tax cut.

i understand that! but competition in the free market setting usually(not always though) takes care of that.

Now you've just barely touched on the real consequence of these so called "breaks". These Companies and Rich boys you are praising just took the Government handed "Windfall" and used that money to spend Overseas and ship the jobs overseas as well as use the money to close down Open Free Market trade in America by actually closing down competetion with colusion.

Cliff Notes for the many Reading impaired on here:

So instead of being "Trickle Down" Economics it became "Trickle Away" Economics.

 

[FrodoB]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Genesys
Well, there is a reason those people that earn $5,000,000 get more money back than someone that earns $40,000. They paid more. Sounds pretty fair to me. Doesnt sound like anyone is getting ripped off to me.

Bottom line, you want a bigger tax rebate, start earning more money.

Oh, and quit bitching about it. Redistribution of wealth only causes the masses to become lazy and complacent. The 'something for nothing' attitude is nothing to be proud of.

I can just see your intelligence oozing out in this post.

We are in a time of deficits and a stuttering economy. If the argument for reducing taxes is to reduce strain on individuals during this difficult time, then there is no case for reducing the tax rate on the highest bracket. Deficit spending is not sustainable. Why cut taxes for those who need it the least when you aren't even taking in enough money to cover what you are spending?

The deficit is no big deal right now. It's small in comparison to GDP and historically speaking, not a ridiculous amount. It's just a number that sounds large to the average moron that believes everything he's told by the liberal media. Yeah, we can't operate this way forever, but it's a manageable number that will continue to decrease as the economy improves and excessive spending is curtailed.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Bottom line, you want a bigger tax rebate, start earning more money.

Nice

[edit] took out "bitch" and "whine" line[/edit]

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: mfs378
You're talking about a tax on a product, not a tax on a company. Two entirely different things.

And the top 1% have more invested in the country than do the remaining 99%. They have a bigger stake. They should pay proportionally to their share in the wealth of the country. At least when it comes to things like national defense.

Who pays the tax on the product?

A company. What happens when a company has to pay higher taxes, they raise their prices to cover that cost.

Who pays all taxes, the individual.


The best thing to do is to come up the cheapest most efficient and most fair and equitable way of spreading the pain.


BTW, What percentage of taxes do those top 1% pay?

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Genesys
Well, there is a reason those people that earn $5,000,000 get more money back than someone that earns $40,000. They paid more. Sounds pretty fair to me. Doesnt sound like anyone is getting ripped off to me.

Bottom line, you want a bigger tax rebate, start earning more money.

Oh, and quit bitching about it. Redistribution of wealth only causes the masses to become lazy and complacent. The 'something for nothing' attitude is nothing to be proud of.

Funny that the rich (Repubs) freaked out a while back when the lower & middle-class (mostly Dems) were against the war in Iraq that would send thousands of mostly poor, young, service men (who couldn't go out and "start earning more money" as you so arrogantly say) to their death, saying these war-protestors were not supporting their country nor their men in uniform. All while the rich bitch and bitch about paying more taxes when they have the great majority of the nation's wealth. I'm sure their's a lot of service men in the army with families that have millions of dollars. Oh right, no.

Start supporting your country for once and stop bitching. At least you don't have to put your life on the line.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Genesys
Well, there is a reason those people that earn $5,000,000 get more money back than someone that earns $40,000. They paid more. Sounds pretty fair to me. Doesnt sound like anyone is getting ripped off to me.

Bottom line, you want a bigger tax rebate, start earning more money.

Oh, and quit bitching about it. Redistribution of wealth only causes the masses to become lazy and complacent. The 'something for nothing' attitude is nothing to be proud of.

Funny that the rich (Repubs) freaked out a while back when the lower & middle-class (mostly Dems) were against the war in Iraq that would send thousands of mostly poor, young, service men (who couldn't go out and "start earning more money" as you so arrogantly say) to their death, saying these war-protestors were not supporting their country nor their men in uniform. All while the rich bitch and bitch about paying more taxes when they have the great majority of the nation's wealth. I'm sure their's a lot of service men in the army with families that have millions of dollars. Oh right, no.

Start supporting your country for once and stop bitching. At least you don't have to put your life on the line.

Oh - thats right there are NO rich democrats...I forgot that Americas number one sloth must be a man of the people dispite his family having oodles of money and can get away with murder.

And there haven't been a thousand soldiers killed yet, even after nearly three years of war....pretty amazing considering at the height of the Vietnam war over 500 soldeiers were getting killed a week.

Oh wait and that war is pumped up by who? oh LBJ, another poor man of the people democrat.

So John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard "Im going skiing" Dean, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, etc...etc...these are all poor people barely making it....yeah...right

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
i am talking about taxes in general that increase business expenses, which would be all of them , most manufacturers buy material with which to make thier goods that they sell. taxes on materials directly affect the prices manufacturers charge for finished products.

BTW here is a good article from the washington post. that provided a perfect example of what i am talking about.


http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031209-023523-9900r.htm


hmmm but acccording to the democrats we should not give these guys tax breaks.

I don't see an example of what you are claiming in that article. Obviously taxes are a part of business expenses, but cutting them won't neccesarily motivate companies to do much more than add to their profits. Maybe you can find an example or two, but I garuantee that there is not a nationwide cost-cutting trend.

If we don't have to have deficits as big as they are, why should we choose them? Its just stupid.

Galt, I swear fully half your posts are just chimes of "nice" when you see someone saying you like. Now I know that formulating your own thoughts can be difficult, but you might be pleasantly surprised with the results if you exercised that mind of yours every once in a while.

Etech, I am not sure what percentage the top 1% pay.

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Genesys
Well, there is a reason those people that earn $5,000,000 get more money back than someone that earns $40,000. They paid more. Sounds pretty fair to me. Doesnt sound like anyone is getting ripped off to me.

Bottom line, you want a bigger tax rebate, start earning more money.

Oh, and quit bitching about it. Redistribution of wealth only causes the masses to become lazy and complacent. The 'something for nothing' attitude is nothing to be proud of.

Funny that the rich (Repubs) freaked out a while back when the lower & middle-class (mostly Dems) were against the war in Iraq that would send thousands of mostly poor, young, service men (who couldn't go out and "start earning more money" as you so arrogantly say) to their death, saying these war-protestors were not supporting their country nor their men in uniform. All while the rich bitch and bitch about paying more taxes when they have the great majority of the nation's wealth. I'm sure their's a lot of service men in the army with families that have millions of dollars. Oh right, no.

Start supporting your country for once and stop bitching. At least you don't have to put your life on the line.

Oh - thats right there are NO rich democrats...I forgot that Americas number one sloth must be a man of the people dispite his family having oodles of money and can get away with murder.

And there haven't been a thousand soldiers killed yet, even after nearly three years of war....pretty amazing considering at the height of the Vietnam war over 500 soldeiers were getting killed a week.

Oh wait and that war is pumped up by who? oh LBJ, another poor man of the people democrat.

So John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard "Im going skiing" Dean, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, etc...etc...these are all poor people barely making it....yeah...right

I was talking about the average citizens of the party, not the party leaders. Obviously they have money. I was making a generalization. Yes their are rich democrats but they don't support Bush obviously and don't base their entire vote on whether or not they'll get a little more icing on their cake come tax time. It was a GENERALIZATION.

My point was those who fight for us in these wars (the people that actually fight, not the powerful that send them to their death), are in generel those that cannot go out and "start earning more money." Yet those that bitch about having to pay elivated taxes because they have the majority of the nation's wealth rarely ever put their lives on the line in service. Thus, as the Republican party typically favors tax cuts that greatly reduce the amount the rich pay, it is by insinuation that the people near the top of the economic scale are more likely republicans (not a fact, a guess with some basis). So going back to when this war started, the people that were most likely yelling "TRAITORS" or "IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW BUSH YOU SHOULD MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY" were probably Repubs who screamed at the Dem's saying they weren't supporting their troops and their country. Yet at the same time sreaming about having to pay a greater scale in taxes then a single mother bringing in $25,000 a year who's only son will probably ending up joining the marines because its the best work he can find.

My point was you can't bitch about not supporting the troops and the country, and turn around and say "it doesn't make sense for me that makes $400,000 a year to pay a greater scale in taxes then someone making $30,000." They can't have it both ways. At least they don't have to put their own life on the line or their lives of their sons and daughters.

Ok GoPackGo?