redistribution of wealth

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I quit my job yesterday and am ready for the handouts. All you evil people who have acquired wealth through hard work and dedication be damned!

Name one person who traded in a high paying job for a life of living on welfare.

How many people on welfare could have made different choices in thier lives and had good jobs?

You think living a nice life is random? The trust fund babies, maybe. But even then, SOMEONE worked hard for that money.

You think everyone on Welfare is there by Choice?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I quit my job yesterday and am ready for the handouts. All you evil people who have acquired wealth through hard work and dedication be damned!

Name one person who traded in a high paying job for a life of living on welfare.

How many people on welfare could have made different choices in thier lives and had good jobs?

You think living a nice life is random? The trust fund babies, maybe. But even then, SOMEONE worked hard for that money.

So you're not quitting your job for a life on welfare?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Look ma! The gubbament

What is that, an attempt at a black accent?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Xavier434
God, another thread like this?

Look, before you asshats go any further let's just get one thing straight. The vast majority of Obama's plan including his tax plans are aimed at helping middle class working Americans. Yes, those on welfare are also going to get a piece of the pie just like they always do like it or hate it, but they are not the prime focus here.

So, instead of comparing extremes (rich vs poor), let's talk the real turkey here and compare rich vs working middle class because that is what it is all about.

No 99% of his tax plans are for people with kids or the poor. I will be lucky to break even once the bush tax cuts expire. All the Obama tax plan is welfare for the poor and those with kids. The price will be paid by those who lose jobs thanks to taxes going up on business.

That's a bunch of horseshit. It is for the middle class. Have you even read the plans or the estimated amount of tax increase that most businesses will endure? If they start downsizing due to the tax increases it will be because their business and investments plans were piss poor in the first place. Not because of the tax increases.

Historic public records have proven that even under the most aggressive democratic progressive tax plans the businesses still grew and the rich kept getting richer. Obama's plan is by no means the most aggressive in history so stop blowing smoke.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I quit my job yesterday and am ready for the handouts. All you evil people who have acquired wealth through hard work and dedication be damned!

Name one person who traded in a high paying job for a life of living on welfare.

How many people on welfare could have made different choices in thier lives and had good jobs?

You think living a nice life is random? The trust fund babies, maybe. But even then, SOMEONE worked hard for that money.

Has it ever occurred to you that the vast majority of people who benefit from various forms of welfare, actually do progress in life, and become more productive members of society, no longer needing welfare?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I quit my job yesterday and am ready for the handouts. All you evil people who have acquired wealth through hard work and dedication be damned!

Name one person who traded in a high paying job for a life of living on welfare.

How many people on welfare could have made different choices in thier lives and had good jobs?

You think living a nice life is random? The trust fund babies, maybe. But even then, SOMEONE worked hard for that money.

Has it ever occurred to you that the vast majority of people who benefit from various forms of welfare, actually do progress in life, and become more productive members of society, no longer needing welfare?

I know the answer to your question.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Look ma! The gubbament

What is that, an attempt at a black accent?

I didnt know poor/stupid had a color.

Its starting already. Going against Obama = racist. Yikes.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: BigDH01
If the top 1% of the country last year owned 60% of the total wealth, is it not fair to expect them to pay 60% of the tax burden? After all, they get more use out of infrastructure needed to generate and maintain their wealth.

It torques my arse when the posers whine like little beaches ""We pay 50% of the taxes"" when they maintain a higher percentage of income and net worth (currently highest since the Great Depression).

Twenty percent of American taxpayers have zero or negative net worth. Seventy percent (the 'Middle Class') maintain 25% of the net worth and income in this country and pay a significantly higher portion of taxes and fees as a ratio to their income.

Since the top 10% control 75% of the net worth in this country, what is the big deal? The 'Marxist spread-the-wealth' bullsheet spewed by the Cons makes as much sense as their 'Islamo-Fascist' creation. It wears no clothes.

Originally posted by: Ryan

What do you think about the Bush tax cuts, and the fact that the lower and middle classes got a larger cut than the upper? Keep in mind, that CURRENTLY - the lower class, and families also get many credits from the government (child tax credits, earned income tax credit - effectively government handouts, don't ya think?).

"If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you've had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office. (And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent; those who make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut."
http://www.slate.com/id/2108201

LOL .... FAIL

""As a percentage of income, Bush has cut taxes by 4.3% at the top, 0.7% at the bottom, and 2-3% for everyone else.""

Sorry --- your FUD is just laughable. You have to be paid to post such nonsense. Steven E. Landsburg is a supply-side economist




And we all know how well that VooDoo has worked ....

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Look ma! The gubbament

What is that, an attempt at a black accent?

I didnt know poor/stupid had a color.

Its starting already. Going against Obama = racist. Yikes.

Idiocy, responding to my comment about *your inflection in your post*, by saying that it's about Obama's race.

I didn't know poor people had an accent, but there is a common 'black accent' racists like to use when casting aspersions. So I asked you. If you say no, I'll acept that.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: BigDH01
If the top 1% of the country last year owned 60% of the total wealth, is it not fair to expect them to pay 60% of the tax burden? After all, they get more use out of infrastructure needed to generate and maintain their wealth.

It torques my arse when the posers whine like little beaches ""We pay 50% of the taxes"" when they maintain a higher percentage of income and net worth (currently highest since the Great Depression).

Twenty percent of American taxpayers have zero or negative net worth. Seventy percent (the 'Middle Class') maintain 25% of the net worth and income in this country and pay a significantly higher portion of taxes and fees as a ratio to their income.

Since the top 10% control 75% of the net worth in this country, what is the big deal? The 'Marxist spread-the-wealth' bullsheet spewed by the Cons makes as much sense as their 'Islamo-Fascist' creation. It wears no clothes.

Originally posted by: Ryan

What do you think about the Bush tax cuts, and the fact that the lower and middle classes got a larger cut than the upper? Keep in mind, that CURRENTLY - the lower class, and families also get many credits from the government (child tax credits, earned income tax credit - effectively government handouts, don't ya think?).

"If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you've had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office. (And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent; those who make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut."
http://www.slate.com/id/2108201

LOL .... FAIL

""As a percentage of income, Bush has cut taxes by 4.3% at the top, 0.7% at the bottom, and 2-3% for everyone else.""

Sorry --- your FUD is just laughable. You have to be paid to post such nonsense. Steven E. Landsburg is a supply-side economist

And we all know how well that VooDoo has worked ....

Well said HHB.

The author of that piece has a background from the notorious Chicago Economics school - the people who created the extremely harmful and misguided policies that destroyed nations, as documented in Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine", and his other writings range on topics such as why to not raise the minimum wage, and why he's against environmentalists.

The response to his article from the link:

Stephen Landsburg's contention that Bush gave his largest tax cuts to the poor is obviously wrong, but his statistical slight of hand -- to assume that the federal income tax is the only tax -- is just stupid.

To illustrate: Bush has increased the exemption from the estate tax (on the way to full repeal for one year in 2010). Almost all of the tax savings from the higher exemption go to the best-off one percent. But because the higher exemption entirely wipes out estate taxes for the "poorest" taxable estates, the share of the estate tax paid by the top one percent has gone up. Does that make the estate tax cut progressive? Of course, not.

Likewise, Bush's income tax cuts have sharply reduced the progressive income tax, but haven't touched regressive taxes like payroll taxes and excise taxes. So while Bush may have reduced income taxes by a greater percentage for people in the middle and low ends of the income scale than for people at the top, the income tax was already very low for low- and middle-income people. So let's look at some more valid measures:

o As a percentage of all federal, state and local taxes, Bush's reductions equal 12% for the top 1%, 3% for the poor, and 7-8% for everyone else.

o As a percentage of income, Bush has cut taxes by 4.3% at the top, 0.7% at the bottom, and 2-3% for everyone else.

Landsburg also says he rejects the idea that taxes should be based on either ability to pay or on the benefits that people gain from our society -- either of which would call for much, much more progressive taxes than we have now. Instead, he says that everyone, poor or rich, should pay the same dollar amount in taxes. That would either bankrupt tens of millions of families (and impoverish others) or destroy the United States as a functioning nation. It's also morally indefensible.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Ryan

What do you think about the Bush tax cuts, and the fact that the lower and middle classes got a larger cut than the upper? Keep in mind, that CURRENTLY - the lower class, and families also get many credits from the government (child tax credits, earned income tax credit - effectively government handouts, don't ya think?).

"If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you've had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office. (And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent; those who make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut."
http://www.slate.com/id/2108201

LOL .... FAIL

""As a percentage of income, Bush has cut taxes by 4.3% at the top, 0.7% at the bottom, and 2-3% for everyone else.""

Sorry --- your FUD is just laughable. You have to be paid to post such nonsense. Steven E. Landsburg is a supply-side economist




And we all know how well that VooDoo has worked ....

You know it's possible that you're both right. His numbers are percentages of taxes paid (e.g. I used to pay $10k/yr, now I pay $7600/yr), your numbers are percentages of income paid as taxes.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: BigDH01
If the top 1% of the country last year owned 60% of the total wealth, is it not fair to expect them to pay 60% of the tax burden? After all, they get more use out of infrastructure needed to generate and maintain their wealth.

It torques my arse when the posers whine like little beaches ""We pay 50% of the taxes"" when they maintain a higher percentage of income and net worth (currently highest since the Great Depression).

Twenty percent of American taxpayers have zero or negative net worth. Seventy percent (the 'Middle Class') maintain 25% of the net worth and income in this country and pay a significantly higher portion of taxes and fees as a ratio to their income.

Since the top 10% control 75% of the net worth in this country, what is the big deal? The 'Marxist spread-the-wealth' bullsheet spewed by the Cons makes as much sense as their 'Islamo-Fascist' creation. It wears no clothes.

Originally posted by: Ryan

What do you think about the Bush tax cuts, and the fact that the lower and middle classes got a larger cut than the upper? Keep in mind, that CURRENTLY - the lower class, and families also get many credits from the government (child tax credits, earned income tax credit - effectively government handouts, don't ya think?).

"If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you've had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office. (And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent; those who make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut."
http://www.slate.com/id/2108201

LOL .... FAIL

""As a percentage of income, Bush has cut taxes by 4.3% at the top, 0.7% at the bottom, and 2-3% for everyone else.""

Sorry --- your FUD is just laughable. You have to be paid to post such nonsense. Steven E. Landsburg is a supply-side economist




And we all know how well that VooDoo has worked ....

You got me, a doubious link. I wanted to make the point that the current tax code is already a form of wealth redistribution, but I moved into an unwarranted/unfounded Bush attack without really checking my facts

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I quit my job yesterday and am ready for the handouts. All you evil people who have acquired wealth through hard work and dedication be damned!

Name one person who traded in a high paying job for a life of living on welfare.

People leave the "rat race" all the time. Sometimes taking the jobs they would have created along with them.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Most people who make over $200,000 voted for Obama.

Country First?

Is that true? If that be the case I wish people here would stop posting on behalf of the rich people in this country. They don't want you speaking for them evidently.

I get tired of hearing the opinions of the plumber Joes of the world who complain about these taxes despite not making anywhere near this amount of money a year.

Just because you someday plan on making $250K a year doesn't make your taxes go up and makes your opinions on tax increases for the rich, moot, especially if they as Ferocious suggested, voted for the guy who was going to increase their taxes.

Beat McCain by 6% in voters making >$200,000. 15% higher than Kerry did.

This really hit home for me a week or so before the election. We were having dinner at my friend's father's house, amidst his six figure wine cellar and Ferrari. He was arguing with another one of my friends -- who is solidly middle class, about why he (friend) was voting McCain. It just didn't make any sense. Here's a guy who is going to be impacted most by "spreading the wealth around" (insert :roll: here), but the guy who was going to benefit from it was voting McCain. Obviously many of the people impacted by Obama's tax plans aren't concerned...why are others? And if I hear one peep of socialism, I swear...

Well, its nice that certain rich people want to help the "poor" by raising taxes. However, why not have these people donate the money themselves rather than forcing everyone to do it via tax hikes?

Just because George Clooney wants to spend some of his money on the poor, it makes no sense for him to force other rich people to.

What happens when a small business owner (or even a large one) wants to create a new product to sell, but cannot hire enough people because the tax rates are too high? Unemployment.

For the rich that have money to burn, let them donate it on their own free will. For the rich that need money to help the economy create jobs, let them keep it and not hamper them by redistributing their money.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: net

i file myself.

under what, racist or bigot?

 

[Rustler]

Remember that rich people will hire or allready have tax lawyers to protect their wealth from any tax increases, the people in the middle will pay the price again.........................................

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: loup garou
Beat McCain by 6% in voters making >$200,000. 15% higher than Kerry did.

This really hit home for me a week or so before the election. We were having dinner at my friend's father's house, amidst his six figure wine cellar and Ferrari. He was arguing with another one of my friends -- who is solidly middle class, about why he (friend) was voting McCain. It just didn't make any sense. Here's a guy who is going to be impacted most by "spreading the wealth around" (insert :roll: here), but the guy who was going to benefit from it was voting McCain. Obviously many of the people impacted by Obama's tax plans aren't concerned...why are others? And if I hear one peep of socialism, I swear...

That's simple to answer:

EVERYONE benefits when the economy does well. The rich will happily roll back their tax rates to the Clinton-era if it means the economy is growing. What they lose in extra taxes, they gain back (and then some) in profits.

Then there are idiots like Joe The Plumber, who make a lower-middle-class salary and support McCain because Obama's tax cut for their demographic is too big. :roll:

Americans saw through McCain's bullshit quite easily this year, which is why he got his shit beat in on November 4th.

Yea, we are in a recession.. We are losing jobs.. Companies are going bankrupt.. let's tax these companies and these rich business owners even more!!! That will surely make our economy even better.

Yea, the movie stars, the singers, the celebrities.. yea, they want more taxes -- to "help the poor..." However, are they the ones who really create the jobs? Or is it the person running a business and trying to make the budget so he can hire people to launch his product, or to market it or even to manufacture it.

 

[Insomniator]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Most people who make over $200,000 voted for Obama.

Country First?

Is that true? If that be the case I wish people here would stop posting on behalf of the rich people in this country. They don't want you speaking for them evidently.

I get tired of hearing the opinions of the plumber Joes of the world who complain about these taxes despite not making anywhere near this amount of money a year.

Just because you someday plan on making $250K a year doesn't make your taxes go up and makes your opinions on tax increases for the rich, moot, especially if they as Ferocious suggested, voted for the guy who was going to increase their taxes.

Beat McCain by 6% in voters making >$200,000. 15% higher than Kerry did.

This really hit home for me a week or so before the election. We were having dinner at my friend's father's house, amidst his six figure wine cellar and Ferrari. He was arguing with another one of my friends -- who is solidly middle class, about why he (friend) was voting McCain. It just didn't make any sense. Here's a guy who is going to be impacted most by "spreading the wealth around" (insert :roll: here), but the guy who was going to benefit from it was voting McCain. Obviously many of the people impacted by Obama's tax plans aren't concerned...why are others? And if I hear one peep of socialism, I swear...

Well, its nice that certain rich people want to help the "poor" by raising taxes. However, why not have these people donate the money themselves rather than forcing everyone to do it via tax hikes?

Just because George Clooney wants to spend some of his money on the poor, it makes no sense for him to force other rich people to.

What happens when a small business owner (or even a large one) wants to create a new product to sell, but cannot hire enough people because the tax rates are too high? Unemployment.

For the rich that have money to burn, let them donate it on their own free will. For the rich that need money to help the economy create jobs, let them keep it and not hamper them by redistributing their money.

well said

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: loup garou
Beat McCain by 6% in voters making >$200,000. 15% higher than Kerry did.

This really hit home for me a week or so before the election. We were having dinner at my friend's father's house, amidst his six figure wine cellar and Ferrari. He was arguing with another one of my friends -- who is solidly middle class, about why he (friend) was voting McCain. It just didn't make any sense. Here's a guy who is going to be impacted most by "spreading the wealth around" (insert :roll: here), but the guy who was going to benefit from it was voting McCain. Obviously many of the people impacted by Obama's tax plans aren't concerned...why are others? And if I hear one peep of socialism, I swear...

That's simple to answer:

EVERYONE benefits when the economy does well. The rich will happily roll back their tax rates to the Clinton-era if it means the economy is growing. What they lose in extra taxes, they gain back (and then some) in profits.

Then there are idiots like Joe The Plumber, who make a lower-middle-class salary and support McCain because Obama's tax cut for their demographic is too big. :roll:

Americans saw through McCain's bullshit quite easily this year, which is why he got his shit beat in on November 4th.

Yea, we are in a recession.. We are losing jobs.. Companies are going bankrupt.. let's tax these companies and these rich business owners even more!!! That will surely make our economy even better.

Yea, the movie stars, the singers, the celebrities.. yea, they want more taxes -- to "help the poor..." However, are they the ones who really create the jobs? Or is it the person running a business and trying to make the budget so he can hire people to launch his product, or to market it or even to manufacture it.

The taxes are on profit in excess of $250,000. Obviously a business is not struggling to make the budget or hire more people if they have more than $250,000 annually in income. (and even at that level the tax increase would be small).

I think you people frequently confuse revenue with profit. I'm not sure if it's deliberate or not, but it would be nice if you stopped.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Most people who make over $200,000 voted for Obama.

Country First?

Is that true? If that be the case I wish people here would stop posting on behalf of the rich people in this country. They don't want you speaking for them evidently.

I get tired of hearing the opinions of the plumber Joes of the world who complain about these taxes despite not making anywhere near this amount of money a year.

Just because you someday plan on making $250K a year doesn't make your taxes go up and makes your opinions on tax increases for the rich, moot, especially if they as Ferocious suggested, voted for the guy who was going to increase their taxes.

Beat McCain by 6% in voters making >$200,000. 15% higher than Kerry did.

This really hit home for me a week or so before the election. We were having dinner at my friend's father's house, amidst his six figure wine cellar and Ferrari. He was arguing with another one of my friends -- who is solidly middle class, about why he (friend) was voting McCain. It just didn't make any sense. Here's a guy who is going to be impacted most by "spreading the wealth around" (insert :roll: here), but the guy who was going to benefit from it was voting McCain. Obviously many of the people impacted by Obama's tax plans aren't concerned...why are others? And if I hear one peep of socialism, I swear...

Well, its nice that certain rich people want to help the "poor" by raising taxes. However, why not have these people donate the money themselves rather than forcing everyone to do it via tax hikes?

Just because George Clooney wants to spend some of his money on the poor, it makes no sense for him to force other rich people to.

What happens when a small business owner (or even a large one) wants to create a new product to sell, but cannot hire enough people because the tax rates are too high? Unemployment.

For the rich that have money to burn, let them donate it on their own free will. For the rich that need money to help the economy create jobs, let them keep it and not hamper them by redistributing their money.

well said

Terribly said, actually. It gets tiresome bickering with right-wing ideologues who fail to understand the basic concept of why taxes have a role in a democratic society.

He has too many fallacies to list, such as his false assumption that all the money not taxed is used by the rich for wonderful society-serving uses, creating jobs.

It's too ridiculous to bother correcting his errors - he shows, for example, zero understading that any level of concentration of wealth can cause problems.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: mugs
~~snip~~

You know it's possible that you're both right. His numbers are percentages of taxes paid (e.g. I used to pay $10k/yr, now I pay $7600/yr), your numbers are percentages of income paid as taxes.

There is statistical 'fudge' going on there ...

Originally posted by: Ryan

You got me, a doubious link. I wanted to make the point that the current tax code is already a form of wealth redistribution, but I moved into an unwarranted/unfounded Bush attack without really checking my facts

I didn't mean to call you out like that.

Econo-Turds like Landsburg are Supply-Side Snake Oil Salesmen.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: mugs
~~snip~~

You know it's possible that you're both right. His numbers are percentages of taxes paid (e.g. I used to pay $10k/yr, now I pay $7600/yr), your numbers are percentages of income paid as taxes.

There is statistical 'fudge' going on there ...

Originally posted by: Ryan

You got me, a doubious link. I wanted to make the point that the current tax code is already a form of wealth redistribution, but I moved into an unwarranted/unfounded Bush attack without really checking my facts

I didn't mean to call you out like that.

Econo-Turds like Landsburg are Supply-Side Snake Oil Salesmen.

No worries, makes for a better discussion

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: eleison
Yea, we are in a recession.. We are losing jobs.. Companies are going bankrupt.. let's tax these companies and these rich business owners even more!!! That will surely make our economy even better.

Yea, the movie stars, the singers, the celebrities.. yea, they want more taxes -- to "help the poor..." However, are they the ones who really create the jobs? Or is it the person running a business and trying to make the budget so he can hire people to launch his product, or to market it or even to manufacture it.

your ideas sound nice in isolation, but if you actually think about how the actual economy functions, you'll realize why supply-side economics have never worked. if the consumers (read: middle class and poor) can't afford to *consume*, then businesses will fail no matter their tax rate.

as an aside, the statutory federal corporate tax rate (35%) has little to do with the real corporate tax rates actual paid. the average rate paid by profitable Fortune 500 companies in 2002-2003 was 17.2%, much lower than other developed nations. hardly the oppressive rates that you'd like to portray.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.or..._tax_rates_plummet.php

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: net

In the words of Karl Marx, ?From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.?

Wouldn't many of those people who end up not paying taxes be the working poor?

This raises an interesting question that challenges a dogmatic notion--that people get what they deserve. Is it possible that the owners of the businesses they work at are overpaid and that they are underpaid? What determines wages anyway? What if, as a result of economic and political policies supported by the business owners, the nation was flooded with immigrants and illegal immigrants who put downward pressure on those people's wages? Is it thus possible that, in some cases and to some extent, the "redistribution" is really merely correcting a market problem so that people receive compensation according to their ability?

As the economic force of Global Labor Arbitrage merges the American labor market with impoverished foreign labor markets, essentially redistributing wealth from the lower classes to the business owners as a result of an increased supply of labor and downward pressure on wages, we really need to begin questioning the dogma that working people get the compensation they deserve for their efforts and that the wealthy really deserve all of the wealth they have.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: eleison
Yea, we are in a recession.. We are losing jobs.. Companies are going bankrupt.. let's tax these companies and these rich business owners even more!!! That will surely make our economy even better.

Yea, the movie stars, the singers, the celebrities.. yea, they want more taxes -- to "help the poor..." However, are they the ones who really create the jobs? Or is it the person running a business and trying to make the budget so he can hire people to launch his product, or to market it or even to manufacture it.

your ideas sound nice in isolation, but if you actually think about how the actual economy functions, you'll realize why supply-side economics have never worked. if the consumers (read: middle class and poor) can't afford to *consume*, then businesses will fail no matter their tax rate.

as an aside, the statutory federal corporate tax rate (35%) has little to do with the real corporate tax rates actual paid. the average rate paid by profitable Fortune 500 companies in 2002-2003 was 17.2%, much lower than other developed nations. hardly the oppressive rates that you'd like to portray.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.or..._tax_rates_plummet.php

Wow...is there a flip side to this coin? Those are some low numbers but while I am not inclined to disagree with you I am a firm believer in a "his side, her side, and the truth" approach. These companies are complaining? Sad.