Robert Reich: Eliminate payroll taxes on first $20K of income. "The people's tax cut"

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
No, that IS being shafted by the rich. The rich hold most of the wealth in this country, that means they hold most of the stocks in companies that are sending jobs overseas. They want returns on their investments and that means cutting costs and that means cutting jobs.

And who makes the ultimate decision to ship a job overseas? Not some 1st line manager at a corporation, no it's some executive.

I am guessing then that your definition of rich isn't Obama's definition of rich.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Now, explain to me why, in your moral view of the world, that is fair. I am trying to break things down into everyone's moral view of this situation, not quotes taken by other people. Why in YOUR mind, is this fair?

The right seems not to understand the idea of 'society'.

The rich get rich from others in society.

This is 'paying back' *part* of what they got from society. It also allows for more prosperity for society.

Are you ok with having society revert to the masses in poverty and a few extremely rich?

If not, you need the policies that don't result in that.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,205
10,865
136
do you like cheap shit?

I do.

do you like returns on your 401k?

I do.

401ks lol.

What a con job that's turned out to be for the middle class and lower classes. Shitty investments selections, making us think that we couldn't possibly vote against our "own" interests.

What a plan the Wall streeter have for us.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
I am guessing then that your definition of rich isn't Obama's definition of rich.

The top 10% of Americans own something like 70% of wealth in this country. That means they own these companies shipping jobs overseas. Yes, they are responsible.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
– Bush’s ten-year tax cut was designed to end this year, so it’s not a tax increase
Based on that thought process Bush should come out and say that it wasn't a tax cut, but a stimulus plan.
 

Toastedlightly

Diamond Member
Aug 7, 2004
7,213
6
81
I hope you're right.



You have to define what you mean.

Government built by having policies that lead to it? Not only is it strong, it's the only possible way for it to happen.

Government built by saying 'let's print money and give it to the poor so they're middle class'? Of course not, that's a non-functional destruction of the economy.

You speak of it like it's a hypothetical, but we've *had* a middle class created largely from the government's policies already, as I mentioned.

The Estate Tax, the right of labor to organize, progressive tax rates (more than now), are all examples of such policies that are different from 'hand money to the poor'.



That's really a small part of things - the programs you seem to be thinking of might be things like Social Security and Medicare - or if liberals get our way, universal healthcare/medicare for all - which are not so much 'handing out cash' as providing essential services more efficiently/effectively than they had been when we had 90% elder poverty and many without healthcare, and what we still have, a bloated 'private' insurance industry extracting great wealth from society.

There's a reason why every other advanced nation, without the political corruption we seem to especially have on this, has a form of universal healthcare.

That has nothing to do with 'making a phony middle class that needs government handouts', and everything to do with society have an efficient economy for needs.

You say you agree a strong middle class is needed, but the policies you seemed to advocate are in contradiction. That's the problem - myths that you can do policies that are actually to help the rich at the expense of others the right is led to not understand hurt the middle class. That's the core of trickle down economics - "give your money to the rich. It won't cost you, you will get it back when they magically multiply it!" Nice story, but not accurate.

There was a test of 'who's right' on a national scale, when Clinton pushed his tax increase on the top 2%. Every right-wing commentator I can find with dozens on the record predicted disaster for the economy and their predictions were proven wrong. IIRC the deficit went down, not up; unemployment went down, not up; growth went up, not down, and so on. We rarely get such a spin-free test of who is right, and we got one, and the answer - even if the right ignores it.

Of course, long-term economic performance by who is in the White House is another suggestion. I did a review of 10 previous presidents, half of each party, and found that most rankings on economic indicators were again and again with the top 5 spots the Democrats and the bottom 5 the Republicans - looking at employment, growth, the stock market, etc.

The government isn't the economy - it is one major player. It's important for it to have the rules such that lead to productive results.

The bottom line is that the right's goal for the economy is one with huge wealth concentration and a far worse off middle class (owning less the rich can own instead, cheaper labor, etc.), and the progressive left is the one that wants a stronger middle class - partly at the expense of the rich, with such things as CEO's perhaps again 'only' making 50 times what their average employee does instead of 400 times, with higher taxation on great fortunes that increases prosperity and opportunity for others.

Now we are getting a bit off topic here, but I'll keep going (its fun to actually understand someone's viewpoint and not just yell).

In my view, one of the large downfalls of the middle class is the reduction in manufacturing in the US. Manufacturing provided a large number of jobs with reasonable pay. Unfortunately, many of the unskilled jobs have been moved overseas. Fortunately, many of the skilled jobs are still around.

How do we bring something like manufacturing back to the US? I feel this is one of the biggest ways the government can help the middle class. How can it? I don't know. I am not an economist (nor do I want to pretend to be). One solution could be tariffs. One could be supporting local manufacuturing (ala GM).

I think you are not properly representing the other side (something you often accuse others of doing), or at the very least I am being roped into a group that I don't agree with. I wouldn't consider myself a "right winger". I consider myself a social-coservative.

I believe that an amount of "socialism" is required for society to function smoothly. I'm a conservative in that I look long and hard at the cost benefit and only jump in if it can prove itself to achieve the goals set forth at low enough cost (whatever that cost is deemed to be).
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
The top 10% of Americans own something like 70% of wealth in this country. That means they own these companies shipping jobs overseas. Yes, they are responsible.

Oh yea? All of 'em are huh? So 30,700,655 are shipping jobs over seas?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Based on that thought process Bush should come out and say that it wasn't a tax cut, but a stimulus plan.

That is what is actually was, though people who want it to be a permanent new tax rate don't like that; and it was a bad stimulus, weighted to the rich who mostly pocketed it.
 

Toastedlightly

Diamond Member
Aug 7, 2004
7,213
6
81
The top 10% of Americans own something like 70% of wealth in this country. That means they own these companies shipping jobs overseas. Yes, they are responsible.

Phokus,

You say the rich are shipping jobs overseas. I don't disagree with this. However I do disagree with yoru purposed motive. You seem to think that they are moving the jobs overseas to "screw the little guy".

I see it as they are ensuring their business does not faulter. If someone else can product the same widget for less than you, they can sell it for less than you. Moving these jobs overseas protects their ability to keep producing widgets. Unfortunately, it isn't citizens of the US producing the widgets, it is someone else.

Would the owner be better off making these widgets overseas or not at all? The choice is clear.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Phokus,

You say the rich are shipping jobs overseas. I don't disagree with this. However I do disagree with yoru purposed motive. You seem to think that they are moving the jobs overseas to "screw the little guy".

I see it as they are ensuring their business does not faulter. If someone else can product the same widget for less than you, they can sell it for less than you. Moving these jobs overseas protects their ability to keep producing widgets. Unfortunately, it isn't citizens of the US producing the widgets, it is someone else.

Would the owner be better off making these widgets overseas or not at all? The choice is clear.

this

buy this american made widget for 1.49 or this chinese made widget for .99

ironically, it's higher taxes that force many companies overseas

Wonder why so much movie production has been moved to Canada/Germany? big fat tax rebates to those evil corporations you hate so much.
 
Last edited:

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Phokus,

You say the rich are shipping jobs overseas. I don't disagree with this. However I do disagree with yoru purposed motive. You seem to think that they are moving the jobs overseas to "screw the little guy".

I see it as they are ensuring their business does not faulter. If someone else can product the same widget for less than you, they can sell it for less than you. Moving these jobs overseas protects their ability to keep producing widgets. Unfortunately, it isn't citizens of the US producing the widgets, it is someone else.

Would the owner be better off making these widgets overseas or not at all? The choice is clear.

Of course they don't do it to see the 'little guy' get hurt, they do it for their own gain by maximizing the return on their investment, as i said above. But you have to remember, the ruling class not only own these companies but they are also the ones that push the government for free trade policies that hurt the rest of us.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
but they are also the ones that push the government for free trade policies that hurt the rest of us.

do you buy shit made in mexico or china?

if so, then you are responsible.

you say maximizing return on investment, i say remaining competitive.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
this

buy this american made widget for 1.49 or this chinese made widget for .99

ironically, it's higher taxes that force many companies overseas

Wonder why so much movie production has been moved to Canada/Germany? big fat tax rebates to those evil corporations you hate so much.

But we want to have our cake, and eat it too.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
do you like cheap shit?

I do.

do you like returns on your 401k?

I do.
Does it matter how cheap shit is if you've got no job?

Nope.

Does it matter what returns you're getting on a 401(k) if you've got no job?

Nope.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Does it matter how cheap shit is if you've got no job?

Nope.

Does it matter what returns you're getting if you've got no job?

Nope.

will you have a job if nobody wants to buy your companies product since it's so much more expensive than your competitor's counterparts?

nope.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Boy, i sure am jealous they get to ship jobs overseas and not me. There isn't a big enough eyeroll emoticon.

Hate to break it to you, but not all those jobs are sent overseas. Hell, we had a manufacturer recently try to move production overseas, and couldn't get a consistent product, so he back to being made in the USA. Our parent corporation has a local machine shop make whatever parts they can, as well as employing thousands of people in the USA, in retail, and manufacturing. Consumers make the choice with the purchases too.
 

Toastedlightly

Diamond Member
Aug 7, 2004
7,213
6
81
So it seems to me like free trade seems to be a cause of many ills in our society. Free trade has allowed cheap imports, a very consumerism focused citizenship, and has forced businesses to look overseas. It seems that instituting tariffs and other trade controls may be useful, but are we willing to bear the burden they bring?
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
Consumers make the choice with the purchases too.

This, for bitching about outsourcing. Everyone here votes every day of their lives with the dollars they spend. From the candy bar you choose to the gas station that fills your tank, all is voted on.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Does it matter how cheap shit is if you've got no job?

Nope.

Does it matter what returns you're getting on a 401(k) if you've got no job?

Nope.

Has anyone really had much of a return on 401k, especially since the market is below where it was in March of 1999?

Nope.

will you have a job if nobody wants to buy your companies product since it's so much more expensive than your competitor's counterparts?

nope.

So both companies ship all the jobs out and then you and your neighbor are both out of work.

Yep.

No wonder 50% of the people in this country (and rising) are below the threshold income level to pay federal income taxes.
 
Last edited:

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
will you have a job if nobody wants to buy your companies product since it's so much more expensive than your competitor's counterparts?

nope.
If my company failed because the products were too expensive, I could go to a similar job at another company. If my company laid me off because I was too expensive to employ, and every company did the same, well, I'd have no job at all.