When Did We Need to Force People and Business to Stay in America?

Nice theory, but that's all it is, theoretical.

Of course, the taxes on investments are so low that those investors don't pay anywhere near the rate that people who actually work for their money do. Why exactly should working be taxed at a dramatically higher rate than investing?

An assumption not borne out by facts. The theory in the '80s was that lowering the income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates would do the same thing. Of course, this turned out to be a load of hooey, much like I believe would result from eliminating corporate taxes.

It would be a boon for the owners, no doubt. However, the "lifeblood of our economy" is the consumers. If increasing the owners' and investors' incomes actually increased economic growth, our economy would be absolutely BOOMING as they are the only ones who have seen expanded incomes over the last 40 years. Of course, this isn't the case at all, economic growth was significantly higher (using the word "significant" in the statistical sense) when personal tax rates were dramatically higher and while effective corporate tax rates were as well.

I'm pretty sure that those of us in TRS are aware of our investments.

 

I'd also point out that these things are NOT the lifeblood of our economy. Jobs are. Historically, investment and business growth generates jobs and thus the two pretty much were interchangable - that's no longer true today for any number of reasons (technology, outsourcing, etc). A successful business that doesn't create many jobs is not worth all that much to the economy - it's only valuable to their investors. A less profitable business that creates lots of jobs is far more valuable to the country as a whole.

 

The quality of these business (what they offer) blows. Which is why I don't shop at any of them. That being said they are the biggest, which should tell u something about the US.

 

I'm trying to figure out whether you actually believe this nonsense or know full well that by the time this line of thinking is proven to be a complete fallacy it would be too late to reverse course. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and guess the latter.

 

What percentage of start up businesses succeed?

 

But it would be at the cost of lower economic growth and fewer jobs.

Deflation is far worse for an economy than reasonable inflation, particularly for those at the lower end of the income spectrum.

We could keep them from doing so by simply closing those loopholes altogether, so that small and large businesses have a more equal playing field.

And corporations should be taxed based on where they do business. If you want to do business in the best, freest markets in the world, you should be required to contribute towards the infrastructure, rule of law, and other societal constructs that make such markets possible in the first place.

I know, you've been convinced (by liars) that lower tax rates for the highest earners is a good thing. Of course, history disagrees with your opinion, but you've already said that you won't be convinced by academicians, so it isn't like you will actually believe the facts. You choose to believe the (disproved) opinions of pundits instead.

 

It certainly did. But that would be something you knew if you would look at history instead of theories put out there by liars.

But the multiplier of capital in the hands of the middle class is DRAMATICALLY higher than when in the hands of either the government or business owners. The most positive effect of high marginal tax rates on high incomes was to incentivize those business owners to pass some of the profits on to their employees rather than (as they are doing today) fattening their own wallet exclusively.

Please, for the love of God, get an education. You don't even know history.

 

It is truly sad how little you understand about economics and business.

 

He is actually pretty much citing the fundamentals of basic economic theory, like he just left the first lesson.

Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand that economics is based on perfect and basic markets, which has little use in real world decision making.

 

Two simplistic examples/questions for you:

1. If the cost associated with hiring a new employee is $100k, but he/she is capable of increasing your revenue by $200k, will you choose not to hire him/her because your business will only realize a profit increase of $65k after taxes (assuming a 35% rate) as opposed to $100k?

2. If you have a genius idea for your business that'll generate $2million of revenue, but requires an initial R&D investment of $1million upfront, do you stop and think, "Oh geez, I don't think so...my business will only make an additional $650k, not $1million."

 

Yes, when the highest marginal tax rates were over 90%, owners would pay raises to their employees, not wanting to pay the exorbitant taxes. This helped to distribute wealth in ways that positively impacted the economy, note that wage inflation was steadily up through through the 40s,50s,and 60s. The middle class drives our economy. They are the engine of our economy.

 

If what Rocketman1981 believes is not a religion, then I don't know what is.

 

Capitalism

Rocket River

 

i thought you made those numbers up. 90% tax rate? and the rich stayed in this country? idk about the middle class being the engines of our economy. one of the customers whose lawn i did some work on said he puts all his money overseas where the govt cant get him and how if tax rates dont go lower soon he and his family will just move to another country. ppl like him with the bmw cars and rolex watches and tennis courts buy the expensive stuff which helps business. there are fewer of him but they spend a lot.

 

I welcome any fact check of any information I put out. The top marginal tax rate was over 90% for the majority of the 1900s.

Sure, because they continued to get richer. However, the high top tax rates helped convince business owners to share some of those economic gains with their employees rather than simply fattening their own wallets.

The point is that, even with very high tax rates, the rich could get and stay much richer in America than they could in other countries. This continues to be true to this day and is the reason that when I hear people talking about leaving the country because of our tax rates (especially when they are at historically low levels as it is), my response is "what's holding you up, GTFO already."

They aren't leaving, they can't make as much money living in Costa Rica as they can make here, with few exceptions.

They are. Think about it, rich people, when given an extra dollar, are much more likely to put it into the bank than to spend it. Spending IS our economy, so giving money to rich people takes money OUT of the economy.

On the other hand, if you give the middle class (note, millions upon millions of people), even a small raise, they will spend more of it, which results in economic growth.

You don't have to believe me, go look at the numbers. Trickle down economics has not resulted in any increased economic growth whatsoever. I've shown this statistically in my research and it is absolutely clear. Cutting taxes does not result in higher economic growth.

To him, I'd say GTFO. If you're willing to leave the country in order to try and reduce your tax bill (particularly when every other advanced nation has higher taxes than the US), then America doesn't need you. You've given up your right to call yourself a "patriot" (a word I'm certain your customer likes to apply to himself).

They don't spend as much, as a percentage of their income, as the middle class does. Thus, giving them a higher share of the national income (as we have done every single year for decades) results in less economic activity and growth.

 

this all makes sense. but i have never heard about any of this on the radio or on tv. im not saying your lying. just that how can so many smart and successful people who went to college keep saying tax rates are too high, that the rich are not happy and companies are leaving.

i asked my buddy sitting next to me what he'd if the govt gave him $1000 and he said he wouldnt take it. if everyone gets a raise companies just increase the prices so our dollar buys the same stuff.

yeah i thought about the patriot thing. it really bothered me that he would just leave because he made all his money from inheriting his grandpa's money (the whole town knows it). his grandpa fought in ww2 and korea. was a really humble and friendly man before he died and gave a lot back to the poor and community. his grand son is the oppossite because he only cares about himself and not everyone else. said his family would move to hong kong or singapore. that didnt seem right to me.