andymoon, What we are talking about is income tax, we are not talking about wealth tax. There is a difference between tax the top 1% income and top 1% rich ppl. These are two completely different things.
I'm sorry if I didn't clarify, but call centers to me is NOT skilled labor or a specialized field. As I told many people I knew dropping out of college years back to learn 'networking' and basic programming, it was a temporary spike in demand for these jobs that are essentially basic in nature. In a decade people will learn this basic programming and networking and 'call center' skills in high school. If we had it the way some people here wish, we'd still be in the industrial stage because there would not be the incentive to become better skilled. Now Americans must continue to learn new skills otherwise they will be left behind.
I'm poor. Every cent I make goes straight towards paying the bills. I can maybe invest $50 a month. But I think if you're trying to kick start the economy, the best way to do that is to give tax breaks to the rich who will invest their money in the economy. The poor will just spend it. Anyone who follows this debate knows that there are two sides that staunchly refuse to believe the other side's point of view so debate is probably pointless on the issue. To me it seems simple when the smallest amount of common sense is applied, but since when have the majority of Americans used (or for that matter, been capable of using) common sense when it comes to the economy?? It's me, me, me, now, now, now whether it's logical or not.
Do you actually even need me to explain this to you? I don't think you do. Boom-bust, it's all very econ 101 ish, so I'm going to assume a basic level of competence on your part and pass on this one. But anyway, I will concede this point only if you concede that the longest economic expansion in postwar history was the direct result of Clinton's tax increases.... you shouldn't, because it would be stupid, but if you are going to be stupid then I get to be stupid too. (This of course, tables the fact that most of President Bush's tax cuts of 03 are not even fully implemented yet. , but you credit them for Q3 03 growth...) Yawn, yawn, yawn. The whole point of the thread (which you have refused to confront on a real level, EVEN ONCE) is that President Bush allegedly felt that the last round of tax cuts was unfair and inequitable. A payroll tax holiday, conversely, due to the more regressive nature of payroll taxes, would necessarily be more equitable. It doesn't get more black and white than that. unneccessary? Yeah, considering that we already have the lowest tax burden of any Western country, and a fiscal policy that rivals the most ass-backwards banana republic, a massive giveaway to the rich was not in order. As for rest, check the CBO; www.cbo.gov. The CBO determined that Bush's first round of tax cuts was responsible for roughly half (around 200b) of this year's deficits. The damage fromt the most recent round has yet to be fully calculated...but it's a bundle, no question. I'll leave you with this article from the Washington Post, you and the rest of the peanut gallery who claim that the last round of tax cuts was anything other than a massive wealth transfer to the very richest can suck on this for awhile:
That's precisely the point. If the goal is to stimulate the economy, as the PResident stated, then you want to give money to people who will spend it (middle and lower classes), this will result in a greater multiplier effect, greater stimulus, etc. Giving money to the rich is the way not to kickstart the economy. It has a far more limited demand stimulus; what's the point of "investing" and eventually building new factories/businesses etc if there is nobody willing to consume?
No ****. You have to admit that those in the top 1% in wealth will be pretty much the same in the top 1% in income. If you can't see that then you have blinded yourself.
No you completely missed my precise point. The middle/lower classes spend the money on bills and food doing jack crap for the economy. The upper classes invest their money in big business which is what runs our economy in the first place. Buying food at the grocery store does not cultivate the economy like investing your money in the S&P 500 does. People need to get this idea that small business and the "little people" are the wheels that drive the American economy out of their heads. You may not like big business, but big business is the engine behind our economy.
The customers and employees aof bigbusiness are the "little people." What bills do you pay and where do you send them? Telephone, electricity, natural gas? Do you buy Kraft cheese? Eat Fritos? Munch on a Nestle's Crunch? Shop at Wal-Mart? Do you get gas from Mobil or Shell or ...? Your idea iof the economy is upside down... by spending money on the crap, you are ad river in big business and money to you and those like you would be greater boon to the economy than extra capital for the rich.
No, this is econ 101 stuff. Spending money on bills and food does far more for the economy, due to the multiplier effect [in brief, the more money is spent, the more value/utility is created], than does money sitting around earning interest, and also stimulates demand, which is the engine that drives our economy. In fact, most economists would agree, that relatively high (although decreased) level of consumption (by the american consumer, or "the little people" ) basically kept the American economy afloat throughout the last few years. "Big business" as you call it ain't sh-t without a market, which means "little people" like you and me This notion that you can just give a bunch of "big businesses" a bunch of money and everything will work out is pretty simplistic and is not premised on any substative economic theory.
andymoon, Here is an example: A hardworking doctor is making 400k a year. He will be paying about 150k+ in taxes. Now you would proly consider him to be a rich person, when in fact he is got about 300k+ in student loans, he has mortgage, car loans, child care etc. to pay. Another dude's family's pretty rich, he is worth about 5 million. Now even if he doesn't work a day in his life, he would just live off his wealth, 5 mil at 5% return that's 250k a year. He would need to pay less than 100k in taxes. You see a difference now? Now we should reward hard working ppl that try to make as much money as they can like the doctor. Not penalize when ppl EARNS more money.
The last round of tax cuts did the exact opposite, it eliminated the estate tax [so the second dude inherits more money] and it elimnated the dividend tax [so the second dude makes even more money]. your second dude is better off under Bush's last tax cuts than the first dude.
Why would rich people continue to invest in the stock market if the companies don't experience any growth in revenues. Some of the largest companies in the country and that are publicly traded are companies that produce or distribute consumer goods. I mean, this is simple logic, you keep stating that investing in the stock market is the end all be all. The price of stock isn't contingent on how many people want to buy the stock, its contingent on future growth. Growth comes from sales. Sales come from consumers. If more consumers have more money in their pocket, then that is more money out their for the companies. A rich person can only buy so many consumer goods, whether they have a million or a billion dollars. Their consumption is limited. I don't understand people who keep using the "rich people will invest the money more". If company XYZ receives some extra capital through investment why would it build a new factory if their is no growth in demand for the product. That's backwards thinking. Company XYZ builds a factory after its current operations can't keep up with consumer demand. Then it builds extra capacity, hence job growth.
That's why I am for INCOME tax cut, not removing estate tax. BTW estate tax is not eliminated, it's only gone for the year 2009 (or is it 2010).
Yeah they all expire around then, althought the GOP wants to make them permanent. Of course, that is near the time when the gov't may very well be totally insolvent as the deficit will have reached a ridiculous level so who knows how that will work out.
Actually, I think the top 1% in income is quite different from the top 1% in wealth. I will try to find the exact statistics. I would venture a guess that maybe a quarter of that top 1% in wealth is also in the top 1% in income in America. Old-money doesn't go anywhere fast, and you don't have to be skilled to operate a trust fund. In terms of efficiency, lowering income tax would reduce distortions far more than lowering wealth/estate taxes. There's a recent paper by Dan Bergstrasser (I forget where it was published, but it spawned from an MIT dissertation) that looks at distortionary effects of the wealth tax and concludes that they are actually not that big. What is at play is the so called "Bequest Motive" (the idea that you derive utility from passing wealth down to your children or benefactors). In America, the bequest motive is not as strong as it is in Europe (or in Asia, where it is far stronger); the hypothesis behind that is that it's the product of a cultural difference. I don't think that a tax cut was the right idea, given that we're spending so much money on other ventures (Iraq, Medicare expansion, moonbase ) and that social security and medicare are running huge, crippling long term deficits. That said, I think the best way to lower taxes would be to reduce income taxes some, and reduce estate taxes some. Balance always reduces the possiblities of adverse shocks to the economy. The actual proprtion of the tax cut from income and estate taxes should be determined at the level which optimizes efficiency standpoint. But hey, if budgetary and tax policy was made with efficiency and fiscal responsiblity in mind, it would be a very different world...
I agree...I read the O'Neill article and that is just pathetic...Typically tax cuts spur growth but it all boils down to confidence in the market and job outlook...I expect a rebound in 04...
No .. Wanting the Rich to pay an extraordinary amount because they owe all of their success to society as you stated before is called socialism. Most of the rich people in this country owe it to hard work not the gov't or anyone else.
OK, two things from this post: 1. You need to take some university level political science classes to learn what socialism is. 2. Provide one iota of support for your second statement.
1. Man I am sorry .. I forget that you are all-knowing as apparently you think you are. 2. Almost anyone that owns a successful business started from the ground up(or their family and ancestors did) and they don't owe anything to anyone. These people earned it and just because they are successful people like you think they owe something to you.
