Stimulating the rich

[Tungwagger]

ROFLMAO!!

You don't do much in the information department, do you? First, you don't know the definition of the word bigot.

Cocksucker, every time you open your mouth you prove how really ignorant you are.

Here is your homework assignment: Go to the Internet, you know, the thing you're on now, find a search engine like Google - thats spelled G-O-O-G-L-E, and do a search called "Earned Income Tax Credit." Then come back here and tell me how the EITC works. We'll see who is utterly stupid, dickcheese.

You won't do it, because it will prove once again you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Go back to The Playground, Cha-Cha.

Bravo!!!

But it should be called the "Un-earned Income Tax Credit"

 

[Ham Murabi]

Give Redrave credit for stirring up some good old class warfare, which is really what this is all about.

You'll have to forgive me, since I only read the first two pages of posts before penning my own response, but I never read any post asking why the government needs so much of the money we earn. It seems everyone has essentially agreed we should all pay taxes, and that we all pay too much, and we are interested in someone else paying them.
Right now the government consumes roughly 20 percent of the gross domestic product. Twenty cents out of every dollar earned.
In Nevada, meanwhile, 12 percent of the workforce consists of federal, state and local government employees; they are paid by taxes extracted from your wallet and mine. Combine the costs of social security, Medicare and any number of other programs, and it would appear — at least to me — that the real problem with the economy isn't that some level of income earners aren't paying enough, it's that the government is taking too damn much.
The news accounts foster the belief, swallowed whole by a number of Lit members who posted here, that tax cuts and such "cost" the government money. But what right does the government have to the money, especially when it's already taking close to 20 percent that's been earned?

 

[weed]

Give Redrave credit for stirring up some good old class warfare, which is really what this is all about.

You'll have to forgive me, since I only read the first two pages of posts before penning my own response, but I never read any post asking why the government needs so much of the money we earn. It seems everyone has essentially agreed we should all pay taxes, and that we all pay too much, and we are interested in someone else paying them.
Right now the government consumes roughly 20 percent of the gross domestic product. Twenty cents out of every dollar earned.
In Nevada, meanwhile, 12 percent of the workforce consists of federal, state and local government employees; they are paid by taxes extracted from your wallet and mine. Combine the costs of social security, Medicare and any number of other programs, and it would appear — at least to me — that the real problem with the economy isn't that some level of income earners aren't paying enough, it's that the government is taking too damn much.
The news accounts foster the belief, swallowed whole by a number of Lit members who posted here, that tax cuts and such "cost" the government money. But what right does the government have to the money, especially when it's already taking close to 20 percent that's been earned?

I haven't had time to catch up on all of this thread but these are good points.

We have to consider just what we want from our government if it is to serve the public. Infrastructure? Security in our later years if we work hard? A minimum of healthcare when we can't care for ourselves? Military defense? An international status that fosters a healthy economy? Education?

Of course there's no concensus amongst us or our electeds so we fluctuate in how much of these things the feds should support and where the priorities are so things get more beaurocratic (and costly).

But the short of this is that we are lucky that we live in a country that does provide so much to it's people that our quality of life compared to many worldwide is exellent. Despite our problems.

It's part of what makes this a great place. In some ways.

So that brings us to paying for this greatness it costs. I do think that there is probably alot of waste and ineffeciency. But even reducing that would leave great cost.

Until we can raise that lower end of the spectrum up and there aren't so many families that fall into that EITC range that money will have to come from those who have it by default.

I've been there. Now I don't begrudge any of my taxes to helping out those who fall into tough times.

About the only thing I begrudge my taxes going to is military excessiveness.


Wish I could stay and play....

 

[Ham Murabi]

Until we can raise that lower end of the spectrum up and there aren't so many families that fall into that EITC range that money will have to come from those who have it by default.

You mentioned that you, too, qualified for an earned income tax credit, but that is no longer the case. I once was in that position. Now we aren't.
And that's the point. People who view the various layers of wealth accumulation in this country sometimes get the mistaken impression that poor people stay poor. That is not the case for the vast majority of wage earners, many who start low but earn more as they gain knowledge and experience in their field. Some of those poor people (actually a lot, given the way the government defines wealth) are now "rich."
And I still haven't come to grips with the reasoning that the "rich" have to give money to people who qualify for an earned income tax credit. I never got a dime, didn't want one, and paid my taxes when I was "poor."

 

[Ham Murabi]

A comment from a previous post.
There is no doubt a large number of Americans feel that "trickle down" economics don't work. They think this because, as a rule, talking heads on the network news shows smirk when they say "trickle down economics" and generally include the word "disredited" in the same sentence.
The idea behind the trickle down theory is that if you leave more money in the hands of the taxpayers, rather than taking it from them with increasingly higher tax rates, they will spend the money in a productive fashion.
Not only that, the spending (much of it investments by the wealthy) creates jobs.
The net result of trickle down economics is that it generated much more money for the government, because all that investment "primed the pump." Among other things it gave the unemployed jobs.
Hard to believe you could cut tax rates and get more tax revenue. But actually it's pretty easy to believe if you have even a rudimentary understanding of economics. Giving money to the government doesn't produce anything — letting people keep more of the money they earn does result in productivity for the economy.
Of course, the enhanced revenue from "trickle down economics" sparked — naturally — much more government spending. More spending, in fact, than there were funds available. That's the history of our government.
And that's why the talking heads say trickle down didn't work, because it created "huge deficits." In truth, government revenue was at an all-time high. So, too, was government spending. And that created the deficits.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Can I have some more money? Where do you get it?

 

[teddybear4play]

You mentioned that you, too, qualified for an earned income tax credit, but that is no longer the case. I once was in that position. Now we aren't.
And that's the point. People who view the various layers of wealth accumulation in this country sometimes get the mistaken impression that poor people stay poor. That is not the case for the vast majority of wage earners, many who start low but earn more as they gain knowledge and experience in their field. Some of those poor people (actually a lot, given the way the government defines wealth) are now "rich."
And I still haven't come to grips with the reasoning that the "rich" have to give money to people who qualify for an earned income tax credit. I never got a dime, didn't want one, and paid my taxes when I was "poor."

Amen.

Just 'cause I make jackshit now doesn't mean I always will.

TB4p

 

[70/30]

I will attempt to direct you to responsible reporting...no sense arguing with the blind and deaf.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030113&s=chait011303

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021230&s=chait123002

 

[Viper Vic]

Everyone left. I took a shower today! I promise!

You did an excellent job explaining "stuff". Most liberals can only spout slogans and cannot offer any good reason for believing what they believe.

When libs understand the classwarfare slogan "Tax cuts for the rich" is aimed at over 50% of people with income(Over 26,000) then maybe they will think a tax cut for everyone is not a bad idea.

 

[WriterDom]

Imagine having two kids and a combined income of 40,000. Look at how bad Bush's plan screws them.

A household with two parents and two children under 17 with combined adjusted gross income (AGI) -- the amount of earnings upon which a worker is taxed, after deductions and credits -- of $40,000 a year would see their annual federal income tax bill drop from $1,178 to just $45. That's a 96 percent savings, according to independent calculations performed by the Deloitte & Touche accounting firm.

 

[Viper Vic]

What's really funny is how you could be so utterly stupid as to believe that everyone doesn't know that lower income Americans have a much higher proportionate tax burden, because every cent of their income is spent on taxable items and they don't generally have the ability to weasel out of their taxes. Lower Income earners, for instance, do not benefit from itemized deductions for charitable donations and work, interest on debt, medical expenses, et. al Nor will they benefit from a repeal of the dividends tax.

Then earn more! Stop crying, you aren't promised to be rich when you were born. We are talking about Income tax, not sales tax.Everyone is taxed too much, we are ALL going to get a break and that is good. Now if you can find an evil rich oerson to hire a poor person they will both be better off than they were before yesterday.

 

[Ishmael]

What a stupid thread. Really.

The zero taxes on dividends is a boon to the rich? Get real. Most of the Uniteds States middle class, and lower income earners as well, that have any kind of a retirement account have their account managed by "funds managers". A zero tax on dividends will provide an incentive for these people to invest in the companies paying dividends. Thereby increasing the value of the fund. The increased value of the fund will substantially improve the retirement prospects for millions of Americans.

The truly wealthy are not coupon clippers for the most part. Their monies are invested in other financial instruments, or is used for Corporate takeovers by those that like to play the "high risk, high reward" game.

Further, with the various laws that were passed by the Democratically controlled congress's pre '94, the emphasis of corporate management shifted from managing a company to turn a profit to managing a company to increase stock value. Real money versus paper value. These various laws and their effect on management are what led to the Enron and Global Crossing debacles.

The administrations goals are to increase the net worth of million upon millions of middle class and lower Americans, and to shift the emphasis of business management from paper net worth to real value. And, "Oh by the way", to stimulate investment.

Ishmael

 

[miles]

What a stupid thread. Really.




Ishmael

That's the most accurate post yet.

 

[zipman]

What a stupid thread. Really.

<snip>

I actually found this thread to be rather enlightening.


I never would have guessed that so many people subscribe to either a socialist or communist economic theory here at Lit.

 

[Ishmael]

I actually found this thread to be rather enlightening.


I never would have guessed that so many people subscribe to either a socialist or communist economic theory here at Lit.

It's because socialist and communist economic theory is so simplistic Zip. You don't have to know squat to understand the concepts. Real world economics takes a little more effort than many care to expend. I chalk it up more to ignorance, not to be confused with stupidity, than anything else.

It never fails to amaze me how so many keep pushing the socialist/communist economic model and can't seem to see that history has shown it to be a failure everytime it's been tried.

Ishmael

 

[Ham Murabi]

Take a look at another tax the rich scheme the Democrats pushed and Bush I succumbed to in the early 1990s after both parties spent the surplus generated by the tax cuts.
One tax that passed proved to be revenue-negative while costing hundreds of people their jobs. The law imposed punishing taxes on the purchase of new yachts.
There are a finite number of buyers of such craft, and they chose to either buy used yachts, or to buy yachts that weren't made in the U.S. Luxury craft builders, with their customer base destroyed by the tax, went out of business, costing any number of people their jobs.
Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Shaq]

That statistic is meaningless, unless you also know the percentage of the wealth that the top 1.5% control. If they also have 28% of the money, then the system is perfectly
fair, don't you think?

They have a LOT more than 28% of the money.

 

[armyjim_2000]

Good thread, even if I don't support the thoughts.

Let me see here...

Mind you, I am paraphrasing a story out of the local rag here, but it's analysis from a major news corporation(Gannett).

Those in favor say the death of individual dividend taxes say that it's demise would boost the economy by lifting after-tax income, which would raise stock prices, and give more money to shareholders, which will boost spending.

Those opposed say this will not boost consumer spending, because only 1/5 of US households hold stock outside of retirement accounts (which will not get a dividend, because all that money sits until retirement; it is only taxed then, and by the whole amount, not dividends...I could be wrong here, because I ain't no economics major.)

In that 1/5 of households, studies have shown that folks with money increase spending slowly unlike poorer folks (no reasons for that is given, but I kind of doubt that they just want to waste money they don't have. I could be wrong.)

One of the interesting pieces of this article contains a little bit about unintended consequences, which I though was interesting.

1. The law could help prevent cheating, as in the case of Enron, because investors would have gone looking for their dividends and found that they were cheating.

2. The law could change the way executives would be paid, by rewarding those who took stock instead of stock options (eliminating cheating, because stock options could be manipulated.

Small and family-owned business owners could pay themselves a minimum salary and take most of their salary from dividends, nearly eliminating their tax burden (although I suppose it would only work if their business were incorporated).

But the story says that many small startups don't pay taxes anyway, because in the beginning, they are unprofitable, and Uncle Sam lets you operate at a loss for a little while, so they don't profit from this.

Another thing is that companies (new or older) dislike starting to offer dividends, because if they don't pay it regularly, their stock is punished by sell-offs.

There's a chart put out by a watchdog group called Citizens for Tax Justice that shows the groups that benefit from this tax change. In that chart (and I do not claim to verify any of this, it's just what's in the paper), it shows that those who earn more than $147,000- $356,000 get over $1,332 more to play with. Over $356,000 gets over $11,483. But those who make less than $15,000 save $1, and it slowly goes up from there...

There ends my paraphrasing...

Now all this makes no sense if people are worrying about a balanced budget, because this is going to cost some real money to do.

Let's throw a dumb question in the mix here. If you want consumer spending to rise, wouldn't it be better to put more money into the hands of people who are going to spend it (as in the poorer folks, according to that study mentioned before), rather than those who aren't? Yes, it sounds dumb, but think about it.

Of course, maybe I should go back to college and learn about the economics of this plan. Oh wait...I can't afford to go!

 

[Ham Murabi]

Re: Good thread, even if I don't support the thoughts.

Let me see here...
In that 1/5 of households, studies have shown that folks with money increase spending slowly unlike poorer folks (no reasons for that is given, but I kind of doubt that they just want to waste money they don't have. I could be wrong.)
There's a chart put out by a watchdog group called Citizens for Tax Justice that shows the groups that benefit from this tax change. In that chart (and I do not claim to verify any of this, it's just what's in the paper), it shows that those who earn more than $147,000- $356,000 get over $1,332 more to play with. Over $356,000 gets over $11,483. But those who make less than $15,000 save $1, and it slowly goes up from there...
Now all this makes no sense if people are worrying about a balanced budget, because this is going to cost some real money to do.
Let's throw a dumb question in the mix here. If you want consumer spending to rise, wouldn't it be better to put more money into the hands of people who are going to spend it (as in the poorer folks, according to that study mentioned before), rather than those who aren't? Yes, it sounds dumb, but think about it.

I cut your post to address specific issues.
Folks with money may increase their spending slowly. What they don't spend, however, is reinvested in any number of ways. Reinvestment into the economy sparks economic growth, which produces jobs, which gives more people spending money.
Regarding the Citizens for Tax Justice Chart, it would seem to make sense that the people who pay the most taxes would get the most benefit. Those who make less than $15,000 already, by and large, don't pay taxes. They do pay for social security and medicare.
As for worrying about a balanced budget, I suggest less government spending would do the trick. Government already takes about 20 percent of the gross domestic product. If government settled for 15 percent, the budget would be balanced.
On consumer spending, the best way to accomplish it is to strengthen the economy by keeping more money in it and not giving it to the government.

 

[REDWAVE]

Well, I'm stimulated

This certainly has been a stimulating discussion. In fact, I had to leave a few times because I was getting, uh, over stimulated.


Actually, the arguments of the conservatives have persuaded me and won me over. I see now that when the rich press, clamor for, nay demand all kinds of tax cuts, subsidies, exemptions from regulation, etc., for themselves, they're not doing it out of sordid motives of greed. Oh, no-- they're doing it solely out of tender concern and solicitude for the rest of us. All they want to do is create jobs and help the poor! How altruistic and benevolent of them! Why, there a bunch of fucking saints!!!


Here's the way it works. First, the rich buy the politicians through "campaign contributions," a corrupt system of legalized bribery. They make sure (with very few exceptions) only candidates acceptable to them have any chance of getting elected. Once in office, the politicians repay their benefactors by showering them with all kinds of government goodies. Welfare for the rich is very much alive! It's just welfare for the poor-- those who actually need it-- which has been, for all practical purposes, done away with.

 

[Tungwagger]

Let's take ALL the money away from EVERYONE, then re-distribute it equally to EVERYONE.

Within ten years you will again have the "Haves", and the "Have-nots. Why? Because there are some people in this world who will always want more, and those who will complain about how little they have.

It's real simple....our choices in life dictate who we become....

Yes, that was a pro-choice statement.

 

[REDWAVE]

Tungwagger

Apologists for the rich often say that, but I notice they also fight tooth and nail against any attempt to redistribute the wealth, and put that theory to the test. They must not have much faith in its validity . . .

In fact, since 1980 there has been a massive redistribution of wealth in the U.S. Vast amounts have been looted from the working class and the poor, and transferred to the rich.

The GOP-- the party of reverse Robin Hoods. They steal from the poor, and give to the rich!

 

[Tungwagger]

Re: Tungwagger

Apologists for the rich often say that, but I notice they also fight tooth and nail against any attempt to redistribute the wealth, and put that theory to the test. They must not have much faith in its validity . . .

In fact, since 1980 there has been a massive redistribution of wealth in the U.S. Vast amounts have been looted from the working class and the poor, and transferred to the rich.

The GOP-- the party of reverse Robin Hoods. They steal from the poor, and give to the rich!

Well, it's your story, and you can tell it anyway you want....

 

[miles]

Re: Tungwagger

.

In fact, since 1980 there has been a massive redistribution of wealth in the U.S. Vast amounts have been looted from the working class and the poor, and transferred to the rich.

The GOP-- the party of reverse Robin Hoods. They steal from the poor, and give to the rich!

IN FACT?

Can you demonstrate this "looting" with facts?

I can wait.

 

[Tungwagger]

Re: Re: Tungwagger

IN FACT?

Can you demonstrate this "looting" with facts?

I can wait.

Me too......hehehehe