New idea on Taxes & Jobs

[outcaster]

The Bush tax cuts are going to expire in 2011. The Obama Administration promised to keep those tax rates in place for everyone except the top 3%. All Republicans, and some Democrats want the tax rates kept in place for the top 3%. They make the argument that these top 3%'ers are the ones most counted on to stimulate the economy, and create jobs. After all, these 3% of Americans control 1/3 of our wealth.

So here's the proposal: Make the Bush tax cuts permanent for all that fall into the 97%. Extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 3% for an additional 18 months. After the 18 months have expired (July 2012), if the Un-employment rate (according to the Dept of Labor) is at or below 6%, the richest 3% get to keep their tax cut permanently. If not their rates will go back up, as if it were 2011.

Seems like a pretty fair offer to me.

 

[Bprice]

I think this is something that could happen. Permanent extensions for all but the highest bracket, and a temporary (wait and see) extension for the top bracket.

 

[outcaster]

If we tie the tax cuts directly to un-employment numbers, we can know for sure it the super rich actually are the driving force of the economy, or not. My hunch is.... they are not.

 

[beetlespin]

Unfortunately it wouldn't work because there are too many other variables involved. Too much debt publically and privatly. The economy has seen a correction similar to what happens in the stock market sometimes. It will be at least 2-3 more years before new auto sales get back to 15 million annually if then. People have undergone a fundamental change in the way they consume and that will keep the economy weak for a long time.

 

[JSV]

One good thing has come from this little suggestion!
Even Dannie boy has agreed the tax cuts must of been a good thing since he is suggesting extending all of them!
We as Americans may have hope yet!

But then again, I guess it was Bush's fault!

 

[outcaster]

JSV - 9/26/2010 8:41 PM

One good thing has come from this little suggestion!
Even Dannie boy has agreed the tax cuts must of been a good thing since he is suggesting extending all of them!
We as Americans may have hope yet!

But then again, I guess it was Bush's fault!

Then, yet once again, the whole point of the post went right over your little punkin head. The whole point of letting the super rich keep their tax cuts for 18 more months, and make them permanent only if un-employment falls to 6% simply won't work, as beetlespin correctly pointed out. The main reason my evil plan won't work, is because the top 3% ARE NOT the ones driving this economy. And yes, the reason America is in the financial shape it's in is because of the GREED of the "Have's and the "Have More's"
So here is a couple of relevant quotes from ole "W"
“This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.”
"There's no question about it. Wall Street got drunk," "It got drunk and now it's got a hangover. The question is, how long will it sober up and not try to do all these fancy financial instruments?"

 

[beetlespin]

Just to be clear, I think it is necessary to extend the tax cuts on the middle class and probably a good idea to extend all tax cuts to keep the modest growth rate we have now. Any tax increases now would probably cripple the economy.

 

[SpurHunter]

The bottom line is, when you rely on higher taxes to "fix" what is broken, you are already doomed.

I dont have a clue how much money you make, but lets say you make $50K per year. Lets also say you made $25K 20 years ago. Looking back 20 years, I will assume that you had a roof over your head, even if you didnt own it, a car to drive, even if you were making payments, food on the table, SPAM and mac and cheese, if nothing else, and so on. My point is, you made do with less money out of necessity. You didnt spend like you made the $50K. You also didnt have the ability to FORCE your employer to pay you more just because you overspent, or plan on overspending.

Financial stimulation when it comes to taxes is so simple, I cannot fathom why Liberals cannot grasp it.
Municipalities all over the country are hurting from lack of tax revenue, i.e. sales taxes on goods and services. Instead of making it more conducive for consumers to spend money, they are raising taxes to cover the short-fall, instead of enabling the tax-base to keep their money and spend it at will. YES, your argument will be that people are not spending in general, which is true, AT THE MOMENT, but, given time, they will start to spend again. If you degrade their finances, why would they WANT to spend money?
I look forward to why you think this doesnt make sense, and I will shake my head wondering how a highly educated man like yourself cant see the writing on the wall.

 

[beetlespin]

Nice post Spur. Very clear.

 

[outcaster]

Simple Answer: Just because it sounds nice, it does not mean the Trickle-down Economics, as a financial system works. Nothing about taxes is fair, and nobody wants their taxes raised. The only way to make taxes truly fair, is to tax all of us based on the ability to pay. The point I am trying to make, is that the super rich have NOT been taxed fairly, based on their "ability to pay". Furthermore, while enjoying the lion's share (largest percentage rate cut) of the Bush tax cuts, did they use, or are using now this extra money to stimulate the economy, and create jobs? Answer: NO. Spur, with these tax cuts, did the super rich do as you said they would? Did they "spend it at will", create jobs, stimulate the economy? Again NO. Now, or ever is not the time to raise taxes on the ones hiring people, investing in new technologies, and equipment. That is the true engine that drives this economy. http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/09/obama-signs-bill-giving-small-business-tax-cuts.html
Those are the kinds of things that need to be done, not tax cuts for the crowd that needs them the least, because they are NOT driving this economy, and are NOT paying their fair share according to their ABILITY to pay. I say take that money and use it to create more tax cuts and tax credits for those who are actually driving the economy. We will ALL be better off for it..... even the super rich.

We have proof that this works. In 1993 Clinton raised tax rates on the top 2%, and in 1997 cut taxes for the middle class. Results: The economy grew, wages increased, un-employment fell, federal revenues increased, and the federal budget showed a surplus. With the Bush tax cuts, revenues decreased by 2.74 trillion dollars over 8 years, in that same time, average personal incomes decreased by $3500.00 despite worker productivity increasing. These tax cuts alone made a 100 billion dollar deficit (results of 2 wars) into a 600 billion dollar deficit.

 

[EricM]

outcaster - 9/27/2010 7:04 PM

The only way to make taxes truly fair, is to tax all of us based on the <font color="#cc0000" size="3">ability to pay</font>...........their <font color="#cc3300" size="3">"ability to pay"</font>......... and are NOT paying their fair share according to their <font color="#cc3300" size="3">ABILITY to pay</font>................

</p>

</p>

I guess I know how you think that the common good should be "fairly" supported. One man earns $50,000 and another earns $100,000. If the first man has the "ability" to pay $10,000 (20% tax rate) then the second would pay the same $10,000 PLUS has the <font color="#cc3300" size="3">"ability to pay"</font> an additional $50,000 (the "extra" that this horrible rich man has earned). My question is: just how much are you going to take from him? All of it, as long as he has the <font size="3"><font color="#cc3300">ABILITY TO PAY</font>?????????</font></p>

 

[TightlineT]

Recall NAFTA.....both parties got it wrong.....period.....

 

[Jason F-18]

I have the same question as Eric. Who decides "Who" has the "Ability" to pay? Do you drive down the street and raise taxes on the guy pulling a new Ranger Comanche with a brand new F 350, and lower taxes on the poor guy who is driving the 12 year old boat with a beater truck?

Do you really think that that people who make over 100k save a higher percentage of their money ie: not stimulating the economy by spending it? We I can tell you from being in the financial world for 6 years now, the more money people make, the more they spend. Period. I am constantly amazed how many people I see that make well over 100k, and yet have very little assets to show for it. If you were to ask a CPA, I'm sure they would agree with this statement. Sorry, don;t have actual statistics to show this, but I'm sure somewhere someone has compiled data in such a way to support this.

 

[SpurHunter]

jtab81 - 9/27/2010 9:37 PM I have the same question as Eric. Who decides "Who" has the "Ability" to pay? Do you drive down the street and raise taxes on the guy pulling a new Ranger Comanche with a brand new F 350, and lower taxes on the poor guy who is driving the 12 year old boat with a beater truck? <u>Do you really think that that people who make over 100k save a higher percentage of their money ie: not stimulating the economy by spending it? We I can tell you from being in the financial world for 6 years now, the more money people make, the more they spend. Period. I am constantly amazed how many people I see that make well over 100k, and yet have very little assets to show for it. If you were to ask a CPA, I'm sure they would agree with this statement</u>. Sorry, don;t have actual statistics to show this, but I'm sure somewhere someone has compiled data in such a way to support this.

</p>

</p>

This proves my point perfectly Danny. The proof is in the puddin. Obamanomics cant spin this fact. </p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

 

[Sniperchoke]

Gov't doesn't create wealth it only takes wealth and redistributes it for votes. More money in the workers hands equals more freedom. Less equals slavery.

 

[TightlineT]

jtab81 - 9/27/2010 9:37 PM

I have the same question as Eric. Who decides "Who" has the "Ability" to pay? Do you drive down the street and raise taxes on the guy pulling a new Ranger Comanche with a brand new F 350, and lower taxes on the poor guy who is driving the 12 year old boat with a beater truck?

Do you really think that that people who make over 100k save a higher percentage of their money ie: not stimulating the economy by spending it? We I can tell you from being in the financial world for 6 years now, the more money people make, the more they spend. Period. I am constantly amazed how many people I see that make well over 100k, and yet have very little assets to show for it. If you were to ask a CPA, I'm sure they would agree with this statement. Sorry, don;t have actual statistics to show this, but I'm sure somewhere someone has compiled data in such a way to support this.

Let everybody pay taxes with their payroll checks...RECALL NAFTA....both parties should be ashamed of themselves for putting us in this mess. Blood is on their hands...Just my opinion.....Manufacturing, manufacturing, manufacturing - in America... And unfortunately, I hate to say it, but we won't get help this November regardless of who is elected nor will we get help in two years in the Presidential election. There are no more shoe salesmen in Presidential politics......

 

[rstewart]

Why is nobody talking about the real issue, SPENDING? If we didn't piss away trillions of dollars there would be no need to increase taxes on anyone. To pull a parody on Clinton, it's the spending stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[outcaster]

SpurHunter - 9/27/2010 10:44 PM

jtab81 - 9/27/2010 9:37 PM I have the same question as Eric. Who decides "Who" has the "Ability" to pay? Do you drive down the street and raise taxes on the guy pulling a new Ranger Comanche with a brand new F 350, and lower taxes on the poor guy who is driving the 12 year old boat with a beater truck? <u>Do you really think that that people who make over 100k save a higher percentage of their money ie: not stimulating the economy by spending it? We I can tell you from being in the financial world for 6 years now, the more money people make, the more they spend. Period. I am constantly amazed how many people I see that make well over 100k, and yet have very little assets to show for it. If you were to ask a CPA, I'm sure they would agree with this statement</u>. Sorry, don;t have actual statistics to show this, but I'm sure somewhere someone has compiled data in such a way to support this.

</p>

 </p>

This proves my point perfectly Danny. The proof is in the puddin. Obamanomics cant spin this fact. </p>

 </p>

 </p>

 </p>

tjab81's opinions (un-documented) does not prove anything. After All taxes are paid the rich guy has more of his financial pie to spend, save, invest, or whatever. And yes, the rich do save/invest a much higher rate of their income than the middle class and poor. I do back up my statements with facts.
Results of a just completed study done on this very topic.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html
Moody is hardy a left leaning organization.

Which brings me back to my original proposal: Extend the tax cuts for the rich for 18 more months, then we can see once an for all if the "proof is in the puddin"

 

[Sniperchoke]

outcaster - 9/28/2010 12:38 PM

SpurHunter - 9/27/2010 10:44 PM

jtab81 - 9/27/2010 9:37 PM I have the same question as Eric. Who decides "Who" has the "Ability" to pay? Do you drive down the street and raise taxes on the guy pulling a new Ranger Comanche with a brand new F 350, and lower taxes on the poor guy who is driving the 12 year old boat with a beater truck? <u>Do you really think that that people who make over 100k save a higher percentage of their money ie: not stimulating the economy by spending it? We I can tell you from being in the financial world for 6 years now, the more money people make, the more they spend. Period. I am constantly amazed how many people I see that make well over 100k, and yet have very little assets to show for it. If you were to ask a CPA, I'm sure they would agree with this statement</u>. Sorry, don;t have actual statistics to show this, but I'm sure somewhere someone has compiled data in such a way to support this.

</p>

 </p>

This proves my point perfectly Danny. The proof is in the puddin. Obamanomics cant spin this fact. </p>

 </p>

 </p>

 </p>

tjab81's opinions (un-documented) does not prove anything. After All taxes are paid the rich guy has more of his financial pie to spend, save, invest, or whatever. And yes, the rich do save/invest a much higher rate of their income than the middle class and poor. I do back up my statements with facts.
Results of a just completed study done on this very topic.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html
Moody is hardy a left leaning organization.

Which brings me back to my original proposal: Extend the tax cuts for the rich for 18 more months, then we can see once an for all if the "proof is in the puddin"

One question. How does increasing my boss's taxes benefit me?

 

[Jason F-18]

First, to answer your question Sniper, it benefits you because now someone has stuck it to your boss and made him pay for making so much and paying you so little. At least this is the way the liberals look at it. I dont think I have to give the real answer to that question. Either someone gets it, or they dont, its that simple

Second, Danny, The rich doesn't have a bigger piece of his PIE, in fact, he has less. When you say PIE, the infers a percentage of the whole. You cannot dispute that he would have a lesser percent of his total pay than someone in a lower tax bracket.
He may have more DOLLARS, but then we're back to the govt deciding what amount is too much to have left over, and that borders on socialism.