Increase Ordinary Income Tax Rates or................

With $13 plus trillion in gross national income, sure we could easily tax another $750 billion.

I've already explained the fallacy in your claim that it is "taken out of the private economy" because it is transferred right back into the private economy.

The issue is whether it is being transferred to or from folks who will spend it.

Politics of greed.

They Govt didn't when the 1993 tax increase was passed.

When folks actually have to pay more taxes, they start to be more concerned about where their tax dollars are being spent.

It is a measure. Countries with greater GDP per capita can afford Govts that spend more.

It is the people's choice and Govt policies taht determine whether they receive the tens of millions in the first place. And there is no doubt that "trickle down" have helped them get more of those tens of millions.

How is that a "fact"? Each stimulus job was in ~$150,000 range. The difference can be chaulked up to the fact that about $400 billion of the simulus was for tax cuts, a lot of which went to the wealthy who put it in their offshore accounts were it created no jobs.

 

Post 87 says no such thing that that rate was a suggestion as to what the tax rate should be or the optimal point on the Laffer curve.

Please don't misrepresent my posts.

 

Who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) who spends what? It's none of your business, or the Dems, how people spend their money! You spend all of your energy whining about stuff which is 100% meaningless. Your political dogma is detrimental to the USA...

 

'Legitimate means' to what? You believe the government controls 'growth in income and wealth' which is asinine at best!

Establish economic classes, labeling people and groups, is 100% politics!

'Puts the tax burden on the less wealthy' are you crazy? The wealthy are paying 85% of the federal income taxes! 15% of remaining federal income taxes is a 'burden' on 130 million 'less wealthy' Americans...give me a fricken break.

This is not a thread about electing Romney but I can understand why you cannot divorce your biased politics from these general discussions...

 

This is a stupid metric.

How many people/business do you know pay taxes based on GDP production? If no one pays taxes based on GDP production then your data is just more political BS...

 

You live in la-la-land Iriemon; how far do you believe you can get in your own political campaign running for office and you tell your constituents that you are going to take another $750 billion of their money? Dream on!

You will be happier if you go back in time to 1993 and 1950 to live your life; obviously you believe 2012 can be managed just like 1950??

You are so politically biased that these discussions are wasting both yours and my time. I have no more comments on this topic.

 

No!

I agree to this; Who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) who spends what? It's none of your business, or the Dems, how people spend their money! You spend all of your energy whining about stuff which is 100% meaningless. Your political dogma is detrimental to the USA...

 

For the last time, you cannot invalidate the trickling effect of money since every penny spent, no matter who does the spending, energizes the economy.

It does not make any difference if the lower and middle classes spend $500 billion or if the upper class spends $500 billion; spending is spending!

And it's not the job of the government to energize the economy except in emergency short-term scenarios.

My goal is not to increase federal income taxes today.

Last I looked, we had 310 million so-called AMERICANS. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL AMERICANS TO FUND THE GOVERNMENT THEY DEMAND...NOT JUST 15% OF THE POPULATION...

 

It depends on the financial crisis. First and foremost, I prefer all the so-called problems to be worked out within the economy itself...meaning no government! Use GM as an example; if they can't manage their business, if they don't have enough sales to pay their expenses, if they cannot provide ROI for investors, THEN THEY ARE NOT A VIABLE BUSINESS. Either GM needed to make wholesale changes, or sell off the pieces to other healthier companies, or close the doors. IMO Obama involvement with GM was 99% politically motivated. Why doesn't Obama step in with thousands of other businesses in every area of the US which closed their doors? If government action doesn't make sense with thousands of other companies, how can it make sense with GM? The answer is politics and worrying more about pride than managing a business...

 

Do you really not understand why the proportion of what is spent is important?

If the middle class makes $500 billion and spends $500 billion, and the 1% makes $5 trillion and spends $500 billion, we have a total fo $5.5 trillion in income, and $1 trillion spent, right?

But if the middle class makes $5 trillion and spends $5 trillion, and the 1% makes $500 billion and spends $50 billion, then we have the same amount of $5.5 trillion in income, but now we have much more being spent: $5.05 trillion.

That is why it matters. We get much more spending from the same amount of income when the income goes to the middle class.

 

You will go to your grave believing that how you and I spend our money is someone else's business. It makes no difference how much money you have to spend, or I have to spend, or the other 310 million Americans; all spending from all people energizes the economy. All levels of spending from all Americans is required in the economy. All of this nonsense discussion is 100% political BS...

 

Where have I said one word about how you spend your money?

Where have I said anything different?

Why do you think it is 100% political BS?

 

Let's use the banks as an example. The banks made some decisions and the markets fell. Bears Stern and Morgan Stanley were on the verge of bankruptcy and with prodding from the government other banks took them over. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt and the government did nothing. When Lehman Bothers went bankrupt the biggest Money Market fund in the world announced a loss. The entire money market seized up. This meant that companies like HP and IBM and Ford would not be able to meet their payrolls for the next month even though they were otherwise financiually sound. The government stepped in, took the place of the money markets, and made the very short term loans they needed.

Meanwhile, the stock market began to fall as hedge funds and other investors sold off stocks to repay their loans called in by the other banks trying to shore up their reserves so they could cover their losses from Lehman Brothers and the falling stock market due to the Lehmand Brothers bankruptcy. The more that stock prices fell the more they had to sell off whch caused the the banks to call in even more loans. Then AIG, which underwrote derivatives that insured investment banks against losses declared bankruptcy and the markets went into free fall as everyone expected all the banks to sell off their shares regardless of the plummeting prices to stave off their inevitable bankruptcy. It is entirely probable that the stock market would have closed if that had happened. The the government stepped in and took over AIG.

Saving GM was not just about GM but about the entire US auto industry. If GM had went bankrupt its suppliers would have quickly followed. Since these are the same companies that supply Ford and Toyota and Honda and Nissan and BMW and Mercedes and every other car manufacturer in the US, all auto production in the US would have ground to a halt when these suppliers closed their doors because they could not meet their payrolls or pay their suppliers, who would also have went bankrupt. The chain of calamity facing the US auto industry was unprecedented.

It was not politicians who convinced Obama to rescue GM but the other US auto manufacturers, who spelled out exactly what would happen to them if GM went under.

Of course there are always those who cannot see the wider implications, so blinded by the idiotic simplicity of their positions as they are. That they present themselves as imbeciles seems not to bother them a whit, which is no surprise.

 

If you and others DO NOT believe that spending energizes the economy...this is political BS.

If you and others believe that one person's spending is better or worse than another person's spending...this is political BS.

Instead of your constant political rants which can NEVER be resolved, how about defining a root cause(s) that you believe exists? What is it that all the non-wealthy people need to be happier? If you cannot define the root needs, then this proves all of this nonsense is political BS...

 

It is BS. We've never said that.

It is BS. We've never said that.

So is your inability to understand the simple economic and financial issues we've been discussing because of your inability to grasp the concepts, or is it just ... political BS?

 

Instead of your constant political rants which can NEVER be resolved, how about defining a root cause(s) that you believe exists? What is it that all the non-wealthy people need to be happier? If you cannot define the root needs, then this proves all of this nonsense is political BS...

 

OK, OMOF. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume its not just political nonsense BS with you.

I have dumbed it down as far as I can. Sorry.

 

Instead of your constant political rants which can NEVER be resolved, how about defining a root cause(s) that you believe exists? What is it that all the non-wealthy people need to be happier? If you cannot define the root needs, then this proves all of this nonsense is political BS...


Common on Iriemon! You complain constantly about this but you can't answer the simple question? WHAT IS IT THAT ALL THE NON-WEALTHY PEOPLE NEED TO BE HAPPIER?

This is a 100% non-political valid question! Identify the root issues and they can be solved...