Unemployment falls to 7%

It is a spendature that's why. There are more people on unemployment and welfare today than five years ago. That isn't going to show up in the GDP that's why. That is why I said what I said earlier.

 

I have no idea what that represents.

 

Taxes. See, you can't really explain Taxes are not the same. Why claim only some taxes are real taxes?

I could claim that a failure in a market of "goodwill toward men" is being corrected for by Hoover Dam and the Fed as public sector means of production.

 

GDP doesn't intended to measure Govt expenditures, it is intended to measure production. A transfer payment is not production.

Again, so what?

- - - Updated - - -

Realized capital gains are when people actuall realize a gain on an asset by selling it.

If you have stock or other value that increases in value, but you don't sell it, you have an unrealized gain that is not taxed. When you sell the asset, you have a realized gain (or loss) and that is what is taxed. Unrealized gains or losses are not taxed.

So what the chart shows is that there were about $260 billion in realized cap gains in 1996 and 2009, but taxes paid in 2009 were about $36 billion vs $66 billion in 1996.

Because the cap gain tax in 1996 was 28% and only 15% in 2009.

 

You either have free trade or you close the borders and have a protectionists economy...the USA will last about 3 months when you close free trade.

Manufacture all you wish but if you don't have consumers then what? $3 trillion of GDP has something to do with exports...this represents about 30 million US jobs.

The government estimates between 7 and 12 million illegal immigrants.

In case you have not noticed during your work career, assuming you had one, no one just 'gets to have those jobs'...everyone must compete for a job since we always have more workers than we have jobs. Here's a better question for you; why don't your 'poor' compete for all those jobs you believe the illegal immigrants currently have...what are your 'poor' waiting for?

 

Your rat hole not mine. I was talking about the 1% vs the 50% and taxes. Not GDP and anything and everything with it. Nice strawman.

- - - Updated - - -

Still don't understand your point. You can't make a representation to it because they are not the same. The way the money was taxed is different, read what it said at the bottom of that page you provided. It was with out this and with out that deductions. And again it is against GDP. Not sure what it has to do with the 1% and 50% and taxes and fair share. I'm still looking for how you determine fair share?

 

I simply proved another another area where you made a false assertion which you brought up. If you thought it was off topic, why did you make the errenous assertion claiming spending never being cut under any president?

Nothing to do with GDP. I was disproving yet another erroneous claim you made about tax cuts and more revenues.

 

What the heck are you talking about? You said all taxes were the same, I said no they're not. I'm sorry but your strawmen are wearing me out. Why can't you just stick to the topic? or can't you answer what question is asked? Fair share.

 

You've been warned about government messing with wages in the private sector.

So you think your workers should get ownership for nothing? CEO's don't get free ownership? If a company cannot provide stock options then the company must pay more cash in their wages. Also, there is no guarantee that after taxes and commissions, etc. that there will be any positive value in stock options.

Money is mostly a negative motivator; So you work with another person and at the end of the year you receive a $100 bonus and the other worker receives a $200 bonus, while you believe both of you perform the same job positions. I'm guessing you won't be happy with your $100 bonus. Or...when wage increases come around, you get a 2% wage increase and the other guy gets a 3.0% increase...how you gonna feel about this? Last year you got a $500 bonus and this year you got a $100 bonus even though you feel the company is doing fine...how you gonna feel about that smaller bonus?

Like I said...be careful what you wish for...

 

hang on while I climb down in the hole again, again, your numbers mean nothing to me. I have no idea the validity of the numbers and I will also state that spending is not just GDP. Deficit is the deficit and deficit spending includes welfare and unemployment. So let me climb back out of the hole and again ask you to answer my question on fair share. 1% vs 50%.

 

BTW, I'm not going out and collecting all of the data. Others have done it.

here:
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm

 

You were doing so well but you couldn't stop speaking.

What the hell does this even mean?

That is right. That is why I am for better wealth distribution and minimum wage increase. Those on the bottom have to spend money just to survive. Most people below the 1% would spend more. The 1% already have more than enough to spend, so they reinvest or save.

 

Sorry that wasn't right, people will cash in and pay the lower tax. got going there.

the problem with that is it isn't natural to the economy and actually causes the reverse to happen. there are arguments galore on this, but the issue is with falsely raising a wage and not factoring in the consequences. There are many consequences that would be detrimental to the economy to raise the minimum wage. If one wants more money, seek different employment to make that more money. I would like an increase as well. But I think it has already been stated on here that if someone receives 2% and another receives 3% increase, the 2% person is not going to be happy. More Money doesn't solve the problem.

 

What a racist thing to say. Blacks can't get jobs without the crutch of government?

 

Yes, some people believe that we should go back to the living conditions of the 19th century. Now the 20th century made us the greatest power in the world with the most powerful middle class.

Originally Posted by bomac
Please explain "unmet needs that some will always have in abundance"?

We have seen this cowardly move before and will expect you to take it again.

 

Long term investments. In case that you didn't know, low term investments get the 15% and short term investments get the income level rate.

 

By you? Is that supposed to mean something?

Let me point out your flawed thinking. By giving executives stock options or just shares of stock, the company believes that the executives will work harder to make the company profits. The executives' salaried package already include stocks of some kind when the executive is hired or promoted.

Now workers have been screwed out of their share of the wealth for 30 years but yuo would give them a share of the company by reducing further their wages. Yes, they would do better with the shares IF THEY CAN AFFORD THEM. But, hey, they can barely provide a good living on what they make now. Your solution is to take 15% of that away for some future investment.

People with money have a hard time understanding that many people have very little discretionary income after personal necessities. They just do not have the money to invest or save. You trying to take another 15% from their take home pay will make their current situation worse and that 15% will also give them very little ownership in the company.

Why not offer it as an addition to their wage package. It will keep more workers, will help hire better skilled workers and will increase loyalty and better production.

The company boards think nothing about adding more benefits to attract better executives but, when it comes to workers, people like you want to take something away before you give something new to workers.

Yes, that was the standard wink that we all gave when we accepted those options.

Good wages are not a negative motivator. Bonus should be given out based on performance and the one who lowers the morale the most is that CEO who lost the profits and still got the biggest bonus. Raises are unfortunately either robotic or subjective. Some companies prefer the simple across the board raise. Good managers can handle giving raises based on performance. That is their job although bad managers shirk it. A good manager can also handle the morale better with actually basing it on performance. Sore losers are usually losers before any raise.

Money should always a positive motivator. Lousy managers and executives are the negative motivator.

 

We have the last 30 years showing how doing nothing has hurt at least 80% of the population. We have the 50s and 60s showing how a proper wealth distribution created a good middle class and a not so bad poorer class. Also the companies were paying the benefits instead of the taxpayers.

That is so out of the right wing talking points. People with personal responsibilities can not just get up and go to another job. If you are single, you can pretty much do that if you have the talents. Average singles and other with personal responsibilities can't easily do that. They have no extra money to go get the better skills and they can't just drag their families from place to place. Also in an environment with any unemployment rate above full employment, better jobs would be hard to find.

You have only been working in the last 30 years. That thirty year environment has affected your thinking. The money is definitely there but it has been going to the top. You deserved the raise whether it is bigger or smaller than the next guy. You do not deserve stagnation.

 

I just wonder how many jobs we could have created with that money.

 

Why should anyone have a problem with being taxed based on what they are "worth" regarding income under Any form of Capitalism?

 

How has that worked? The wealthiest are "earning" record profits but don't seem to be willing to be better Capitalists and invest in labor requiring business ventures and make even more money. Even tax holidays didn't do what is claimed by those of your point of view.

 

Under Capitalism where people are taxed what they are "worth" or under Socialism which believes in equality?

 

Closed ~ Post Capacity

 

Yes I've warned you...and it means you have been warned...what you do with this is your decision.

Stock and stock options both are compensation...makes no difference if it's cash or stock or options or cars or planes...they're all compensation.

Every worker in the past 40 years was capable of investing $10 per pay check minimum and more when they earned more...there is no excuse for not doing this! Please explain why millions choose to save and invest zero?

Now you complain that people won't invest 15% of their income and that 15% is a small amount? Fact is it makes no difference how much a person saves and invests as long as IT IS something more than zero! Are you going to tell me that poor and lower and middle class people don't buy lottery tickets, or go to casinos, or buy tobacco, or buy alcohol? Just imagine if all the money wasted on lottery tickets and casinos and tobacco and alcohol was invested? But I guess this is too much to ask...and this brings us to the root problem here...