07-21-2008, 09:45 AM | #1 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Latest on Bush's Tax Cuts For The "Rich"
Bush's unfair tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, or so they say, has actually increased the tax burden on the highest income earners. The latest reports show that not only have the total tax revenues collected by the federal government gone up, but so has the percentage of taxes paid by the top wage earners in the country. The next time you hear Obama talk about his tax plan of rolling back Bush's tax cuts on the "rich" and lowering taxes for everyone else, perhaps people will start to ask him some pointed questions rather than fainting.
As usual, this comes from one of my favorite publications, the WSJ. The data was in an editorial - but if you doubt the data, feel free to go to the original source. Quote:
Also, keep in mind the point in the last paragraph I included. "New wealth" is income based, people going from nothing to being "rich" have high incomes and pay high taxes. These are the people really carrying the burden. "Old wealth" is asset based, people (I.e. - Kennedy's) can manipulate their capital to minimize their tax burden and can basically pay what they want, like Warren Buffet. In effect, Obama and Democrats have tax policies that protect "old wealth" and make it more difficult for people starting with nothing to accumulate wealth. Perhaps this in part explains why existing rich people and people with no interest in accumulating wealth are generally Democrats. Given the latest data when are we going to start to see a shift in the empty rhetoric from Democrats on this important issue?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 07-22-2008 at 07:45 AM.. |
|
07-21-2008, 12:11 PM | #2 (permalink) |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
You'll never see a change in rhetoric from the Dem's, it's how they pander to their base. Much akin to the guff republicans catch for their hawkish "us vs. them" mentality, one of the tenets of the democratic party is pushing this notion of class warfare.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. |
07-21-2008, 04:11 PM | #3 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
Stats based on percentages can be very misleading. I didn't check any of the opinion pieces numbers but his argument is a bit silly.... At the end he says if you tax them at a higher percentage they will just use more loopholes to avoid the taxes. However, they are going to use these loopholes anyway....
If you were ever wondering who is better for the economy check out this blog: The Liscio Report: Presidential economics: Do parties matter? GDP: Employment: Unemployment: CPI: Fiscal shift: Stock: Inequality: Dems are better for employment, GDP, stock market, inequality exchange, unemployment, and inflation. Republicans have bonds. If you need more proof then explain why we are going into a recession with Bush in power for the last 8 years. His policies have almost destroyed our economy and may still yet. It is going to take a long time to climb out of the hole he dug us into. Last edited by Rekna; 07-22-2008 at 06:36 AM.. |
07-21-2008, 05:24 PM | #4 (permalink) |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
It seems to me that graph is a little misleading when you note that the top three are CLinton, whose economy grew behind a republican congress but failed miserably helping lead to our current situation with the dot com crash; then you got Truman who inherited an economy that came out of a different and had the whole war thing working for it, same for Dwight. Kennedy and Johnson seem straight enough, I just think it's worthy of noting in a thread about tax distribution that LBJ is a strong reason for this mess with his "great society".
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 07-21-2008 at 05:27 PM.. |
07-21-2008, 05:39 PM | #5 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
|
|
07-21-2008, 06:30 PM | #6 (permalink) |
All important elusive independent swing voter...
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
|
I suggest a simple flat tax for all would be the best solution and end all these petty arguments.
__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter |
07-21-2008, 06:41 PM | #8 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
You're going to need to suggest widespread government spending cuts as well. I suggest starting with the military.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot |
07-21-2008, 06:52 PM | #9 (permalink) |
All important elusive independent swing voter...
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
|
Sure, a little fat trimming never hurt anyone. I think it would be good for us too. An audit is in order too. The accounting needs to be....accountable. Military spending is a big piece. Reducing spending is only one element. Smarter, fiscally responsible spending would be better.
__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter |
07-21-2008, 06:58 PM | #10 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
Most flat tax proposals I have seen are inherently regressive and would not only require significant spending offsets, but significant exemptions for the lowest wage earners in order to come anywhere close to approaching "fairness."
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
07-21-2008, 07:02 PM | #11 (permalink) | |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Quote:
And you do realize that most countries that currently use the flat-tax system are former Soviet and socialist republics, right? (Including two of the "-stans".) I haven't checked recently, but the last I've heard, a lot of them aren't doing so hot (still). I guess what I'm trying to get at is that flat-tax systems are (were) often employed in communist-type systems. In former communist states, they still work because there isn't as much of a disparity between rich and poor. It wouldn't really work in free-market industrialized nations.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 07-21-2008 at 07:04 PM.. Reason: Added a word for clarity. |
|
07-21-2008, 07:15 PM | #12 (permalink) |
All important elusive independent swing voter...
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
|
Hong Kong has a flat tax system. Flat tax is ideal because everyone only pays a percentage. 5-10% sounds about right to me.
I actually think we do need to "slash and burn" as it were. Time to go on a diet. That deficit needs to start going down. It hurts at first but we will be better for it in the long run. We will have to learn to budget better, not spend so freely, and not waste. We need to hold our politicians accountable and responsible. More taxes only hurts us. I can't tolerate anymore taxes. I am being squeezed to death here. When over 33% of my income goes to taxes, plus all the sales taxes etc, it really is too much.
__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter |
07-21-2008, 07:26 PM | #13 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Hong Kong's personal taxes go as high as 15%, and as much as 90% of its GDP is in services. Hardly a test market for the U.S.
Though I cannot argue against sound fiscal policy. But I don't see the U.S. having such any time soon.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 07-21-2008 at 07:26 PM.. Reason: Added last two sentences. |
07-21-2008, 07:30 PM | #14 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
The most recent proposal was Huckabee's "fair tax" which eliminated the federal income tax and replaced it with an effective 30% national sales tax. The fallacies are laid out here. The deficit was not only reduced in the late 90s...we had several years of budget surpluses....based on a simple "pay as you go" principle that was abandoned in 2001. -----Added 21/7/2008 at 11 : 34 : 41----- 9/11 and the tech bubble burst contributed to the exploding deficit and national debt..but by most objective measures, so did Bush's tax cuts and war funding.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-21-2008 at 08:27 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|
07-21-2008, 07:40 PM | #15 (permalink) | |
immoral minority
Location: Back in Ohio
|
Quote:
The flat tax people are fine with it at 15% or 20% for everything if they are making lots of money, but we would still have a national debt and financial problems in a few years with SS and Medicare. Which they don't seem to care about. |
|
07-21-2008, 08:50 PM | #16 (permalink) | ||
All important elusive independent swing voter...
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
|
Quote:
-----Added 22/7/2008 at 12 : 56 : 04----- Quote:
But the airline bailout and war funding really killed it. To me it's more than just numbers of positive and negative. There's waste there to be sure. Egregious waste I bet. Tightening the belt is a good start and having each gov't agency held fiscally responsible and accountable would be good too. There's too much shenanigans involved in the bidding and contracting process. I would like to see that rectified. And seriously, no more pork.
__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter Last edited by jorgelito; 07-21-2008 at 08:56 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
07-22-2008, 06:31 AM | #17 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
Odd, please check the link I had above for more images. I posted a bunch more but they aren't appearing. Is there a limit of 1 image per post or something?
(FIXED). Please check out the photos above. I fixed the links and all of them are there now. The image links I was using seem to break the board. I'll report it as a bug. Last edited by Rekna; 07-22-2008 at 06:37 AM.. |
07-22-2008, 07:06 AM | #18 (permalink) | ||||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
-----Added 22/7/2008 at 11 : 12 : 19----- Quote:
-----Added 22/7/2008 at 11 : 15 : 38----- Quote:
-----Added 22/7/2008 at 11 : 19 : 33----- Quote:
-----Added 22/7/2008 at 11 : 27 : 27----- No system is perfect and has flaws. Our current system allows a man like Warren Buffet to increase his net worth by $10 billion in a year and pay no tax on it (and he will pay no tax on it upon his death), but as he says his secretary pays a higher percent of her income than he does. Buffet does not live the lifestyle of a typical billionaire but his tax avoidance strategies are typical. In my view the first step in developing a "fair" system is to agree on the underlying principles. do we want to tax work, savings and investment or do we want to tax consumption or the goods and services actually used by people?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 07-22-2008 at 07:50 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||||
07-22-2008, 10:33 AM | #19 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
|
Quote:
i hear this used a lot... but how many rich people do you know who are actually doing their own taxes? i doubt many. if you're paying someone to do your taxes, you want them to squeeze every last cent they can, make it so you pay as little as possible. Quote:
__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer |
||
07-22-2008, 11:21 AM | #20 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Even look at the current housing crisis. If a person earned enough income to be in, let's say a 30% marginal tax bracket, and they could buy a home, no money down, with a payment of 1,000 per month (assume it was all deductible for simplicity), but it cost $850 to rent the same home, what did most people do? They bought the home and after taxes the cost was $700 all other things being equal. The tax code modified behavior. The tax code caused people to take risks or do things in home ownership that they may have ordinarily avoided. Is this the purpose of our tax code? Minimizing current taxes paid may not always be the way people will go, but the point is that "rich" people have options, others do not have. However, if taxation was based on consumption, then everyone would have options, the playing field would be even, the tax code would be "fair" in my opinion. Quote:
Fairness to me says if you spend like a millionaire get taxed like one, regardless of how you get the money to spend. Quote:
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|||
07-22-2008, 11:30 AM | #21 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
I can appreciate where you're coming from, but maybe I should ask you this: why just tax what we spend? Shouldn't everyone pay their fare share? Why not, then, just tax income? |
|
07-22-2008, 11:37 AM | #22 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
ace your examples are so extrem that they are irrelevant. No one is taxed at 100% and the gap in taxing of a single person between bush tax cuts and non-tax cuts is not $100 and $1,000,000.
Your argument seems to be don't tax the rich because they will just avoid the tax anyway.... which is very bad logic. Should we do the same about drugs? prostitution? election tampering? Terrorism? How does this sound, don't make terrorism illegal because the terrorists will do terrorism anyway..... |
07-22-2008, 12:20 PM | #23 (permalink) | ||||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
The money you save in a bank, in normal circumstances will be recirculated back into the economy. Given fractional reserves, a portion of your savings will be lent to others to buy homes, start business and grow the economy. The money spent will be taxed. I think in some ways we already have systems to tax based on usage. For example people pay a fee to use national parks. People pay a federal gas tax for roads. Theoretically social security taxes are based on a return of that person's contributions. What I find unfair for example, is why should the guy who does not go to college have some of his tax money go to subsidize the education of people who do? I know the argument "every one benefits" but the reality is that not only is that subsidized college student getting the subsidy, they get a higher real life time income and will probably be a snob to the guy who gets his hand dirty for a living. What a deal. -----Added 22/7/2008 at 04 : 38 : 07----- Quote:
In 2004 President Bush paid about $227,000 in taxes. I think it safe to say that there are people who could face a $1,000,000 tax burden. What do you think Alex Rodriguez's potential tax burden is? Also, if you have access to tax prep software, run some examples. You will find that there are points in our current tax code where an additional dollar earned could result in a addition dollar in taxes, especially through the loss of tax credits and factoring in FICA/state/local taxes. Quote:
Quote:
Prostitution involving consenting adults should not be illegal. And taxed Election tampering should be a felony. Terrorism should be in a special class of criminal offenses. When a person commits a crime with the intent to terrorize a community or a nation they should never see another free day - in my opinion. {added} I just looked it up - Tiger Woods made $127,902,706 in income last year. $1,000,000 would be 0.78% of his income.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 07-22-2008 at 12:50 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||||
07-23-2008, 07:02 AM | #25 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
No.
But I used this example in the thread - You Can't Soak the Rich, post #28. Quote:
Are you saying that you don't see the problem with our current system of taxation? The real impact of Bush's tax cuts is that "rich" people have less of an incentive to employ tax avoidance strategies given the lower marginal rates, do you still believe that rolling back Bush's tax cuts will actually cause rich people to pay more if it is not in their financial interests to do it?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|
07-23-2008, 07:26 AM | #26 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
|
|
07-23-2008, 07:43 AM | #27 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
||
07-23-2008, 08:05 AM | #28 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
ace...revenues from personal income taxes have decreased as a result of the Bush tax cuts of 01 and 03 that were heavily weighed to the top rates....very few credible economists dispute that fact.
Here is a fact check: Quote:
How quickly some forget (McCain for one) that both bills were enacted as short term economic stimulus packages...not permanent changes to the tax code.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-23-2008 at 08:23 AM.. |
|
07-23-2008, 08:37 AM | #29 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
I looked at your link, here is a chart from it:
And here is a quote from the link you provided: Quote:
Also, I am not really clear on the issue you are responding to. My main point here is that regardless of what many have said, the Bush tax cuts for the "rich" has not resulted in them paying less. The data you give seem to be regarding the "supply side" argument.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|
07-23-2008, 08:46 AM | #30 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
-----Added 23/7/2008 at 12 : 50 : 44----- The bonus of the "fact check" is that it also debunks the supply side myth.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-23-2008 at 08:51 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|
07-23-2008, 09:36 AM | #31 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
This individual seems to say that the impact of the cuts has worn off and the supply side impact small at best. He then says the cuts added to the deficit and gives a range of an increase of $3 billion to a loss of $14 billion dollars depending on the assumptions used. He also has the position that government deficit spending has a negative impact on economic growth. Not very precise is it? If you recall Hauser's law taxes collected are a factor of GDP growth not marginal tax rates. So, in order for the above to be correct, meaning Bush's tax cuts lead to less taxes collected, you have to make assumptions about the impact the recession had on taxes collected. I certainly agree that a dividend tax cut will have an initial big short-term impact and then that impact would fade to a baseline level. I also agree that a rebate check would have a big short-term impact and then fade. On the other hand how does the CBO factor the increased cost of gas for the average working man (exports or money out of our economy and the pockets of Americans) with the on-going lower tax rates. Which had a bigger impact on the economy, and to what degree? We need the methodology before buying into the conclusions.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
||
07-23-2008, 10:07 AM | #32 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
ace...I am still trying to understand a core issue that you stated above (and in other threads)
Quote:
IMO, your argument on this issue is baseless unless you have something factual to suggest otherwise.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
|
07-23-2008, 12:16 PM | #33 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
dc-dux, don't you think the flat curve showing the percentage of taxes actually paid irrespective of nominal tax rates is evidence that people tend to pay at low rates and strategize to avoid payment at high rates? The graph was posted in this forum a little while ago, and you and others turned mental somersaults to avoid drawing the obvious conclusion.
|
07-23-2008, 12:53 PM | #34 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
You and ace are gonna have to do better than that with data or factual evidence that those in the top bracket are using "tax avoidance strategies" less now than pre-2001....or conversely, that they would ulitize such stratgies more than at present, if/when the rates are rolled back in 2010 as currently required by law. -----Added 23/7/2008 at 05 : 23 : 28----- I guess you guys dont accept the report from the Joint Committee on Taxation cited in the fact check above: The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the 2001 tax legislation (the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act) would cause government revenues to be 107.7 billion less than they would have been in the absence of the legislation in 2004, 107.4 billion less in 2005 and 135.2 billion less in 2006. The committee's estimates for the effect of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 were that it would reduce otherwise projected revenues by 148.7 billion in 2004, 82.2 billion in 2005 and 20.7 billion in 2006. The JCT makes its comparisons against the Congressional Budget Office's receipts baselines.My position remains that a tax cut focused on the middle class and working poor rather than the top wage earners would not only cost less but would also benefit far more people. If you buy into the supply side argument, then we will obviously continue to disagree.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-23-2008 at 01:32 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|
07-24-2008, 06:38 AM | #35 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Do you think federal tax policy impacts the behavior of tax payers, if so how? -----Added 24/7/2008 at 10 : 52 : 15----- Quote:
The above is like having some people sit around a table and look into a crystal ball trying to speculate what might have been. I think before doing that look at real data. The real data says taxes collected are up. The real data shows we were in a recession and may be in one right now, either way GDP growth was slow or negative prior to the tax cuts and now GDP growth is slow or negative. Historically this would indicate taxes collected would go down, they have not. The data also shows "rich" people are paying a higher percentage of taxes collected. You could argue that Bush's tax cuts put us in our current economic status, but no reasonable person is suggesting that. So, you are correct I do not accept the report that you cite. I know the normal reaction is that if scholarly types in Washington say something we are all supposed to accept it without question, but I am not normal in that way. Heck, the scholarly types in Washington don't even know what our real CPI is.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 07-24-2008 at 06:53 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
12-11-2009, 10:27 AM | #36 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Is Obama's carrot to small business and indication that on some level even he acknowledges supply side economics can have a stimulative affect on the economy?
Quote:
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|
12-13-2009, 10:31 AM | #38 (permalink) | |
Somnabulist
Location: corner of No and Where
|
Quote:
Long Answer: A) Supply side economics never, ever meant offering tax breaks to small businesses. It meant increasing overall supply through incentives to produce, usually achieved by lowering taxes. Right now, we don't live in a world with a supply deficit - we live in a world with almost no demand. What Obama's talking about now has literally nothing to do with supply side economics, it has to do with employment. B) Tax expenditures are extremely commonplace. That Obama is offering some to small businesses - after he campaigned on a platform of helping small businesses - has nothing to do with the supply side economics. C) We're in the midst of a serious recession. One of the worst results is that unemployment hovers at above 10%. Furthermore, poor unemployment numbers will kill Democrats at the ballot box. So Obama is proposing a large number of measures to increase employment. Some of these measures include tax breaks to small businesses with the hope that they will use their extra expected savings to expand (and thus hire new employees), or not fire current employees because of the poor economy, or even just not close down. I question how effective these measures will be (studies on the multiplier effects of various stimulative proposals have shown that tax expenditures are amongst the least effective) but I am hard-pressed to see how one can view Obama's actions as supply side. I think you might be misinterpreting the term to mean any government action taken on the corporate sector that involves cutting taxes. But it really doesn't. Especially in a world with minimal demand.
__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'" |
|
12-14-2009, 08:29 AM | #39 (permalink) | |||||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
---------- Post added at 04:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
When you say "world with limited demand", I disagree. When we look at different ways to measure domestic or global demand we find that consumption is close to historic levels. What has happened is that there was a period of negative growth. simplistically if we give demand a base of 100, and it grows to 200, then goes down to 190, we still had growth of 90 and demand near record levels. What we need is to reverse the negative trend and to see what economist expect as healthy growth rates. It is all relative.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|||||
12-14-2009, 09:20 AM | #40 (permalink) |
Crazy, indeed
Location: the ether
|
returning to the original point, they are called "tax cuts for the rich" because, well, they benefited mostly the rich. The reason the share of taxes paid by the top earners increases is because they are really the only ones who saw increases in income:
basically, this past decade only the incomes of the 20 percent richest households increased, measured either by wage or by household income. |
Tags |
bush, cuts, latest, rich, tax |
|
|