Tax breaks for top 1% stimulates economy??? Pffffft.

This is an interesting read. If he's for it, so am I.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/58129-buffett-to-meet-with-senate-dems

 

There is no denying he ran a good, effective campaign. It's still amazing to me that he won considering his lack of experience and credentials. The man has never run anything in his life and is now running (if you want to call it that) the most powerful country in the world. His lack of experience is shining through more and more. I was never a big Bush fan, but would take him any day over Obama. I can't believe I'm going to say this...I'd take Clinton (either one) over Obama.

Anyway...good chatting with you...this could go on forever. We probably have more in common than either realizes but our political views will probably be forever different.

 

Some people will stay right where they are for all of their life.

 

Another interesting read..

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html

There goes the trickle down theory.

 

Of course the rich save more when they get to keep more. That does not mean or prove those "savings" are not used in the future for job creation, or anything else for that matter that will stimulate the economy. That is also part of why they are "rich"...they save.

 

Regan did this. With is trickle down policy. Or whatever it was called I wasn't alive at the time.

 

.




It's all just political B.S. That's why I can't stand any politician, or the thought of politics in general. It's all childish and stupid.

 

Not entirely. The trickle down theory has never been allowed to play out to it's logical conclusion and so whenever taxes are lowered people that can will save rather than invest. But, even "saving" isn't the same thing as putting the money in a piggy bank. The banks are taking your "savings" and investing them, which in turn is creating jobs.

Truth is, it doesn't matter if the money goes to taxes or savings, ultimately it all makes the world go 'round. The issue generally is that the money in private hands is more likely to go to someone that works for it, and towards innovation than the money in govt. hands. So do we pay people to sit around and do nothing, or do we pay them to innovate and grow the country and humanity? Give the money to the govt. and you're getting the former, private industry and you get the latter.

 

But you see, the arguement is that if you tax the rich, they cannot put those monies back into the economy. But this illustrates that they don't do that anyways. That's true of possible future investments for job creation, but saving it to create jobs 5 years from does not help us now. Maybe another angle on it is if they are saving it, it is clearly not needed as needed by others. When tax cuts are enacted for the middle class, a huge percentage is put into the economy thus spurring more growth. So if the rich are just going to go and save it, it does nothing for the nation.

 

that article is way too A->B for my tastes. Tax increases alone caused the economy to grow? Tax breaks alone caused it to shrink? It's not that simple and I'm quite certain Reich knows it.

I don't personally care either way and frankly much like healthcare I've given up. Let them do what they want. I wish the Republicans would get out of their way altogether. I'd like to see the Dems get enough of a majority to run right over any threat of a filibuster. As long as they don't get into moral legislation and don't pass any gun control laws and are content to simply muck around with the economy and free money programs for people that won't work anyway, I say let them have it. There is absolutely nothing to be gained at this point by fighting it, and nothing (more) to be lost by caving in.

 

I assume your wife is a Doctor? If you are having a slightly hard time just think about what the majority of the middle and lower class is suffering through, and then you can complain.

 

I believe a flat tax would be fair but as it is the rich have so many loopholes that it is ridiculous.

 

That's a good idea but in this country you can't work for a quarter an hour and get by! That's one of the reasons our jobs went offshore.

 

What is our current tax code not filled with loopholes!!???!! Can you truly say that you can not only read but understand the thousands of tax laws presently in place. There are loopholes with any law created. Someone will build a better moustrap some day with our tax system.

Yes the rich pay taxes and a lot of them. On Jan 1 next year they as well as all of us will too pay more taxes. The rich also are small business owners, CEO's, doctor's, etc.. This whole "eat the rich" thing is ridiculous. They earned it just like the rest of us did. They too endured hardship at some point to achieve success. I'll say there are exceptions like the trust fund babies that have "rich guilt" but they are in the minority.

Go start a company. Line up the capital, mortgage your home, car, furniture. Live in a stockroom for three years buying clothes at the goodwill store to continually invest in your company. Hire people, pay payroll taxes, do all the accounting at 3am on Friday nights when your pals are out partying.

Go ahead, risk it.... or just complain about those "rich bastards"

Those bastards that create jobs in the private sector and pay those "taxes". Those taxes in the private sector fund the government jobs. Government does not create, it consumes.

BTW companies don't pay taxes, the cost is passed to the consumer.

 

What a pissing contest!

Everyone is watching too much Riley and Olbermann, and the rhetoric in this thread is every bit as polarized.

Talking about that top 1% really energizes anyone owning (or affiliated with) a business. I was immediately lumped into a category of a small (and large) business hater, somebody who wants something for nothing, somebody who wants to ride the coat-tails of the well-to-do. Not the case. I'm your typical Iowa farm boy, minus the religious BS. I was raised with an emphasis on the fruits of hard labor, the satisfaction of a job well done. Work ethic and success are synonymous in my house.

I thanked my previous employers each day I went to work and performed to the best of my ability. They in turn thanked me with a paycheck. Enough said.

I'm speculating, since I don't have a list of the top 1% or know how they got there......but I would guess a fair share of that group earned it with good ideas, high motivation and work ethic, and maybe a bit of luck. I would also guess that a fair share got rich by lying, scheming, or sending the jobs they started here to India or China. Hell, maybe they made the money from knowing the right people, being appointed CEO, and receiving a yearly 10 million dollar bonus while actually doing the company and its employees a disservice by mismanagement. I'm not concerned with the proportions.

I'm also not concerned with people being rich. I'm happy for those folks. But to say that giving that percentage of people larger tax breaks will stimulate the economy doesn't jive with me because I have a need to be logical. It might stimulate the economy of third world countries and sweatshop labor mills, but those of us living in the good old USA will be left in the drift.

Have the Pittsburgh steel mills closed down because the industry leaders didn't get enough tax breaks? Are the owners of major oil companies falling short on developing energy alternatives because they don't have the loot? Have we not starting rebuilding the twin towers, our infrastructure, etc, because the top 1% is unable to financially energize the grunts? Would Monsanto be able to engineer better genetically modified seeds with a billion dollar research grant? Maybe the pharmaceutical industry could cure cancer, had they only dropped a tax bracket or two. Lets be honest, folks: those at the top of the income earning curve pay shitloads of taxes.....and that money is then often re-invested by an unproductive government into a business those same taxpayers benefit from. Or they lose it altogether, or spend it on shit this country needs no more of. It's a cycle those at the top continually benefit from financially, and it is evidenced by the gap between the rich and poor today.


And really, regardless of political affiliation, who doesn't want a strong middle class? Isn't that the point?

 

There's historic precedent for the government creating things private enterprise won't: Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office, and the G.I. Bill for instance.

 

All of which are in a state of diasaster

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9mWAxHpeew?fs=1

 

That doesn't make it any less true. I wasn't touting their merits.