The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

Some people like to pretend; the top companies in America; like Google, don't. They donate to Obama.

 

Its still unfair to tax the rich just because they can afford it. Thats income inequality. Unequal treatment among the classes (tax rates).

 

Who cares about equality and fairness? I only care about maximizing the economy.

 

I've already disputed that 'basic principle'. The analysis into marginal tax rates cannot be applied for two reasons. First, the work-leisure schedule is backward bending. A higher tax can then actually increase work incentives. Second, the real work disincentive effect is on the low paid (where the interaction of tax and social expenditures lead to effective rates near or even exceeding 100%). In terms of entrepreneurial activity we also have empirical evidence that its the generosity of social expenditures that are important. With a safety net, problems associated with risk adversity are eliminated.

The real issue, as I've made clear, is that the US creates too many low wage jobs. This reflects a demand-side problem. It isn't supply-side, ensuring that the right wingers on this thread are tending to peddle claptrap.

 

Respect is a concept you should employ instead of trolling. I am against Medicare, SSI,in it's current form, and the entitlements that have crippled this nation's fiscal solvency. Private HC for seniors is the only solution, with medicaid being left to the states and strictly given only to the truly needy and indigent.
I work hard for my paycheck and have personally been responsible for saving a life on more than one occasion both at work and outside of work.

People like me are the ones you count on when you are critically injured or ill and the same goes for your loved ones. YOU should have some respect for the medical professionals who are always there for YOU.

You have no right to judge me and your condemnations show nothing but that you're a bully.
I will NEVER back down to a bully such as yourself, so good luck trolling and insulting me. It will get you nowhere.

Liberal ideology is destructive and flies in the face of common sense. High taxes, and big govt are slowly destroying this country and I will fight it as long as necessary and I will not stop. I am not going away.

 

In terms of stabilising capitalism and therefore ensuring the reproduction of inefficiency, its unfortunately highly effective

 

Oh please..give me a break..the only ""Queen" here is the Drama Queen liberals who think that slapping an 80% tax on rich people will make it all better....its called "COLLECTIVIZATION" and Joseph Stalin thought highly of it..guess he was a liberal in his day...

 

Thats what central economic planners for Stalin's regime and Hitler's fascist administration would have said too.

 

No they wouldn't. The central planners would have worked within the confines of material balances. 'Maximising the economy' would require economic efficiency. Its an issue typically ignored by right wingers.

 

What percentage didn't pay income tax back then?? You do realize that even in the 50's people were still making a dollar a day and living at the mercy of a company store mentality, right?

 

And yet it was our "Golden age". Economic prosperity was at an all time high..

 

The day you decide not to take anymore money from medicare and medicaid is the day I stop calling you a hypocrite.

By the way 2/3s of people in nursing homes are on Medicaid. Most people on Medicaid are children. I guess in your opinion they aren't truly needy. I guess they should get a part time job.

 

One working member of the household could handle the needs of a family of 4 or more, no mandatory insurance of any kind, rent didn't consume 3/4 of your entire income, communities were thriving, many businesses were owned by the people who lived in those communities, you could buy a clunker for little to nothing, and fix it yourself, so you could have transportation without having to pay for years to buy a disposable car of today, that you cannot fix by yourself and a break down could cost you thousands more on a POS you are already up to your eyeballs in debt…, and no where for enterprising individuals to go but up. Those were the happier days of this country‘s growth.
　
　
But hey, today we got video games/cell phones/computers, and credit cards, and insurance, and our food is grown in a sewer pond in Mexico (for the most part), and our infrastructure is about as decrepit as our Main Streets are, and our communities are failing, and we are at the mercy of the government to manipulate the economy to benefit a small minority, so our economy is declining for the majority, but hey we got video games, right? Some say no where to go but down, since we have been on an imaginary high for decades now. Which leaves us in the crappier days of our country‘s decline.

 

I just can't understand the left, I tried, really I did. But I look at it this way, the left
wants the government to engage in socialist programs, and the left knows that it takes
money to run those programs, and the left also knows that it's the rich that can pay
more to keep those programs going, So what do they do? they HATE the rich, and try
their damdist to place more and more of the burden on the rich for their programs.

I don't get it at all, why they would HATE the people who are the only ones who can
support their socialist programs, while creating the jobs that support millions of people.

But you can only have one or the other, you want lots of jobs for everyone or you
want socialist programs, you can't have them both. the capital either creates more
jobs, or it's wasted on handouts.

Either we spend our capital on Socialized programs, which fail some time down the road
like we see with SS, MCADE, MCARE, etc. or we spend the capital on Jobs that allow
each individual to support themselves in a long term process.

There are no other choices.

...

 

Basic error! Most of the left aren't socialist. They support policies that aid capitalism. For example, the origins of our welfare support can be traced to the likes of Winston Churchill. Calling him a socialist wouldn't be cunning!

They often realise that we see diminishing marginal utility of income and, if we actually care about job creation, it is important to reduce inefficient inequalities that hinder entrepreneurial activity

 

It's a sham, the leadership of both the left and the right work for the rich/elitists. It's a good cop bad cop routine that has gone on long enough.
　
　
The results are what we have now, a dying economy, debt up to the gills, no job creation and more government dependency with the major majority earning and making less and less while the rich/elites are becoming richer and richer. These are the results of the best government corporate money can buy, not two polar extremes both working for opposing results.
　
　
The results and goals are the same, and all that somebody has to do is follow the money, and ask yourself, who is actually benefiting from this rogue government that the rich/elitists have in place and control?

 

I guess you missed my point, What I am saying is as a business owner, I can create
more jobs that will last longer for individuals, then what the government can offer, which
is a short time support at business's expense. I can create one job for less capital, then
the government spends on short term solutions, and those jobs I can create will be longer
term.


...

 

But this isn't quite consistent with the evidence. First, without government interventionism, capitalism (which has a tendency towards crisis) will flounder. Second, by ensuring a 'healthy' safety net, individuals (particularly with family demands) are more likely to risk self-employment. Government interventionism actually creates the conditions required to ensure more people are prepared to risk job creation

 

I don't worry about insults from trolling bullies.

These people are truly needy. What's your point?

 

The point is that if instead of drinking Republican Koolaid you actually took a look at the real numbers you would see the overwhelming majority of the people on Medicare and Medicaid have nothing. The notion that you are going to "fix" either program by ONLY giving it to just the needy is hogwash.

That's the problem with Republicans. They believe in divide and conquer. They pit middle class and poor people against each other and then take home all the profits. They actually have someone like you that makes the majority of her money off government welfare fighting for tax breaks for millionaires.

If you really wanted to cut the costs of welfare you would be discussing all the unnecessary radiological tests you perform every year which you bill the taxpayer for instead of demonizing the poor.

Would you care to explain how you do more xrays at a higher cost than the OECD average but yet we have WORSE health outcomes? There is your waste fraud and abuse, not a little old lady dying in a nursing home.

 

No the point is well accepted, only this country is ran by a two party system of sell outs to the highest bidder. Small business owners cannot get together enough money to sway the status quo, that is so in bed with the rich/elites.
　
　
Yes "if" you create a job it is because you have a need for help and can afford to entice someone to take the job with/for a decent wage, that is beneficial to both parties. If you are creating jobs just to create jobs you will not be in business for long.
　
　
Today we have a government that is completely not small business friendly. Oh yea you can say those big businesses are just as effected by the laws as the little guy, but that is so intellectually dishonest it is almost laughable. When was the last time a mom & pop, got the government to pay their employees as they were being trained to do a job, they most likely were not going to get, like they did for McDonald‘s? When was the last time a mom & pop had their business built for them like Walmart had done for them? And when was the last time a mom & pop was exempt from paying taxes on their entire profits for the year and even gave them money back, like they did for GE? Hmmm?
　
　
Our government is very good about giving tax breaks to create jobs to the very companies that are using that money to eliminate jobs in the USA. Our government mandates mandatory legislation on some and waivers the selective few. Our government will exhaust our entire financial reserve and destroy our credit to bail out billion dollar corporate entities to big to fail, and place that burden on the mom & pops, great great grandchildren to foot the bill, and instead of acting on this obvious fact the government has been compromised, we still want to sit around and argue which party sold us down the river, when the answer is “BOTH“!!!

 

I can't wait to see these one-on-one debates. The few educated all lean one way it's going to be a massacre— surely not a publicity stunt.

 

Regrettably there is a lot of truth in this.

But the reason is that the Democratic party failed to focus on its progressive roots. Still the ONLY progressives in government are Democrats and we need more of them, not less.

I'm all for throwing out blue dog Democrats, however, with their support of GOP deregulation of the financial industry which got us into this mess.

 

So you "kinda laughed" at the observation that "[t]he job-creating class will likely sit on its free cash, and refuse to expand existing businesses or create new ones, if marginal tax rates are increased."

You are asserting, then, that these folks, for the most part, will simply ignore their own best interests, and altruistically expand their businesses in order to indulge some macroeconomic ends?

Are you quite serious?

Or do you just derive some inexplicable pleasure from the formulation of silly comments?

(Note: You should really not feel compelled to answer, if your doing so would merely serve to embarrass you...)

 

Ok, let's dismantle your idiocy. I know you don't really know tax policy economics; but let's go.

Your claim that increased taxes on the wealthy will, for some reason, mean that businesses change their policies. That's fault #1, you're confusing personal income taxes with corporate ones.

Now if you're talking small businesses, such a change would encourage INCREASED investment into the business because such costs would DECREASE taxable income. That's fault #2.

You claim that increasing taxation would mean that monetary velocity would decrease, that's false. It's the exact opposite; as taxation in its current form incentivizes such. That's fault #3.

You also claim that there is a job-creating class, that's a fault right there; fault #4.

Lastly, to make it a nice 5; you're saying its not in a businesses goals (even though we're not talking corporate taxes); your argument that its not in their best interest is fault #5.

The end to that one. Like I said, this debate idea the forum has is going to pit people like Reiver or Teamosil against the uneducated hordes in a 1-on-1. It's going to be a slaughter of right-wing lunacy.