Rubio Rips Obama's Budget Busting as Missing 'Golden Opportunity'

[TWA]

I'm trying hard to see how does a tax cut for riches hurts us a lot

Where do you think the money for the tax cuts go?

You're aware that trickle-down Reaganomics has been disproven time and time again, right?

 

[posts from hell]

Where do you think the money for the tax cuts go?

You're aware that trickle-down Reaganomics has been disproven time and time again, right?

I just don't see the rich "plateauing" with their income. They are internally motivated to generate more money. The only way to do that is to get bigger, and we can discuss how they get bigger. Matter of a fact you basically listed it out in post #10.

 

[Jiro]

Where do you think the money for the tax cuts go?

jobs.

You're aware that trickle-down Reaganomics has been disproven time and time again, right?

Reagan's dead.

dddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaddddddddddddddddddd!

 

[posts from hell]

On a lighter note... I went and looked at the obamas budget for '12...

45% goes towards social security, medicaid, medicare, unemployment compensation, and food assistance.

Anything in common between all the above?

 

[TWA]

jobs.

How? I've explained this before. Demand for goods and services are what create jobs. If there is no demand, there is no need to create more positions. No right-minded business person would hire more people to work for them if there was no demand to fill. We have less demand for American goods and services because everything we buy now is imported and many of the services that we used to provide for ourselves have been outsourced. Fix THOSE problems first before you cut taxes.

And before you say that in order to compete with foreign goods and services we need to cut taxes, bear in mind that this is AMERICA. Not China, not India, not some other country that oppresses its people and has a shitty standard of living for all but its wealthy elite. We are operating on a higher moral and ethical level, and that comes with a price.

Reagan's dead.

dddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaddddddddddddddddddd!

But the influence of his atrocious policies aren't, unfortunately.

 

[Jiro]

How? I've explained this before. Demand for goods and services are what create jobs. If there is no demand, there is no need to create more positions. No right-minded business person would hire more people to work for them if there was no demand to fill. We have less demand for American goods and services because everything we buy now is imported and many of the services that we used to provide for ourselves have been outsourced. Fix THOSE problems first before you cut taxes.

And before you say that in order to compete with foreign goods and services we need to cut taxes, bear in mind that this is AMERICA. Not China, not India, not some other country that oppresses its people and has a shitty standard of living for all but its wealthy elite. We are operating on a higher moral and ethical level, and that comes with a price.

1. In order to compete with foreign goods and services.... raise the tariff!
2. Taxing the riches lead to outsourcing
3. The demand is always there and always has... and it was met by outsourcing the jobs

But the influence of his atrocious policies aren't, unfortunately.

he's dddddeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaddddddddddddddddddddddd

 

[posts from hell]

How? I've explained this before. Demand for goods and services are what create jobs. If there is no demand, there is no need to create more positions. No right-minded business person would hire more people to work for them if there was no demand to fill. We have less demand for American goods and services because everything we buy now is imported and many of the services that we used to provide for ourselves have been outsourced. Fix THOSE problems first before you cut taxes.

And before you say that in order to compete with foreign goods and services we need to cut taxes, bear in mind that this is AMERICA. Not China, not India, not some other country that oppresses its people and has a shitty standard of living for all but its wealthy elite. We are operating on a higher moral and ethical level, and that comes with a price.




But the influence of his atrocious policies aren't, unfortunately.

I understand what you're saying, but when you say out with income, in with sales tax - it creates less demand for goods and service.

 

[darkdog]

Many of those things still receive federal funding, even if they originate at the local level.

I didn't say the rich aren't paying their fair share, but they are certainly whining that they are paying more than their fair share, and that's not true. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and others agree on that.

I take issue with people like Warren Buffet arguing for higher taxes for the highest tax brackets. Most people that are affected are either older couples who have worked hard for decades and advanced enough in their careers to finally earn the big bucks or business owners who struggle to find customers and make payroll. It's pretty condescending to have billionaires say people like that need to pay more in taxes. I'm glad many of these billionaires donate their money to good causes, but I don't see them writing checks to the treasury.

However, with all the tax loopholes, I think it's fair to say that many wealthy folk find ways to reduce their tax burden to a marginal amount. I am actually of the idea that there should be a just a flat sales tax across the board and no income tax. Now that's a straight up conservative ideal, no?

Despite loopholes and everything, the rich still pay most of the taxes. The Bush tax cuts actually made the income taxes even more progressive. If you look at marginal tax rates, they became a bit less progressive, but if you look at who pays the taxes, the rich shouldered a greater percent of the burden after the tax cuts. One of the reasons is that when tax rates are lowered, the rich have less reason to use loopholes and put their money in shelters (legal and otherwise).

I made some charts of this a while back: http://www.alldeaf.com/war-political-news/57903-last-presidential-debate-4.html#post1126559

About the flat sales tax, it's not a bad idea but I don't think it's the best way to go because it's regressive in nature. Those with little discretionary income will have to pay a higher percent of their income to taxes than those with lots of discretionary income. I find a flat income tax or a two-tier income tax more favorable. At the very least, we should simplify the whole thing to lower compliance costs.

 

[darkdog]

Where do you think the money for the tax cuts go?

You're aware that trickle-down Reaganomics has been disproven time and time again, right?

Reaganomics killed stagflation. What more do you want?

 

[sheila022]

Let's take a huge portion of those politicians' salaries and other pork barrel projects to spend on more worthwhile projects!

 

[Jiro]

Let's take a huge portion of those politicians' salaries and other pork barrel projects to spend on more worthwhile projects!

but... the politician's salary isn't that much. You can easily make more than them in just few years after you graduate college.

Lot of politicians got rich from endorsements, speaker fee, donations, investments, etc.... not from salary.

 

[TWA]

but... the politician's salary isn't that much. You can easily make more than them in just few years after you graduate college.

But you'd have to work a lot harder. Lol!

Lot of politicians got rich from endorsements, speaker fee, donations, investments, etc.... not from salary.

Lots of them were already rich before they became politicians.

 

[darkdog]

1. In order to compete with foreign goods and services.... raise the tariff!

And start a trade war? Then we'll be looking at real economic pain. Don't forget the Hawley-Smoot tariffs in 1930. In my opinion, that was more significant in creating the Great Depression than the stock market crash.

 

[Jiro]

And start a trade war? Then we'll be looking at real economic pain. Don't forget the Hawley-Smoot tariffs in 1930. In my opinion, that was more significant in creating the Great Depression than the stock market crash.

I'm too young to understand it

 

[Jiro]

But you'd have to work a lot harder. Lol!

Lots of them were already rich before they became politicians.

then there's no point in working a lot harder if they were rich in the first place

 

[darkdog]

I'm too young to understand it

Oh, come now. People have won Nobels in science for things they did at your age. Basically, the Hawley-Smoot tariffs were signed by President Hoover in June of 1930 against the warning of thousands of economists. After the stock market crash, unemployment had risen over 9% but began to fall. By the time the tariff bill was signed, unemployment had fallen under 7%. After the bill, other countries started their own tariffs in retaliation (known as a trade war). Things just went downhill from there.

EDIT: It's actually called the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, but I've seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off so many times that I can't help but call it the Hawley-Smooth tariffs.

 

[Jiro]

Oh, come now. People have won Nobels in science for things they did at your age. Basically, the Hawley-Smoot tariffs were signed by President Hoover in June of 1930 against the warning of thousands of economists. After the stock market crash, unemployment had risen over 9% but began to fall. By the time the tariff bill was signed, unemployment had fallen under 7%. After the bill, other countries started their own tariffs in retaliation (known as a trade war). Things just went downhill from there.

that's why they're genius and I'm just Jiro the Jiro

 

[darkdog]

that's why they're genius and I'm just Jiro the Jiro

Geniuses? Nah, I don't think so. Maybe some of them, but there's a reason economics is called the dismal science. However, I think it's pretty conclusive that protectionism is bad policy.

 

[Beowulf]

Oh, come now. People have won Nobels in science for things they did at your age. Basically, the Hawley-Smoot tariffs were signed by President Hoover in June of 1930 against the warning of thousands of economists. After the stock market crash, unemployment had risen over 9% but began to fall. By the time the tariff bill was signed, unemployment had fallen under 7%. After the bill, other countries started their own tariffs in retaliation (known as a trade war). Things just went downhill from there.

EDIT: It's actually called the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, but I've seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off so many times that I can't help but call it the Hawley-Smooth tariffs.

Really? There goes your credibility!

 

[darkdog]

Really? There goes your credibility!

Huh? That movie rules!

EDIT: What I'm talking about is the scene where the economics teacher (played by Ben Stein, a real life economist) was teaching about the "Hawley-Smoot tariffs" in his dry way. He got the 2 names, Hawley and Smoot, backwards but that's how I always hear it in my head because of that scene.