Political discussion thread

To answer your first item, I don't really care HOW people are more productive. If they are more productive they should be rewarded accordingly. However - you should take into account another statistic which demonstrates my point in a more obvious way: the toil index. Have you heard of it? It measures wages against rent. Consider this: in 1950 the toil index for the median was 42.5 - this means that someone working at the median salary level would have to work 42.5 hours to pay the median rent. By 1970 this had fallen to 41.5 while GDP had more than doubled - those were the good days. But from then to 2000, GDP increased another 163% but the toil index also increased to 67.4. In other words, even though the median workers were more productive, they had to work 22 more hours in order to cover the rent.


Your second argument is also based on a conservative myth. Giving the rich more money does not create more jobs - supply and demand. Demand creates jobs. Give a rich man more money, and he puts it in the bank. Give poor/average people and they buy more stuff, creating more demand.

Also, when you say the rich pay all the income taxes, this is ignoring all the other types of taxes, including payroll taxes. Yes, the rich pay all the income taxes, which are taxes on investments, stocks, and bonds: they are the only people who can AFFORD these things, so of course they pay all these taxes. Also, for the extremely rich, they get almost all their wealth from these investments, but when you take into account what they actually pay (after deductions and exemptions), the percentage is much lower than what the average person pays in payroll taxes. And the richer you are, the more you can afford to pay in order to find exemptions and deductibles....

Actualy its getting so hard to be rich these days, most of them regret not to be poor (sorry for spammin)

Edited by tamijo - November 28 2012 at 12:51

thellama73 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Your second argument is also based on a conservative myth. Giving the rich more money does not create more jobs - supply and demand. Demand creates jobs. Give a rich man more money, and he puts it in the bank. Give poor/average people and they buy more stuff, creating more demand. No one is talking about giving rich people more money. They are only talking about taking away less money.Why is the bank willing to pay him to hold onto his money, I wonder. Maybe it's because they lend that money out to people who spend it on things like factories and starting their own businesses. I feel like we've had this conversation before.

But are people going to be building factories if there isn't enough demand to justify this? Giving tax breaks to the rich is not going to increase demand, and this is one of the arguments Bush used to justify his tax cuts on the wealthy. It didn't work. Now it's time to try something new.

Answer me this, Geoff. Why is it so important to you to see rich people's taxes go up? Is it because of the revenue (because I can tell you, you won't get much) or is it because you simply want to take from people you dislike?

dtguitarfan wrote: thellama73 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: thellama73 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Your second argument is also based on a conservative myth. Giving the rich more money does not create more jobs - supply and demand. Demand creates jobs. Give a rich man more money, and he puts it in the bank. Give poor/average people and they buy more stuff, creating more demand. No one is talking about giving rich people more money. They are only talking about taking away less money.Why is the bank willing to pay him to hold onto his money, I wonder. Maybe it's because they lend that money out to people who spend it on things like factories and starting their own businesses. I feel like we've had this conversation before. But are people going to be building factories if there isn't enough demand to justify this? Giving tax breaks to the rich is not going to increase demand, and this is one of the arguments Bush used to justify his tax cuts on the wealthy. It didn't work. Now it's time to try something new. And the demand argument you are making is what fueled the stimulus, which didn't work either.Someone must be using the money put into banks for something, or else they would not be willing to pay interest on it.Do you really, really believe that rich people will not react at all to having their taxes raised? That they will not engage in more tax avoidance, that they will not change their plans to invest if those investments suddenly become less profitable? That they are somehow immune from incentive effects? Really? Do you really believe that if the rich are taxed a little more, they will not try to meet demand, which is what earns them their millions?

Answer my question first.

thellama73 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: thellama73 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: thellama73 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Your second argument is also based on a conservative myth. Giving the rich more money does not create more jobs - supply and demand. Demand creates jobs. Give a rich man more money, and he puts it in the bank. Give poor/average people and they buy more stuff, creating more demand. No one is talking about giving rich people more money. They are only talking about taking away less money.Why is the bank willing to pay him to hold onto his money, I wonder. Maybe it's because they lend that money out to people who spend it on things like factories and starting their own businesses. I feel like we've had this conversation before. But are people going to be building factories if there isn't enough demand to justify this? Giving tax breaks to the rich is not going to increase demand, and this is one of the arguments Bush used to justify his tax cuts on the wealthy. It didn't work. Now it's time to try something new. And the demand argument you are making is what fueled the stimulus, which didn't work either.Someone must be using the money put into banks for something, or else they would not be willing to pay interest on it.Do you really, really believe that rich people will not react at all to having their taxes raised? That they will not engage in more tax avoidance, that they will not change their plans to invest if those investments suddenly become less profitable? That they are somehow immune from incentive effects? Really? Do you really believe that if the rich are taxed a little more, they will not try to meet demand, which is what earns them their millions? Answer my question first.

The answer to my question will determine the answer to yours.

From the IRS tax year 2009 (the latest for which they have data): People making over $100,000 paid 74.6% of federal income taxes and made 49.4% of the income. How is that not paying their fair share?

Well you can head to California with its full Democrat control, and revel in their legacy of bankrupt cities and unchallengeable liberal control.  I got rellies not far from Amarillo....not so bad if you like sand and wind

thellama73 wrote: From the IRS tax year 2009 (the latest for which they have data): People making over $100,000 paid 74.6% of federal income taxes and made 49.4% of the income. How is that not paying their fair share?

Are you one of the richie rich? You sure defend them like you are. TAX 'EM I SAY!

This was an AWESOME read I found today:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community

Summary: hard core conservative finds, to his horror, that facts are decidedly liberally biased, and is then excommunicated from the Republican party.