E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
You’re welcome to interpret the government’s Constitutional authority to tax you at any rate it sees fit in that manner.
It was certainly more effective than tax cuts.
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
no one is questioning the government’s constitutional authority to tax. what we are questioning is your idea that letting people keep their own money is a “tax break” The propensity of the federal government to use the tax code to promote a social agenda is exactly why we are the mess we are in today.
and of course Obama is getting ready to promote this nonsense again. Offering a tax credit for people who hire employees. . Of course anyone who has spent even a day running their own business knows. If you needan aemployye you will hire them and if you don’t need an employee a tax break sure as heck isn’t going to convince you to hire them… But of course it sounds good on paper when your only experience is as a community organizer and a public official.
S
Stjudeprayforus
Guest
Not true.
Bush Tax Cuts:
GDP before 1.7% after 4.1%
Gross Private domestic investment before -0.6 after 9.8%
Non residential fixed income before -7.0% after 7%
S&P 500 before -18.3% after 31.5%
Jobs gained/Lost before -267,000 after 307,000
P
ProVobis
Guest
You bring up a very good point. Since the House and a third of the Senate changes every two years, how can any company make long-range plans based on taxes alone? And generally it’s not binding for future Congresses, even if they pass a 10-yr or 20-yr bill. Many companies simply avoid the uncertainty (I hate the word as nothing is certain) of it all and go abroad.
I wouldn’t doubt this had something to do with the downgrade.
S
Stjudeprayforus
Guest
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.
E
estesbob
Guest
This is true in fact, the rich’s effective tax rate and the amount of tax paid by the top 25% of income earners is higher today than it was when the top tax rate was 90%. . The scandal of today’s tax system is not that the rich don’t pay enough, it’s that nearly 50% pay nothing. When you rob Peter to pay Paul you always get Pauls support. this
P
ProVobis
Guest
Because he was fortunate to have a person like Paul Volcker running the Federal Reserve. It was when Reagan appointed Greenspan that the markets started losing confidence and started bubbling and crashing. Remember the 22% drop in the market in Oct 1987 almost as soon as Greenspan appeared?
P
ProVobis
Guest
These spending habits have somewhat subsided, but not by choice. Where people could easily find borrowed money based on their rising home prices during Greenspan’s era, they found themselves short as home prices began tanking. I’ll agree with you that finding ways to tax will not improve anything because, for one thing, it would take time to bring in the additional revenue even if they were to double the taxes today. There’s no way to cover immediate expenses other than issue more Treasury bonds.
T
Teelynn
Guest
Yes, possible, it depends on many factors, however, one being how Europe is doing.I very much doubt that would happen. DO think it would be interesting, to say the least.
Just know this----possible Market crash on Monday. May God help us.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
Two parties are paid when a person works; the worker and the government. When the government chooses to grant a tax cut it is, for all intents and purposes, imposing a pay cut on itself and gives you the difference. That money wasn’t yours to begin with because it was never in your possession and you had no legal claim to it.
Social welfare programs aren’t the cause of our financial woes. The refusal of the government to address wasteful spending within those and many other programs and departments is.
The issue isn’t whether or not companies need employees. The issue is where they are hiring. There’s been an awful lot of job exportation. I agree that Obama and Congress shouldn’t be paying companies to hire people. They should be penalizing outsourcing.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Which means that unemployment and underemployment amongst the lower classes started growing, right?
P
ProVobis
Guest
May be a good buying opportunity as well. People always seem to overreact to these types of things.I very much doubt that would happen. DO think it would be interesting, to say the least.
Just know this----possible Market crash on Monday. May God help us.
E
estesbob
Guest
By *granting *a tax break you are, of course, referring to the taxpayer being allowed to keep more of his OWN money. Again referring to allowing someone to keep more of their own money as a" tax break" make sense only to those who believe all the money belongs to the government in the first place.
. Actually I said using the tax code to promote social programs is a complete waste. such nonsense like jobs credits, energy credits, credits for buying a new home, etc all artificially force money into various areas of the economy. the economy works best when markets determine where the money goes, not the federal government.
Companies outsource because they can no longer afford to pay for low-quality work at high prices , all the while putting up with excessive government regulation… . The solution is a workforce that provides quality work at a reasonable price with a minimum amount of regulation.
. A good example is the government health insurance mandates. Now they’re telling me that I’m going to have to either drop the coverage for my employees or pay for contraception and morning after pills as part of my employees coverage. . Outsourcing my bookkeeping to an Indian CPA firm looks more and more attractive the more the government sticks their nose into how I run my business.
T
Teelynn
Guest
You hit the nail on the head. “Partisan Politics” has been the front and center of motivations of both political parties. They are interested in political points first, and if any kind of an agreement is made to benefit the country, it’s only an afterthought.
P
ProVobis
Guest
A slight modification:
Bank lenders get paid ahead of the bondholders. And preferred shares get paid ahead of the common shares but after the bondholders.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
Take the time to examine why that is the case.The amount of tax paid by the top 50% has increased, even though the rate is lower, because they possess 98% of the nation’s taxable wealth.The bottom 50% only possess 2% of the nation’s taxable wealth which results in far less taxes paid in comparison. Nearly 50% pay nothing because nothing they possess is taxable. There is no scandal in that and no one should complain about it unless they want the top 50% to distribute more taxable wealth to the bottom 50%. So, its ironic that the same people who complain about this are the same people who lambast socialism.
S
Stjudeprayforus
Guest
scottstanzel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/President-Bush-Monthly-Unemployment-Percent1.jpgWhich means that unemployment and underemployment amongst the lower classes started growing, right?
Avg unemployment was 5.3% under Bush.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
sadly, i think you are right.
P
ProVobis
Guest
That’s if you use gubbermint numbers. Here are some alternate numbers:
shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
Consider too that during the 90’s there was an internet overboom and during the naughts there was a housing overboom. Many of those real estate tycoons are now poorer than poor.
S
Stjudeprayforus
Guest
From my experience… I never did better than I did under Bush. I could have gotten a job in a day if I wanted. Times were great here.
- Status