But we aren't talking about a 10% luxury tax, are we..... Deflectors on max, Scotty....
And we also aren't talking, seriously, about anyone making over $250K seriously reigning in their spending over a piddling tax increase... And we really aren't talking about any lost jobs that would have been created with that piddling tax increase, because people don't go out and create jobs that raises consumption. People, i.e., consumers, have to have have money to spend before people that sell things have someone to sell them to. I'm having trouble envisioning how someone, hypothetically making $750,000, paying an extra $22,500/year in taxes, is going to add employees to sell product or services to a population that can't afford to buy? Is this where the rich--oh, excuse me, the [job creators] just sell it to each other because they're the only ones who can afford it?
pineinthegrass wrote: [For the record, I do support going back to the Clinton tax rates for those making over $250K.
I could go for that too, if we also went back to his level of spending.
That would be what, a 4%-6% of GDP reduction from what the current executive is spending? If DC would voluntarily reduce themselves to only 20% of GDP the economy might actually have a chance of growing enough to raise the rest without a return to those rates.
Those "producers" have been sending jobs and production overseas for years. The "producers" trickle down economics only works for them if India and China are at the bottom of the hill.
When you plant ice you're going to harvest wind. - Robert Hunter
