archer wrote: I find it a little scary that the wealthy in this country are becoming a protected class. We can't ask them to contribute their fair share in taxes because they won't invest, or won't create jobs, or will take their company overseas, or will hide their assets in foreign accounts, or won't buy any more expensive goods. Really?
Talk about a great sales job, somehow the conservatives have convinced not only the politicians, but apparently many Americans, that it's hands off the wealthy......or there will be dire consequences. And they will laugh all the way to the bank about what big suckers we are.......
Yes, what a concept, rewarding the people who hire others and take risks by starting new businesses. Instead reward the people who sit at home and collect benefits.
Have you seen the numbers on how much the rich pay of income tax? More than 50% of Americans don't pay any income tax, and who is getting screwed here?
Lets create jobs the Obama way, spend more than $250,000 per job! And take on trillions more in debt to distribute to the kids who don't get to vote on it. Talk about taxation without representation.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
SS109 wrote: More than 50% of Americans don't pay any income tax, and who is getting screwed here?
DUH.....if you don't make any income you don't pay any income tax.......this whole idea that people don't want good jobs that pay a decent wage because they prefer the subsistance level living on unemployment or welfare is ludicris.
And so I ask again.... how many jobs were created as a result of the tax cuts to the wealthy? How did those tax cuts assist our economy? Reduce the deficit? By contrast, how did a measly 3% increase on those same individuals affect our nation's economy?
Frankly, I think we ought to get on with taxing the hell out of the rich. We need to go after those corporate jets too. The sooner we do this, the sooner the left will realize it's both a class warfare game AND mearly a drop in the bucket that is our national debt. Tax them to death so we can finally talk about how to make up the rest of the deficit that won't be addressed by taxing the rich.
It seems that ONLY after we get past this discussion can we get to the reality of what a bad economics it is, how it actually makes things worse...and what can we do that actually makes sense. The left can't get past the idea that the rich may be getting over...so let's go after those millionaires and billionaires. Tax the crap out of them. Let the rich become less productive and create fewer jobs still. Let the market take a dive.
Only then can we get to a substantive discussion on this issue. America needs to go through this pain so we can kill the liberal economics project and get on with fixing the economy.
I'm thinking Warren Buffett will be getting fewer Christmas cards than Charlie Brown this upcoming holiday season.
mittra303 wrote: We should also note that while repealing tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires is a great start, what has been severely lacking from both the American Jobs Act and the Buffett Tax is raising tariffs on imported goods to prevent it from being cost effective to take American Jobs away from Americans and give them to people in countries where $5/day are great wages. NO American could afford to support themselves or their families on those types of wages.
Ever heard of Smoot-Hawley mittra? If so, can you explain to me why it wouldn't make the current bad situation worse as it did when that particular piece of legislation was passed? Don't some economic historians consider the debate surrounding Smoot-Hawley in Washington as one of the factors that led to the market collapse in the first place?
You know, PrintSmith, I have heard of the Hawley-Smoot tariff many many years ago, but it was part of a comedic routine then and I don't honestly remember much of anything about it (partially because I didn't much care for the guy delivering the piece, but I remember him barking it out over and over). That being said, I am a firm supporter of tariffs leveling the playing field and making it less profitable for companies to outsource American jobs. I also promise to look into the Hawley-Smoot tariff legislation so I can respond to your questions from an informed standpoint.
archer wrote: DUH.....if you don't make any income you don't pay any income tax.......this whole idea that people don't want good jobs that pay a decent wage because they prefer the subsistance level living on unemployment or welfare is ludicris.
If you don't make any income that you need to pay tax on, where is the money going to come from for you to hire other people to work for you? Poor people don't hire new workers archer, nor do they lend money for construction or invest venture capital for new businesses or expansion of existing businesses. The only people who can do that are people with capital. I, myself, have never been hired to work by a person who was poorer than I was, I've only been hired to work a job by those who were better off than I was. The money to pay me for my labor has to come from somewhere, right? If you take money away from someone, that leaves less in their pockets with which to pay me. Why do you think there are few pension plans in the private sector these days? Might it have something to do with the privilege to have employee taxes doubling on both the rate and the amount of compensation subject to the tax in the last 50 years? Wasn't it after the increases in these taxes when private pension plans essentially disappeared as one of the benefits a company offered to their workers? Do you think that is a coincidence or a result of the tax rate and the amount of compensation subject to taxation being doubled?
