Typical right wing nonsense. The economy is driven by the consumers. Corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash, reporting record profits, yet they refuse to invest in more jobs because the consumers are unable to participate in the economy due to lack of income and jobs. The myth that only the wealthiest .1% create jobs is total bullshit. The "risk takers" are the small businesses who risk their retirements and savings, not the wealthiest .1% who just shift their wealth offshore, as Romney has done, rather than invest it in America. But the right wing tools keep crying that we have to shift even more of the income in the US to those .1%.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
The job-creators are the consumers... Without people to buy what you're selling, you don't have a market. Without a market, NO ONE is going to "create jobs" out of the goodness of their wealth.
There is a difference between raising taxes when the economy is doing well and raising them when it isn't doing so well Dog. When the economy is growing, there is no benefit realized by holding onto capital instead of investing it. Those with capital are interested in putting it to work during a booming economy. Along with the excessively high rate there were excessive tax deductions that kept those being excessively taxed from paying taxes on their excessive earnings. All interest was deductible at that time, not just mortgage interest. All costs were deductible at that time, not just some costs. All taxes were deductible at that time, not just some taxes.
When the economy is growing at 5% a year, one loses more by holding money than they do when they put it to work by investing it into the growing economy irrespective of what the tax rates are. When economies are virtually stagnant, the returns from investing are essentially stagnant as well, making it more of a risk to invest capital than to hold onto it.
The tax rate cuts of 2003 resulted in increased tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, not a reduction of tax revenue. What creates jobs and increases tax revenues is a growing economy. What helps an economy grow is more capital invested into the economy, not less. To spur investment when investment is lacking, there needs to be a reason to take the higher risk of losing capital when it is invested. The means by which this is done is to allow a higher reward for taking the higher risk. Banks charge higher interest rates to compensate them for taking a higher risk. Credit card companies charge higher interest rates to compensate them for taking higher risks. Credit card interest rates are consistently in the double digits now. Why? There is a higher risk that the person they are extending unsecured credit to is going to default on that obligation now than there used to be. The greater the risk, the higher the reward needs to be for taking that risk. That is how you encourage people to risk their capital rather than hold it in reserve. Were the federal government to pass a law which limited the interest rates on credit cards to 5% above the lending rate, no one who wasn't as rich as Obama and Romney are would be able to open up a new account, or possibly even hold onto the ones that they already have. The risk taken would exceed the reward realized and it wouldn't be done.
That's the problem with the Obama policy, it is why we are stagnant. It seeks to take a larger share away from those who take a higher risk rather than reward them for taking it. It is why the federal government must essentially issue guarantees to lenders in order for them to agree to lend their capital right now. The risk of losing the capital exceeds the rewards they can realize by taking the risk, so they don't risk their capital and it sits in savings or low risk investments rather than being put to work. Threatening to take even more of the rewards for taking risks isn't going to encourage anyone to take a higher risk. Taking more of the rewards only works when there is very little risk being taken.
When the economy is growing, one need not worry about encouraging people to invest in that growing economy. If our economy under Obama was growing at 4.2% annually for the last 4 years we could raise the tax rates on those with capital without worrying about discouraging investment. Sadly, this is not the case. Right now we need to encourage investment, not discourage it. When we were the sole remaining place in the world with all of its manufacturing up and operating at the end of WWII, we didn't need to worry about our economy expanding at a high rate. Other nations needed to reconstitute their own economies at the end of WWII and we were going to have a huge export market until that was accomplished regardless of how foolish the federal government acted economically. That is also not the case at the moment. The government has to have a smart economic and monetary policy right now because other nations don't need to import what we produce the way they did at the end of WWII.
Ford's Model T shifted the entire focus of the economy and created a new demand for more roads and a new means of getting goods from Point A to Point B. That is what fueled both the "Roaring Twenties" and the growth of the suburban communities at the conclusion of WWII. The growth of the suburban communities is what fueled the economy of the Union during the period of time you are looking at. Better cars than the Model T meant that the suburbs were going to grow, and the economy along with it, no matter what the tax policies were. Capital wasn't really at risk, investment was going to generate a return no matter where it was invested and regardless of how heavily one was punished for investing. Investors had to accept it if they wished to put their capital to work to take advantage of the phenomenal growth cycle that was occurring. We haven't got that right now to work with either.
And please, spare me the "record profits" and "record cash" demagoguery. The same metric used to sustain those talking points is the one used to sustain the argument that this president has already enacted the largest tax hike in the history of the Union by signing the PPACA. All are true when one is simply talking about numbers of dollars and all are false when other metrics are used. I'm tired of liars using figures to forward some theory that they wish to establish.
What creates an economy is demand which is driven by the consumers who are primarily the middle and lower income classes. It is a farce to think that the only "risk takers" are the wealthiest .1%. It is the small business owners who risk their savings and retirement who are the risk takers to create jobs. It is a farce to think that it was Henry Ford who created the modern economy. It was the consumers for the Model T which created the demand, and he was able to answer it by providing an affordable vehicle to the lower and middle classes.
Currently, corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash and record profits who are refusing to create jobs because there is insufficient demand in the economy. Giving even more tax cuts to the wealthiest .1% has been proven to be useless in creating jobs, while giving tax cuts into the hands of the lower and middle class, the 90% of America, has been shown over and over to spur the economy, creating demand for goods and services, providing incentive to create even more jobs, while giving it to the wealthiest 1% destroys the economy.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote: Typical right wing nonsense. The economy is driven by the consumers. Corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash, reporting record profits, yet they refuse to invest in more jobs because the consumers are unable to participate in the economy due to lack of income and jobs. The myth that only the wealthiest .1% create jobs is total bullsh**. The "risk takers" are the small businesses who risk their retirements and savings, not the wealthiest .1% who just shift their wealth offshore, as Romney has done, rather than invest it in America. But the right wing tools keep crying that we have to shift even more of the income in the US to those .1%.
Your blanket statement is clearly untrue. Tax cuts for the "rich" did help the economy under JFK and Ronald Reagan. More tax cuts for upper earners may no longer be necessary right now, but your initial title is clearly incorrect.
But it is interesting to see top coastal Dems like Pelosi saying taxs should not be increased on people earning 1,000,000 or less per year. A much smaller group size than Obama's 250K 1%'rs.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Something the Dog Said wrote: What creates an economy is demand which is driven by the consumers who are primarily the middle and lower income classes. It is a farce to think that the only "risk takers" are the wealthiest .1%. It is the small business owners who risk their savings and retirement who are the risk takers to create jobs. It is a farce to think that it was Henry Ford who created the modern economy. It was the consumers for the Model T which created the demand, and he was able to answer it by providing an affordable vehicle to the lower and middle classes.
Currently, corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash and record profits who are refusing to create jobs because there is insufficient demand in the economy. Giving even more tax cuts to the wealthiest .1% has been proven to be useless in creating jobs, while giving tax cuts into the hands of the lower and middle class, the 90% of America, has been shown over and over to spur the economy, creating demand for goods and services, providing incentive to create even more jobs, while giving it to the wealthiest 1% destroys the economy.
And how has Obama helped to increase demand? He hasn't, unemployment remains stubbornly high, and the jobs created are subsistence jobs that do not inspire people to increase their levels of debt.
I am not a fan of the Republican platform of more tax breaks for the rich but Obama's plan isn't working, is it?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Something the Dog Said wrote: What creates an economy is demand which is driven by the consumers who are primarily the middle and lower income classes. It is a farce to think that the only "risk takers" are the wealthiest .1%. It is the small business owners who risk their savings and retirement who are the risk takers to create jobs. It is a farce to think that it was Henry Ford who created the modern economy. It was the consumers for the Model T which created the demand, and he was able to answer it by providing an affordable vehicle to the lower and middle classes.
Currently, corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash and record profits who are refusing to create jobs because there is insufficient demand in the economy. Giving even more tax cuts to the wealthiest .1% has been proven to be useless in creating jobs, while giving tax cuts into the hands of the lower and middle class, the 90% of America, has been shown over and over to spur the economy, creating demand for goods and services, providing incentive to create even more jobs, while giving it to the wealthiest 1% destroys the economy.
And how has Obama helped to increase demand? He hasn't, unemployment remains stubbornly high, and the jobs created are subsistence jobs that do not inspire people to increase their levels of debt.
I am not a fan of the Republican platform of more tax breaks for the rich but Obama's plan isn't working, is it?
It would if it was implemented. President Obama has proposed two Jobs bills that would provide incentives for small businesses to hire, that would end tax breaks for those companies that ship jobs overseas, and a third bill to provide incentives for hiring veterans, but all have been stalled by Republicans.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote: Typical right wing nonsense. The economy is driven by the consumers. Corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash, reporting record profits, yet they refuse to invest in more jobs because the consumers are unable to participate in the economy due to lack of income and jobs. The myth that only the wealthiest .1% create jobs is total bullsh**. The "risk takers" are the small businesses who risk their retirements and savings, not the wealthiest .1% who just shift their wealth offshore, as Romney has done, rather than invest it in America. But the right wing tools keep crying that we have to shift even more of the income in the US to those .1%.
Your blanket statement is clearly untrue. Tax cuts for the "rich" did help the economy under JFK and Ronald Reagan. More tax cuts for upper earners may no longer be necessary right now, but your initial title is clearly incorrect.
But it is interesting to see top coastal Dems like Pelosi saying taxs should not be increased on people earning 1,000,000 or less per year. A much smaller group size than Obama's 250K 1%'rs.
according to the nonpartisan Congressional Reseach Service, my title is 100% correct. It is simply not true that tax cuts for the rich spurred job growth under JFK and Reagan.
See my original link to the report, and rebut their findings, rather than just issuing blanket statements that are incorrect.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
