Sun 28 Sep, 2008 04:06 pm
Exchanging slogans, platitudes, panaceas, and other banalities is not making rational arguments for doing or not doing anything. For example, saying something is or is not Bush policy is not making a rational argument for why a particular policy is or is not good for Americans. Or, saying a policy is working from the top down or from the bottom up is not in any way conveying a rational argument for why a particular policy will be better or worse for Americans.
Rational arguments are based on specific policies and their expected benefits and harms, and what are the probabilities of those benefits and harms materializing.
Let's start with advocated tax rules.
Marital Status & Gross Income ....................... McCain ............. Obama
Married, with 2 children under 17, $80,000 ........ $700 tax cut ........ $1,000 tax cut
Single, no children, $120,000 .......................... No change ........ No change
Married, no children, $200,000 ........................ $100 tax cut ...... $100 tax cut
Married, with 2 children under 17, $400,000* ........ No change .......... $1,400 tax increase
Married, with 2 children under 17, $1,000,000* ....... $6,100 tax cut .... $35,500 tax increase
* Reflects a mix of ordinary income, capital gains,and dividends.
Will increasing the taxes on job creaters increase or decrease the rate of job growth? I think it will decrease the rate of job growth and even increase job losses ! Such increases will serve only to placate invidious voters. Reducing taxes on job creaters will most probably increase job growth, while at the same time generating more tax revenue for the government from job creators, and the increased and better employed.
Low income people will benefit most from opportunities to increase the income they earn and benefit little from lower taxes.
Currently unemployed people will benefit more from increased job opportunities than they will from tax cuts given to the currently employed.
@ican711nm,
When the federal governmet transfers wealth from one group of citizens to another, the federal government is stealing from the first group, and making the second group that accepts that wealth co-spirators to that theft.
Check the USA Constitution, the "supreme law of the land," before you argue one way or the other.
ican wrote:
Quote:Will increasing the taxes on job creaters increase or decrease the rate of job growth?
Wrong. CEOs have been rewarded whether they have improved their company performance or not. You also don't know what you are talking about, because increased production of workers did not go to the workers, but to the CEOs and stockholders. You're always wrong, and continue your ignorance with page after page proving my point.
Your brain is irreplaceable, and it's already full of BS. Quit spreading it on a2k.
@ican711nm,
A flat tax with no loopholes would seem to be the fairest thing. Unfortunately, it's not one of our choices currently.
@rosborne979,
one has to wonder, why isnt it an option?
the man-"complicate it, more money for us YAY!"
@cicerone imposter,
CEO rewards or penalties are irrelevant to this discussion.
(1) Jonn Kennedy's tax cut <<<result 1 to 2 years later>>> employment began to increase and federal revenues began to increase.
(2) Jimmie Carter's tax increase <<<result 1 to 2 years later>>> employment decreased and federal revenues decreased.
(3) Ronald Reagan's tax cut <<<result 1 to 2 years later>>> employment began to increase and federal revenues began to increase.
(4) Rate of employment increase and federal revenue increase slowed after subsequent Reagan and Bush Sr. tax increases.
(5) Bill Clinton tax increase <<<result early in the last year of his presidency>>> employment began to decrease and federal revenues began to decrease.
(6) George Bush Jr. tax decrease <<<result 1 to 2 years later>>> employment began to increase and federal revenues began to increase..
(7) Beginning in 2007, Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress and preceded to prevent votes on George Bush Junior's proposals for securing the American economy: increasing federal control over
Fanny&Freddy, and expanding oil drilling in government controlled domestic areas.
@ican711nm,
ican wrote:
Quote: CEO rewards or penalties are irrelevant to this discussion.
After reading such foolishness, I knew you were way over your head about most topics discussed on a2k.
Here's the latest: the CEO of wamu who worked there just a few months will be rewarded with a $13 million parachute.
You are so damn ignorant, I wonder why I even bother to respond.
@rosborne979,
A flat tax on gross income with no exemptions, no deductions, and no refunds is a legal alternative to the current illegal tax system.
Quote:USA Constitution, Article I.Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Definition of
imposts
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imposts&x=28&y=10
Definition of
uniform
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8
@ican711nm,
You state "most Americans" and then post statistics that only reference the top 25% of households?
You state "most Americans" and your statistics only indicate tax increases for the top 1% of housholds?
You decry "slogans, platitudes, panaceas, and other banalities" and then segue directly into slogans about the "flat tax"?
You are making a mockery of yourself.
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
Exchanging slogans, platitudes, panaceas, and other banalities is not making rational arguments for doing or not doing anything. ...
Will increasing the taxes on job creaters increase or decrease the rate of job growth? I think it will decrease the rate of job growth and even increase job losses !
So why do you believe this? What exactly do you think a person making $1,000,000 will do because of this extra $35K in taxes? Do you think they will (a) ask for a lower salary so that they don't pay as much, (b) stop working so their tax rate is lower, (c) do a poor job since their companies are paying them so little and no one else would take their awful job anyway? My take is that no rational person ever slashes their income in order to avoid paying taxes. If, by hiring an additional employee, I can add an additional $100,000 to my bottom line, I am not going to refuse to hire that employee because of an
additional $5K in taxes.
@engineer,
If someone offered to pay me 1 million dollars a year i would be tickled to death to pay 400,000 dollars in taxes. But i have been on the poor side all my life so i dont know any better than to not be greedy.
@engineer,
Increasing taxes on job creators will leave them with less money to invest in their businesses. Leaving them with less money to invest in their businesses will leave them with fewer future employees.
@rabel22,
rabel22 wrote:
If someone offered to pay me 1 million dollars a year i would be tickled to death to pay 400,000 dollars in taxes. But i have been on the poor side all my life so i dont know any better than to not be greedy.
I feel the same way. I like to complain about taxes as much as the next guy, but I'm not willing to make less to pay less.
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
Increasing taxes on job creators will leave them with less money to invest in their businesses. Leaving them with less money to invest in their businesses will leave them with fewer future employees.
Not true. Investments in their businesses are tax deductable. Income taxes are only applied on money paid to employees. I suppose the opposite could be true. A medium sized business owner might choose to pay himself less and keep more in the business. In reality, a decent business man (or woman) makes spending calls based on investment and return. If a reasonable return is out there, you spend the money. If there is not an opportunity for a good return, you sit on it. Low taxes won't cause a good business man to invest in something he wouldn't otherwise and slightly higher taxes won't cause him to pass over a good opportunity.
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
When the federal governmet transfers wealth from one group of citizens to another, the federal government is stealing from the first group, and making the second group that accepts that wealth co-spirators to that theft.
Check the USA Constitution, the "supreme law of the land," before you argue one way or the other.
I see.. So since the CEO of AIG got a tax cut on the millions he earned in salary and the ordinary tax payer has to bail out AIG does that mean you think the CEO is guilty of theft?
How about JP Morgan?
Wamu?
Chase?
It seems that all those CEOs are guilty of theft from the ordinary tax payers and should have to pay for their own stupidity. How about we raise taxes on them by $700 billion? That seems to be fair based on what you have said.
@engineer,
If one does not have enough money left over after paying taxes to invest in a promising project, one will not invest in that promising project. If one doesn't invest in that promising project, jobs that would have otherwise been created by that promising project will not be created.
@parados,
Those who
receive federal tax dollars for performing federal services not authorized by the USA Constitution, are guilty of receiving stolen tax dollars.
Those who
receive federal tax deductions or exemptions not also available to others in similar situations are guilty of being accomplices in government discrimination against those others
Well in this election cycle, and for the forseeable future, we are unlikely to see any massive government program, especially those that include huge entitlements, even reduced, much less eliminated.
But since Obama proposes massive new big government programs and entitlements and McCain doesn't, IMO McCain has the edge on who will be better for most Americans.
Have you noticed that the nation's most angry and unhappy people are those who depend on the government for all or most or a lot of their basic needs? How does anybody rationalize that making still more people dependent on government for their well being/happiness will produce any more well being and/or happiness than what has been accomplished so far?
I can't vote for somebody who wants hundreds and hundreds of billions more in big government programs. With very few exceptions, I think that mindset has produced failed policy for the last sixty years or so and there's no reason to believe that doing still more of it will produce any different results.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace