Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Would killing the economy help the poor?
- Thread starter ceo
- Start date
javaguru
Banned
Barry tells me the rich people need to pay their fair share...Which seems perfectly reasonable until you realize the "rich" already pay most of the bills...How about half the voters paying some kind of income tax...I fall in the middle ground on tax rates but damn...how is it fair that I have to write a check to support half the population?
PICK3
New member
it's all alimentary
That's 'cause the "rich" already paying most of the bills have most of the money.
The bottom 45% who are paying no taxes, are pulling less than 1% of the total income. The IRS could take 100% of their income, and confiscate their property, and it still wouldn't generate as much tax revenue as simply undoing the Bush tax cuts.
U
UA_Iron
Guest
Doesn't mean they shouldn't contribute...
The best way to expand the economy is the "Laffer Curve" model. It worked in the 20's and the 80's. Why can't it work now? The Laffer Curve suggests that cutting high tax rates will generate more revenue than hiking taxes.
PICK3
New member
If that's economists' speak for "Plunkey needs to pay moar", then I'm for it.
U
UA_Iron
Guest
Thats called an unstable equilibrium - the peak of
That curve.
Should rephrase the thread "would killing the poor help the economy?"
That curve.
Should rephrase the thread "would killing the poor help the economy?"
Alright, now I think youre trolling.
Even conservative economists admit that reversing the Bush tax cuts would result in several trillion in additional revenue. That suggests that we're at "point A".
GOP and Tea Bag people seem to think that, no matter how low tax rates get, we're perpetually at "point B".
GOP and Tea Bag people seem to think that, no matter how low tax rates get, we're perpetually at "point B".
mrplunkey
New member
I'd love to see a link to a conservative economist who would advocate a tax hike on anyone right now (Sept 2011).
Barry's done his best to stall the recovery. That would do it for sure.
That thread was already made. Which made me think of this one. As I said, it seems as though the liberals believe that killing the economy would help the poor.
I didn't say anyone was recommending it, just that they admit that it would increase revenue.
mrplunkey
New member
Not if you turn the Obama double-dip into the Obama depression.
Nice diversion, but still, I think that if there is anything not junk-science about the Laffer Curve, everyone would agree that we are already below the Equilibrium Point and that further tax cuts would not increase the tax revenue stream.
mrplunkey
New member
So you are arguing that we are on the near side of the curve (on the positive tangent side).
That being the case, you are indirectly supporting the idea that a tax increase wouldn't have a material impact on the economy, correct?
Regardless of the economy, we are not in a position where a tax cut would increase tax revenues. A hike at this time might not be wise, but eventually it's gonna have to be done.
A tax hike is never popular, and probably is never good for the economy in the short term. The Bush tax cuts should never have been enacted.
A tax hike is never popular, and probably is never good for the economy in the short term. The Bush tax cuts should never have been enacted.
I don't understand their philosophy about how a tax cut woudn't stimulate the economy considering 70% of our economy is consumerism. Generally, when people have more money they spend more. Woudn't it be wise to put more money in people's pockets? Then lower interest rates to encourage people to buy durable goods. History shows tax hikes discourage people from spending because they don't have any extra money to spend curtailing economic growth.
History, also shows giving big business and the private sector tax breaks creates more jobs because they take the risks. Doesn't printing more money just devalue the dollar? Doesn't too much money chasing too few of goods cause inflation? Doesn't every dollar of government spending require a dollar of taxation? I don't understand how tax breaks don't expand the economy. Bush cut taxes from 2001-2006 the economy grew every quarter. Real wages went up, and so did Real GDP...Isn't that the objective?
The economy contracted when the housing bubble bursted, and then the Gov went on a spending frenzie and the welfare state funded programs are not helping the economy. It's not the tax cuts that are hurting the economy it's the insane spending that is superseding the tax cuts. Cut taxes and stop spending then economy will grow, is that fair to say?
mrplunkey
New member
The curve you posted earlier had a single maximum and no inflection point.
Yet you argue a tax increase "might not be wise" but that a tax cut won't help?
And let's get one other thing straight. You aren't for YOUR taxes going up. You're for someone ELSE's taxes going up.
Huge difference.
Shit, we must be right smack dab in the middle of the biggest economic boom in history, then. After all, they've been paying less effective rates over the last few years than at pretty much any point throughout history.
There's so much wrong with that statement I dont even know where to begin.
No.
I have to go to work, so no time to engage in a debate. Post up what your reasoning and thinking is and later tonight I will reply to your post.
I didn't say anything about the economy, I said a tax cut would not increase tax revenues.
mrplunkey
New member
He claims to be conservative.
It's analogous to that guy you know who even though he's married with two kids, has a surprising sense of fashion and loves Broadway musicals. He swears up and down he's straight, but when he has one too many glasses of Chablis he spontaneously admits he'd kiss Brad Pitt.
HTH!
Reasoning about what?
1) Fact of the matter is that corporations and wealthy individuals are paying a lower effective rate today (and have been over the past few years) than at almost any time previously.
2) Saying the Bush tax cuts made the economy grow every quarter is like saying that me brushing my teeth has helped me fight cancer. I brush my teeth twice a day, and I dont have cancer. Ergo, brushing fights cancer!
Plus, suggesting that Bush presided over an economic boom shows a lack of even a basic understanding of not only economic growth (not measured by GDP numbers, which includes government spending....hence the "growth" over the past 18 months) but just an ignorance of history in general.
Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades - washingtonpost.com
Because I'm too lazy to write a paper for you right now.
PS - Im no fan of the man, but to date Obama has created more private sector jobs than Bush did during his entire presidency.
Exactly.
To my point, if tax cuts (and low effective rates) generated jobs and economic growth we would be in the middle of the biggest economic boom in history.
Sadly, they dont. So, we arent.
mrplunkey
New member
Forgetting your 6 page pop quiz already? Wasnt that long ago.
And this is the part when the guy says: "Hell yeah, I'd bang her! Look at the huge cans on that one." But then he blows it by saying "But I wouldn't be caught dead in that dress. If she had tied-in the teal green with more of a lavender color, it would have accentuated the colors in her purse."
But you don't understand. The present rates don't matter. The only thing that's important is that they need to be cut. Perpetually. It's such a burden to do business in the most favorable tax and regulatory environment in the Western World.
Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
mrplunkey
New member
One spurns the economy at their own risk.
Grammar aside, taxes are only one part of the problem If you run around giving the "fair share" speech every chance you get, companies are going to hoard cash just as if taxes had already been raised.
There's also regulation. Barry's love for regulation has paralyzed employers. We need massive amounts of deregulation here, starting with completely eliminating BarryCare.
Right. That's the reason companies arent hiring.
So it's more important to you that the people who have no money "contribute", than it is that we actually do something that would affect the bottom line?
If we're looking for increased tax revenue, seems to me like we should be looking to collect it from the people who have money. We can go after 50% of the people who control 1% of the wealth, or we can go after 1% of the people who control 42% of the wealth. I wonder which one would actually affect the deficit in some meaningful way?
Reasoning to your distorted thinking, your thinking is perfectly warped. You live under a tradition instead of reality, you live under the thinks of others, not your own. I woudn't live under the impact and influence of what you call civilization for all the money in the world.
Yeah, by all means don't write an essay, I will rip it to shreds inside of 2 minutes.
Here's my ignorance of history. My Primary Source Trumps your Secondary Source.
http://HeritageFoundation:SettingtheRecordStraight:ClintonHikesSlowedGrowthBushCutsPromotedRecovery
Let me know if you want a lesson on the economic booms of the 20's and 80's and a lesson on the Great Depression, I'm close to an expert on them eras...
Last edited:
mrplunkey
New member
False choice. Those two aren't mutually exclusive.
But I do like your attitude toward taxation in general. They're definitely "going after" people these days. And people are checking out of the system at record rates. That 1% that controls the wealth will be deploying said wealth in a more globally dispersed (and difficult to tax) way.
Lol.. Well theres charts and maps... what more do you want? I guess the Washington Post is a better source, right? Whatever then...
loollool
Can anybody tell me wtf this means:
"Reasoning to your distorted thinking, your thinking is perfectly warped. You live under a tradition instead of reality, you live under the thinks of others, not your own. I woudn't live under the impact and influence of what you call civilization for all the money in the world."
Anytime, people resort to childish games like this, it's a leading indicator they are mad and defeated.
Your come back was LOL, It seems to me all you know how to do is LOL...You are no fun..at all.
I guess I win again, like it would be any other way. Let me know when you get the balls to have a real face off.
Sure thing buddy.
Best part was how your response to a series of facts (with an article from a reputable news source confirming said facts) was this:
"Reasoning to your distorted thinking, your thinking is perfectly warped. You live under a tradition instead of reality, you live under the thinks of others, not your own. I woudn't live under the impact and influence of what you call civilization for all the money in the world."
Seriously, wtf is that?
Lemme guess, you are probably a birther and also think 9/11 was an inside job, right?
Best part was how your response to a series of facts (with an article from a reputable news source confirming said facts) was this:
"Reasoning to your distorted thinking, your thinking is perfectly warped. You live under a tradition instead of reality, you live under the thinks of others, not your own. I woudn't live under the impact and influence of what you call civilization for all the money in the world."
Seriously, wtf is that?
Lemme guess, you are probably a birther and also think 9/11 was an inside job, right?
And I often cant help myself with the LOLs when dealing with folks like plunk and yourself. I honestly think that a good portion of the time plunk knows hes dead wrong yet refuses to concede even when faced with irrefutable evidence. Hence the lulz.
You, on the other hand, just seem deluded.
I bet you also think Obama is a closet socialist-marxist-fascist (without recognizing the massive contradiction in terms) who's sole mission is to destroy the US as we know it, right?
You, on the other hand, just seem deluded.
I bet you also think Obama is a closet socialist-marxist-fascist (without recognizing the massive contradiction in terms) who's sole mission is to destroy the US as we know it, right?
Since you are serious, I'll give a serious response. You live under a tradition (generation tradition). What your family told you to believe not your own thinking. You watch too much tv and don't do enough research to find more than one source. You get one article and use it as a comprehensive tool, that's no good, you need to sift through all kinds of different data then make an evaluation. I can tell you don't, i'm not trying to belittle you, but I can tell.
I tryed to have a civilized debate with you, you turned it into a circus because you had no valuable input, so you resort to acting childish. Come on bro... nobody has all truth, everyone that posted gave good insight, and we can piece it together like that. I meant i wouldn't live under that kind of logic, nothing personal. You went right into a defense mode instead coming back with a strong arguement... I'm done over here again, too much conflict and silly baby crap..
*tried
Right. That's what happened here.
And lol at me getting all my info from TV and a lack of research on my own. I guess my Series 7, Series 24, CFP, and Level II CFA were all acquired via consistent CNBC watching.
You posted an extremely simplistic view about something and I called you out on it.
Lets do this:
- Fact of the matter is that corporations and wealthy individuals are paying a lower effective rate today (and have been over the past few years) than at almost any time previously.
Is that true or not? Hint: it's true. I looked it up.
- George Bush presided over one of the weakest economic "development" periods in 5 decades. During his term, we as a country had a net loss of private sector jobs. Absolutely no new private sector jobs were created during his 8 years. Poverty rates increased nearly 3% during his term.
Is that true or not? Hint: see above.
With those facts in mind, what argument do you have that the Bush tax cuts created this phantom boom economy that you referenced in this thread?
I gave a link, you said it wasn't good enough, so what's the point, you think your source is right. Again, you said you looked something up, it doesn't mean the source is totally right.
Go to the heritage Foundation. There is an article by Curtis Dubay called, Setting the Tax Record Straight: Clinton Hikes Slowed Growth, Bush Cuts Promoted recovery.
It has all the stats you need prior and after Bush's tenure...
Now, if you think your source is better than mine then don't bother to post back up.
lol
Sure. Your link from an admittedly biased organization trumps my link referencing numerous economists and analysts representing both side of the political spectrum.
You're right. You win.
Thanks for dodging my questions, too. How very plunk-esque of you.
Thats says an awful lot about your standards.
Well, you do have a valid point there, but in relation to women.
Boom or bust, that wealth only travels in one direction. They're not going to suddenly start hiring if and when they get the favorable tax and regulation environment they're holding us hostage for. And it sure as hell ain't gonna trickle down.
As far as regulations go, we need to bring back the anti-trust ones.
mrplunkey
New member
Anti-trust legislation deals specifically with price fixing, market segmentation and monopolies.
Exactly what market and/or company are you ready to target? Who would we attack that would make things all better?
Not education. Making them actually want to get an education. The culture of "too cool for school" and "wannabe gangster" mentality is the problem. Weve all seen that shoving these kids in a classroom and hoping for the best doesnt work. Parents have to instill the value of education in their kids while young. We can build all the schools in the world but it wont matter if the above attitudes remain pervasive.
mrplunkey
New member
I completely agree. This is a huge component of helping get people out of poverty.
So why not completely revamp the system, including eliminating layers of wasteful administration, decertifying unions and looking into privatization experiments?
Agreed, and give teachers higher wages, and better incentives, and tools to deter misbehavior.
Given the mass consumption mentality, I don't see this changing anything soon.
You didn't mention vouchers?
I think we'd be better off if we went back to neighborhood schools.
mrplunkey
New member
You didn't mention vouchers?
I think we'd be better off if we went back to neighborhood schools.
One of the privatization options would be vouchers.
And I really like the neighborhood schools idea too. My mother's side of the family had 120 years of gradeschool teaching experience across three women (monther, aunt, aunt) and they were all convinced that we needed to get back to smaller schools.
It seems really cynical to me when people support teachers' unions and education reform at the same time.
That's a great point. So it really has to start with the parents? How do parents who are lazy and don't give a shit about education (unless it's educating their children on how to take advantage of every way to scam the system) make their children want to go to school?
I thought about that and doesnt seem to be a viable solution. This has been going on now for at least 2 generations so the parents are part of the problem as well. Having teachers that are glorified babysitters hamstrung by PC rules and red tape doesnt help either.
Mass sterolization for the win
About the time women entered the workplace en masse as most families became two-earner households.
mrplunkey
New member
It's obviously a woman's right to choose whether to work outside the home or be a homemaker, but we didn't do ourselves any favors by pushing so many women into the workforce.
Every woman needs the choice, but the idea of pushing them out of homemaking was clearly oversold.
That reinforces what i was saying about lack of parenting thanks
