Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Indeed we are putting the world economy at risk. But then again did the EU give a rat's a$$ about the world economy as they forever expanded their entitlement states ? I thought the world wanted the US to follow their lead.

---

That's a little backwards isn't Tom after all they were creating a united states of Europe, following your lead and in any case their currency was appreciating against yours significantly while they were doing this. Everyone pays for idiocy sooner or later and your own experts are predicting a meltdown of 50% in the value of your currency, that should restore your competition in the export markets but you also have to learn to pay yourself less so what price wages at $2.50 an hour, you are so efficient you should be able to compete with china on that. I think you will find tax an easier pill to swallow

Please ; they taxed themselves to the max ,awarded themselves sweetheart nanny state cradle to grave entitlements... did not even put sufficient resources into the common defense so they could spend more on their socialist ideas... and still are watching one nation after the other go down in economic ruin.

All their finance ministers talk about today are rolling back the entitlement system ,and are begging our President to not make the same mistakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

please ; they taxed themselves to the max ,awarded themselves sweetheart nanny state cradle to grave entitlements ....did not even put sufficient resources into the common defense so they could spend more on their socialist ideas ...and still are watching one nation after the other go down in economic ruin.

All their finance ministers talk about today are rolling back the entitlement system ,and are begging our President to not make the same mistakes.

---

Yes Tom they taxed and spent, some of it very unwisely because they didn't support long term individual productivity and they will have to maintain high taxes. I don't blame Europe for not wanting to put money into defence when the US wanted to do it for them, after all Europe has had enough of war. As I said sooner or later you pay for idiocy. So a longer working life not a shorter one, but maintain the unit of production. The European entitlements are generous to a fault but if it is paid for by taxation that's not wrong. What's wrong is where people try to get it for nothing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

They SAY that if the Bush tax cuts are extended to the richest people amongst us, they'll create jobs. They certainly might. I dunno. But, we don't have to guess. Instead of just giving them a tax break and HOPE they'll do the right thing, why don't we give them a tax break WHEN they create the jobs?

I'd go for that. You? Remember when we gave the banks money and HOPED they start lending?? We got snookered on that one.. Let's not do it again.

excon

---

The idea that tax cuts for the rich is good for the economy is a shibboleth that just won't go away. Repeat something often enough and it begins to acquire, sadly, a patina of truth.

It didn't work for Reagan or Bush 1, in fact it backfired disastrously, yet we are presented with this nonsense constantly by the right-wing.

Extending unemployment is a far better stimulus than tax cuts for the rich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Extending unemployment is a far better stimulus than tax cuts for the rich.

---

Now I thought that was what they had been doing, many more now draw unemployment than did before. Stimulus is needed to get industries going not just give existing industries more demand, the unemployed spend money on basic necessities so nothing new is added. What you need are programs to build roads and bridges, do major repair projects, sell more equipment overseas all of the industries that employ large numbers, it is wages that give stimulus not benefits

Reagan tax cuts brought us 20 years of prosperity .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Reagan tax cuts brought us 20 years of prosperity .

---

Prosperity for whom?

The rich prospered while everybody else lost ground or trod water.

Why do you shill for the rich? They don't give a damn about you.

Because I never got a job from a poor person . Because I hike in land donated to the public by some greedy rich guy. Because I go the museums in NY that have greedy rich guy patrons names on the top list of donors . Because I go to theaters that have rich guy patrons . Because rich people set up foundations that donate the vast majority of their wealth to charity .

Why do you want to penalize success ? Suppose you pulled yourself up and became successful only to be vilified and targeted for your success ? I'd wonder if it was worth the effort . I could make effectively less money and not hire those handful of workers and still lead a comfortable existence skating my way through life. Those workers that I don't hire ? Why would I give a damn about them ?(your words )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Why do you want to penalize success ?

---

Hello again, tom:

From my perspective, I don't want to PUNISH success. I LOVE success. I just want them to pay their fair share. Warren Buffet is fine with paying more. Bill Gates is too. They don't seem to feel punished.

Besides, borrowing $700 billion, that yours and my grandchildren will PAY for, to give the richest amongst us a tax break, strikes me as fanciful.

excon

I'm not overly concerned about Gates and Buffett . They have set themselves up nicely that they never have to pay the taxes they promote. Besides they are in rare air . You could take all their money and never get the country out of the hole it's in ;nor will you unless you drastically reduce expeditures or tax the hell out of the middle class.

My concern is with the people who create the vast majority of the jobs ;not the Gates of the world ,but the business owner I profiled . They are already getting hammered to a point that some of them have made the decision I just described.

I talked to the guy who does my chimney . In his day he made a good living hired a half dozen or so construction crew to clean and install chimneys. He has laid off his entire crew ;reduced his hours ,customers etc. It is not worth it to him to bust his butt for that last buck anymore because the benefits to doing it are not there . He talked about the fact that he now has the leisure time he never had before when he was thinking of expansion ;and his income level has not dropped all that much . He tells me under the threat of increased taxation and paying the costs associated with being an employer he really has not lost much .

This the question, do you want higher tax rates or higher tax revenue? I guarantee when you raise taxes on the rich they're going to change their behavior accordingly, then who will be bearing the burden of supplying tax revenue?

For example, John Kerry and his yacht.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

has laid off his entire crew ;reduced his hours ,customers etc. It is not worth it to him to bust his butt for that last buck anymore because the benefits to doing it are not there . He tells me under the threat of increased taxation and paying the costs associated with being an employer he really has not lost much .

---

Hello again, tom:

Yeah, you and Michelle Bachman think these guys taxes are going up.. They AIN'T... They're NOT the wealthy. They're not even close. You're not telling me, are you, that the guy doing your chimney is NETTING at LEAST a quarter MILLION a year?? Nahhh... You're not saying that. He doesn't, and with his full compliment of workers, he never did and never will.. He's just your ordinary schlub feeling the effects of the recession. His taxes will NOT go up.

excon

He is not a shlub . He ran a major company that serviced 2 counties in the NYC suburbs. The only recession effect is that fewer people are getting new chimneys .

I doubt if $250,000 is big bucks in the Seattle area either... I know it isn't in the NYC area. It can hardly be classified as "rich " despite the fact that it falls in the upper tier of income.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

He is not a shlub . He ran a major company that serviced 2 counties in the NYC suburbs. The only recession effect is that fewer people are getting new chimneys .

I doubt if $250,000 is big bucks in the Seattle area either ....I know it aint in the NYC area. It can hardly be classified as "rich " despite the fact that it falls in the upper tier of income.

---

Your example of a cleaning/installation chimney company doesn't make sense.

This is not a "major" company by any definition. With six employees (or even just one - himself), he is nowhere near the income level that would be affected, (as posted above). Even more strange is his decision to lay off the crew "in anticipation of the tax increase". The guy is either a very bad businessman or doesn't understand taxes.

I understand you're trying to present arguments against letting the tax cuts expire, but such a weak argument as this one doesn't help your position one iota.

On a previous reply, you indicated that the rich have done many things for you - philanthropy; like museums, theaters, nice places to hike, and charitable foundations. It's hard to respond with a straight face to such nonsense; you have a right to your beliefs.

To the degree the rich provide jobs, I agree that's a good thing but let's not overstate it. Giving the rich more money in tax breaks is not the job stimulus you think. Job creation is the result of many more important factors than simply increasing the wealth of the already wealthy.

The CBO (non-partisan Congressional Budget Office) estimates the cost of not letting the tax cuts expire to be roughly one trillion dollars added to the deficit over the next decade with no corresponding reduction in services. It also suggests that extending unemployment is a far better help to the economy than continuing these tax cuts.

I happen to agree that $250,000 these days is hardly "rich". But it's equally true that a $30-40 tax cost for every incremental net profit increase of $1,000 is hardly enough to, say, close down a business. Who would turn down $960 profit for a cost of doing business of $40?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

I happen to agree that $250,000 these days is hardly "rich". But it's equally true that a $30-40 tax cost for every incremental net profit increase of $1,000 is hardly enough to, say, close down a business. Who would turn down $960 profit for a cost of doing business of $40?

---

It seems some people are stupid enough to let tax drive their business. Yes, it is difficult to swallow a cut in take home pay, but that just demonstrates someone isn't working hard enough at getting the right advice, probably too tuned to poverty and how much they loose in tax, to realise you have to spend a buck to make a buck. This is all emotive nonsense, more of the why should I pay for someoneelse thinking that typifies laisse faire capitalism

I'm hearing the same things from local business and it is being published by the heads of major corporations . Yeah I get it... they are all a bunch of "stupid" people .
You think business don't plan around what their tax liability will be ? Dude !

Tax uncertainty frustrates financial planners | detnews.com | The Detroit News

The ChamberPost: Chamber to Congress: End Uncertainty, Don?t Raise Taxes

Quote:

---

"Small business owners do not have it easy, even in good economic times. They've certainly been put to the test during the last two years. Unfortunately, Washington only made matters worse--imposing mandates businesses can't interpret and threatening to raise taxes to make up for years of overspending. Entrepreneurs face an uncertain future--they simply can't afford what government is currently dishing out," said Karen Kerrigan, President & CEO of the SBE Council.

---

New Video Series Highlights How Government Uncertainty Plagues Business - MarketWatch
Tim Ryan: Investors Need Tax Certainty
Permanent tax relief best for all - SalemNews.net | News, Sports, Jobs, Ohio, Community Information - The Salem News


BTW I am unimpressed with a CBO report that doesn't recognize that the Dems did a Keynes on steroids stimulus and informs us that we aren't collecting enough revenue in a recession to pay for it. I thought the whole rational for Keynesian policies was deficit spending . I can point to examples where supply side tax cuts have stimulated the economy and can't think of one instance where Keynesian pump priming has helped .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

and can't think of one instance where Keynesian pump priming has helped .

---

Hello again, tom:

How about WWII? We went waaaaay in the red on that one - but it worked out OK. It ended the depression and set us on a course of prosperity the likes of which has NEVER been seen before or after.

excon

Sure did... all competing economies were bombed out of existence for a decade . Funding an existential war effort can hardly be called Keynesian pump priming ;nor was it's intended to bring us out of the depression.

But FDRs decade long Keyesian efforts did have the effect of prolonging a bad recession. Not only that... but to top it off ;he went on a hissy fit against the rich ,charged them punitive taxes and prolonged it further .

We are right back to were we began... so I'll again link to this Amity Shlaes op-ed in the Washinton Compost :

Quote:

---

Taxation is an obvious area the Obama administration ought to reconsider. Income taxes, the dividend tax and capital gains taxes are all set to rise as the Bush tax cuts expire. The Obama administration portrays these increases as necessary for budgetary and social reasons. A society in which the wealthy pay their share, the message goes, has a stronger economy. The administration and congressional Democrats are also striving to ensure that businesses pony up.

---

Quote:

---

Roosevelt, too, pursued the dual purposes of revenue and social good. In 1935 he signed legislation known as the "soak the rich" law. FDR, more radical than Obama in his class hostility, spoke explicitly of the need for "very high taxes." Roosevelt's tax trap was the undistributed-profits tax, which hit businesses that chose not to disgorge their cash as dividends or wages. The idea was to goad companies into action.

The outcome was not what the New Dealers envisioned. Horrified by what they perceived as an existential threat, businesses stopped buying equipment and postponed expansion. They hired lawyers to find ways around the undistributed-profits tax. In May 1938, after months of unemployment rates in the high teens, the Democratic Congress cut back the detested tax.

---

Amity Shlaes - Obama threatens to follow in FDR's economic missteps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

How about WWII? We went waaaaay in the red on that one - but it worked out ok. It ended the depression and set us on a course of prosperity the likes of which has NEVER been seen before or after.

excon

---

Ex you old national socialist you, war is good for business is it? It certainly solves the unemployment crisis. Next thing you will be doing is promoting Hitler on the basis it is good for business, Bush did it for Saddam, but Obama hasn't clicked yet, Ahamadjihad just doesn't do it for him