[Traverser]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	AND during Eisenhower's presidency the middle class exploded and we had a over a decade of economic growth. Something that should have been impossible if it were true that taxing the rich at high rates prevents them from creating jobs.

Governments "create" jobs in the sense that they spend other peoples' money, yes. But how is this an improvement over letting people keep their own money and determine how best to spend it for themselves? I personally believe there's a lot more accountability when people are free to essentially boycott governments.

(Speaking of
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.)

Additionally, what kind of jobs are we talking about here? Those within the "military-industrial complex" that began from WWII? Can we be so sure to attribute most post WWII growth to taxes, rather than the fact that the war was over and private investment was booming due to far less uncertainty of government interference in markets (rationing, price-fixing, etc, that were prevalent in the war)?

Lastly, taxes on individuals does prevent them from personally creating jobs themselves using their own capital; I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. The less resources you have, the less means you have, let alone less incentive to create more jobs due to politics.

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, by all means, let's let everyone keep their own money while we continue to spend like drunken sailors and imagine the world is going to keep lending us money and we'll never have to pay up. This compromise is expected to cost between 600-800 billion dollars. There is no plan to pay for it, not even in the distant future. It's official: the inmates are now running the asylum.

The government could, and should, cut spending first rather than taxing people for its mistakes.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you want a practical answer to the tax question, ask yourself what tax bracket the individual or corpration that employs (would employ) you is in, and then ask if we should take more of the money they would probably use to expand business and hire more people away from them.

Are you aware that businesses and personal income are taxed differently? And that we're exclusively talking about taxes on personal income?

Same question for you, Traverser.

[Traverser]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Are you aware that businesses and personal income are taxed differently? Same question for you, Traverser.

Yes, I am. How does this justify your argument that it's okay to tax individuals for simply being better off?

[Warrior]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Are you aware that businesses and personal income are taxed differently? Same question for you, Traverser.

Sometimes. Small business income is often taxed as personal income.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Additionally, what kind of jobs are we talking about here? Those within the "military-industrial complex" that began from WWII? Can we be so sure to attribute most post WWII growth to taxes, rather than the fact that the war was over and private investment was booming due to far less uncertainty of government interference in markets (rationing, price-fixing, etc, that were prevalent in the war)?

Where was all this investment money coming from if the rich were being taxed too high?

---------- Post added 12-07-2010 at 01:12 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sometimes. Small business income is often taxed as personal income.

We're talking about big businesses, here. Corporations and such. Not sole proprietorship.

---------- Post added 12-07-2010 at 01:14 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, I am. How does this justify your argument that it's okay to tax individuals for simply being better off?

Are you arguing against the very idea of a progressive tax, now? I'm sure you are since you are an anarcho-capatilist. I'm not going to get led down that rabbit trail.

[Traverser]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Where was all this investment money coming from if the rich were being taxed too high?

Taxes? Did I not say that governments create in the sense that they spend other peoples money; this doesn't mean they create more jobs than otherwise would had been the case in a free market. Nor does it mean that the creation of jobs is more sustainable, considering the tendency of governments to overspend when their incomes are generated through decree rather than freedom of exchange. I placed the link to the nytimes for a reason.

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The government could, and should, cut spending first rather than taxing people for its mistakes.

At this point, I don't think we'll get out of this hole unless we are willing to cut spending and raise revenues.

I don't see a lot of cojones right now in D.C. for working to cut spending right now, though.

Are we still subsidizing oil companies? If we stopped I haven't noticed any news about that. What about the honey subsidy Clinton failed to remove, tiny as that is?

Honestly there are days when I think if you let 10 competent housewives loose to tighten up the budget we'd have better results.

---------- Post added 12-07-2010 at 02:18 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Are you aware that businesses and personal income are taxed differently? And that we're exclusively talking about taxes on personal income? Same question for you, Traverser.

I would add that the personal tax situation for the self-employed can be markedly different from those who work for others.

It's not that difficult to make 100K gross and claim an adjusted federal income of just 11K.

Of course you pay a price on the back end because you haven't paid much into social security, and getting healthcare is a bitch.

---------- Post added 12-07-2010 at 02:22 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sometimes. Small business income is often taxed as personal income.

That and the tax code definition of "small business" often bears no relationship to what people normally think of as a small business.

According to tax code,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is a small business because it's an S Corporation and has fewer than 100 owners.

I have yet to meet a human that thinks Bechtel is a "small" business in the usual sense.

In discussions like this it's important to be clear with terminology.

[Traverser]

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	At this point, I don't think we'll get out of this hole unless we are willing to cut spending and raise revenues. I don't see a lot of cojones right now in D.C. for working to cut spending right now, though. Are we still subsidizing oil companies? If we stopped I haven't noticed any news about that. What about the honey subsidy Clinton failed to remove, tiny as that is?

You're right; they probably won't cut spending, at least not in any significant way. They've over-promised, and they're seeking re-election. It's more probable that they'll monetize the debt through the Federal Reserve, as they've already done; counterfeiting is the invisible tax thats a lot easier to cover up due to its subtle yet real distortions in an economy. They'll blame the free-market for the dollar's collapse before they'll blame this corrupt banking system.

[INTJRyan]

Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Taxes? Did I not say that governments create in the sense that they spend other peoples money; this doesn't mean they create more jobs than otherwise would had been the case in a free market. Nor does it mean that the creation of jobs is more sustainable, considering the tendency of governments to overspend when their incomes are generated through decree rather than freedom of exchange. I placed the link to the nytimes for a reason.

If we relied on the free market, there would still be rural places without electricity and the internet as we know it would not exist. Both of those have led to sustained job creation and economic development in places corporations would gladly ignore.

[freeeekyyy]

Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It probably has something to do with the top 20% having nearly all the wealth and nobody, including the wealthy, is all that serious about substantial spending cuts. Spending cuts are popular in a vague, general sense but when it comes time to cut the military, SS or medicare the nation locks up. It doesn't matter that those 3 programs constitute more than half of total expenditures, they're a political third rail. That leaves us with the option of increasing revenue via taxation to deal with our substantial deficits. You could try to raise revenue by taxing the poor instead but you can't squeeze blood from a turnip, so that leaves the rich.

That's what pisses me off. We don't need military spending way higher than any other country on the planet. Social security didn't even exist before the new deal, and same with medicare. People complain, but they refuse to change. It's rage-inducing...

[Booko]

No, Social Security didn't exist before the New Deal. And there were a lot of starving elderly people unable to work. That's why we have Social Security.

The alternative it to have large families, which is what non-industrialized nations do.

Something by way of Social Security seems to make more sense to me, as opposed to doing anything to increase the global population at a faster rate.

Anyway, as to the tax compromise, the Prez is having a news conferences on that right now.

[dungeonguy88]

I've had a bit of a question nibbling away at the back of my mind about this issue...if said tax cuts are supposed to encourage job/economic growth...and they've been in effect for the last eight years or so...where are the jobs?

[FreeFrag]

Higher taxes on the rich and empowered should not logically correlate to corporate anorexia of the businesses they run. It affects their income, not the company. Oh wait, that's right, they expect to take down everyone else with them.

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by dungeonguy88 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've had a bit of a question nibbling away at the back of my mind about this issue...if said tax cuts are supposed to encourage job/economic growth...and they've been in effect for the last eight years or so...where are the jobs?

Because socialism.

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by dungeonguy88 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've had a bit of a question nibbling away at the back of my mind about this issue...if said tax cuts are supposed to encourage job/economic growth...and they've been in effect for the last eight years or so...where are the jobs?

And you should be asking that question, particularly for tax "cuts" given to the very wealthy. There are far more stimulative things than tax cuts for people who have the option of not spending money (but might have a little fun driving up speculation in markets). Even those publically pushing the absurdity that an extra $6000/year is going to make a very rich person hire someone will admit behind the scene that they're not stimulative.

This is what happens when ideology trumps reality and political aspirations trump actually giving a damn about this country.

---------- Post added 12-07-2010 at 03:47 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by FreeFrag To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh wait, that's right, they expect to take down everyone else with them.

No, they'll move their money offshore and move to Dubai. I hear it's lovely.

They'll be just fine when they finally get done flushing the rest of us down the economic toilet.

Still, there is a ray of hope. I hear even Bernanke has made comments about the dangers of the widening gap between rich and poor.

[dungeonguy88]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because socialism.

I do love direct answers. Speaking plainly I can understand the theoretical reasoning behind implementing the tax cuts in the first place...but the fact that they haven't seemed to deliver after an extended period, makes me think the whole discussion, at large, is dancing on a false premise...Wait, that's not new.

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Still, there is a ray of hope. I hear even Bernanke has made comments about the dangers of the widening gap between rich and poor.

I suppose if the middle class completely disappears, we can always revert back to feudalism...That could be fun.

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because socialism.

Yeah, like all that socialism we had back in the 90s when the tax rates were a little higher and the economy was even worse than now...

Tax rates aren't as much of an issue as you might think, though. It's the rest of the mess called the tax code that causes such anomalies as Warren Buffet paying less of a percentage of his income than his secretary does.

If we don't deal with the deeper mess moving tax rates around is rather like moving deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Arcanist]

It's not just about tax cuts. Big picture, people.

[dungeonguy88]

Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yeah, like all that socialism we had back in the 90s when the tax rates were a little higher and the economy was even worse than now... Tax rates aren't as much of an issue as you might think, though. It's the rest of the mess called the tax code that causes such anomalies as Warren Buffet paying less of a percentage of his income than his secretary does. If we don't deal with the deeper mess moving tax rates around is rather like moving deck chairs on the Titanic.

It's a common issue with so many problems in modern times. When presented with a serious problem, most people think they have two options; find an elegantly simple fix (We just have to do *Blank*), or scrap the whole thing. I think it needs to be conveyed that there is no patch job that can solve this problem, and that simply saying "It's broken, might as well throw it out" are not viable options no matter how much we might wish otherwise. When it comes to tax codes there is a lot of crap we've got to slog through if we want anything put right.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by dungeonguy88 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's a common issue with so many problems in modern times. When presented with a serious problem, most people think they have two options; find an elegantly simple fix (We just have to do *Blank*), or scrap the whole thing. I think it needs to be conveyed that there is no patch job that can solve this problem, and that simply saying "It's broken, might as well throw it out" are not viable options no matter how much we might wish otherwise. When it comes to tax codes there is a lot of crap we've got to slog through if we want anything put right.

I agree, dungeonguy...I'm just not sure who's going to take on the job of communicating this and be able to do it effectively. People's eyes tend to glaze over when you get into the slightest details, and you know any group tasked with cleaning up the tax system is going to be played on by moneyed interests trying to save the perks they've worked so hard to accumulate.

What do you think of the suggestion of removing the deduction for mortgage interest? I can see tweaking this and putting limits on it for sure, but removing it entirely I'm not so sure about. Certainly we can get some revenue there by say, limiting the amount you can write off (writing off all the interest on your McMansion seems a bit silly). But I'm concerned removing it outright will harm the housing sector and do more to drive the middle class down further than they already are.

Plus, I have to be candid and say that as our taxpayer dollars have gone to ensure huge bonuses for a few people, I'm rather pissed at the suggestion that I should have to tighten my belt completely on this issue. Some visible fairness and shared sacrifice has to be going on, but I'm not seeing it...yet.

[miche001]

Just and FYI and a slight rant!

I don't understand how anyone making UNDER $250,000/ year can identify with trickle down economics.

I've been around this mountain more than a few times, and I haven't seen any trickle. Not a damn drop.

I'm no bleeding liberal either. I liked my money when I was kicking $125 G's just like anyone else, however, in the state of this economy the rich aren't suffering. It's the middle class. How could our elected officials use that as leverage (the Dems wanted Obama not to cave either...leaving us SOL, too).

I just don't understand how anyone who is a middle class republican can side with this type of policy when the majority of them don't benefit from it.

The middle class and it's over-extended credit keep this country running for the rich. WE buy so THEY can live. Yet, we're too rich to benefit from government benefits, too poor to ride out a recession without losing our homes, cars and livelihood. Yet, the rich need tax breaks. BS!

You're not wealthy. I wonder: Are middle class republicans siding with policy or with philosophy? Smaller government, "Christian values" (which by the way is a polarizing, bogus tactics they use).

I'm curious if an unemployed, uninsured republican agrees with raising taxes on the middle class or yanking benefits so rich people, that you don't even know, can trickle down on your house payment that's due next month.

Dems are no better. What do they stand for? Where is the evidence? They'd rather engage in power struggles and split their own party than to see the compromise will at least keep the middle class stable.

I'm beginning to believe that the jackass and the elephant are different sides of the same coin, and the people of this country are political casualties.

This two year extension will end right around election time.

Politics AS USUAL. Obama will be a one term president. And because republicans will stubbornly block policies, for the next two years, we will suffer, and the public will want change, and then, we're back to Bush-era politics.

UGH.

[dungeonguy88]

Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I agree, dungeonguy...I'm just not sure who's going to take on the job of communicating this and be able to do it effectively. People's eyes tend to glaze over when you get into the slightest details, and you know any group tasked with cleaning up the tax system is going to be played on by moneyed interests trying to save the perks they've worked so hard to accumulate. What do you think of the suggestion of removing the deduction for mortgage interest? I can see tweaking this and putting limits on it for sure, but removing it entirely I'm not so sure about. Certainly we can get some revenue there by say, limiting the amount you can write off (writing off all the interest on your McMansion seems a bit silly). But I'm concerned removing it outright will harm the housing sector and do more to drive the middle class down further than they already are. Plus, I have to be candid and say that as our taxpayer dollars have gone to ensure huge bonuses for a few people, I'm rather pissed at the suggestion that I should have to tighten my belt completely on this issue. Some visible fairness and shared sacrifice has to be going on, but I'm not seeing it...yet.

It's a shame, usually the ones that actually see and wish to solve the problems are left presenting the least palatable of options. I mean sure they are probably right, but wouldn't it be wonderful if this guy saying he can solve all our problems quickly was right instead. Oddly enough on the issue of people not wanting to hear the details, I can't help but wonder if the media is to blame there as well, to a degree. Anytime I actually begin explaining the steps needed to actually follow through on a goal, I tend to get the same reaction; people conveying that they don't need to know the details Just do it. These aren't just the freakin' details, these are the things you need to do to reach our goal. I have to think it's an occurrence that plagues so many of the brighter minds within the system. Yes, the details are boring, they are also, of course, the part of the plan that actually do anything...I hate explaining logistics.

And there's also the a sense of hyper partisanship that goes on throughout society, not just in politics. Too often, groups take to the idea that it's us or them and act accordingly, assuming that "the other side" is trying to screw them so they need to take all measures possible to screw them over instead, never minding the resulting fallout for themselves and those not even involved in the quarrel. For a more civilized age, we are rather tribal.

EDIT: Rant on miche001.

[miche001]

OH Yeah.

Obama- run internet.
Government control of the media.
Healthcare: (which many unemployed may need)

That does sound a bit socialist, doesn't it? This crisis is forcing us to be more dependent on the government. Maybe the hype re: socialism is true. Soon the US and the EU will be one big global government.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Booko
	Yeah, like all that socialism we had back in the 90s when the tax rates were a little higher and the economy was even worse than now

errrr, what metrics are you using to judge the 90's worse than now, cause I don't see it given the housing bust, the financial instruments created and what not ?

[freeeekyyy]

Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No, Social Security didn't exist before the New Deal. And there were a lot of starving elderly people unable to work. That's why we have Social Security. The alternative it to have large families, which is what non-industrialized nations do. Something by way of Social Security seems to make more sense to me, as opposed to doing anything to increase the global population at a faster rate. Anyway, as to the tax compromise, the Prez is having a news conferences on that right now.

I don't necessarily disagree with the concept of social security, but it's unsustainable. Why can't people create private funds that they contribute to, and can then draw out of after retirement? It could even be cooperative, multiple people contribute and then they can all withdraw from it. There's no need to get the government involved.