GOP 2012, Class Warrior edition

TurtleDude said:

remind me what the employment level is right now and what the deficit is

Click to expand...

And that substitutes for you failing to offer proof and verifiable evidence for your claims? That is absurd.

Tell us what Obama wants to do that harms business. This should be good.

From the first time somebody wanted to put one regulation or tax on business over a century ago I suspect that sort of loud whine went up over and over again. And it has not stopped. But like the Proud Mary, big business keeps on turning... out a profit..... more than ever. Funny how reality works that way.

Deuce said:

Spoken like someone who has never been in charge of hiring people.

I'm not hiring right now, and it's not for a lack of money. It's for a lack of demand. Customers are the job creators.

Click to expand...

My company is not hiring people either. It is also because of a lack of demand for product. We DO have a few customers who are purchasing air conditioning systems, but they are just about ALL at the top income brackets. That is not a lot of people purchasing product. Almost nobody at the lower income brackets is purchasing equipment from us or anybody else. There were some tax incentives for anybody who bought 16 SEER or higher systems, but those incentives have run out, and Congress has not renewed them.

Moreover, because people at the bottom are seeing decreases in their standard of living, despite having full time jobs, food stamp expenditures in Texas for people who are working are skyrocketing, and that's government expenditures too. Seems that our whole economic system has gone out of balance. Why? Because fewer people are buying than before. Couple that with all the people getting into the workforce these days, and I can hear people in my town saying "Houston, we have a problem".

It's a supply and demand problem. There is plenty of supply, but no demand, which is why we are where we are. So how do we increase demand for products? That's a tough one. But I can tell you now that, no matter how much you decrease the corporate tax rate, it will still not have an effect unless people are buying product. Go ahead, make the corporate tax rate zero. They are still not going to hire anybody unless there is a demand which causes them to start up assembly lines to make what is being demanded. The results of the Bush tax cuts have already proven this.

So how do we cause the demand to spike? That is the 64 dollar question.

Get into the central AC biz?

Go to people houses and fry out their AC in mass numbers

danarhea said:

My company is not hiring people either. It is also because of a lack of demand for product. We DO have a few customers who are purchasing air conditioning systems, but they are just about ALL at the top income brackets. That is not a lot of people purchasing product. Almost nobody at the lower income brackets is purchasing equipment from us or anybody else. There were some tax incentives for anybody who bought 16 SEER or higher systems, but those incentives have run out, and Congress has not renewed them.

Moreover, because people at the bottom are seeing decreases in their standard of living, despite having full time jobs, food stamp expenditures in Texas for people who are working are skyrocketing, and that's government expenditures too. Seems that our whole economic system has gone out of balance. Why? Because fewer people are buying than before. Couple that with all the people getting into the workforce these days, and I can hear people in my town saying "Houston, we have a problem".

It's a supply and demand problem. There is plenty of supply, but no demand, which is why we are where we are. So how do we increase demand for products? That's a tough one. But I can tell you now that, no matter how much you decrease the corporate tax rate, it will still not have an effect unless people are buying product. Go ahead, make the corporate tax rate zero. They are still not going to hire anybody unless there is a demand which causes them to start up assembly lines to make what is being demanded. The results of the Bush tax cuts have already proven this.

So how do we cause the demand to spike? That is the 64 dollar question.

Click to expand...

Seems like you provided your own answer, at least for your industry. The government incentive program boosted demand somewhat. Generally stimulus is needed to boost demand, but there's not much that Congress will approve beyond the payroll tax cuts. Conclusion: the economy will heal itself, but it's going to take a long time. Things won't be right again until the housing market shakes out and there is still a ton of foreclosed stock and underwater home owners.

AdamT said:

Seems like you provided your own answer, at least for your industry. The government incentive program boosted demand somewhat. Generally stimulus is needed to boost demand, but there's not much that Congress will approve beyond the payroll tax cuts. Conclusion: the economy will heal itself, but it's going to take a long time. Things won't be right again until the housing market shakes out and there is still a ton of foreclosed stock and underwater home owners.

Click to expand...

The government incentive program for high efficiency a/c units was really only useful for the rich. I bought an entire new heating and a/c system for my house when the rebate was still in effect. I did the math and determined that it was not worth it to buy the high efficiency system. Even with the rebate, the added cost of the high efficiency system would not pay back the added cost for at least 10 years. The life expectancy of the system is not much longer than that so it was a no-brainer. I went with a lower efficiency unit that cost over a third less than the high efficiency unit with the rebate.

Low and middle income people could not afford the high efficiency systems that had a rebate unless they used their retirement savings or took out a loan.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%. In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[17] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[17][18][19] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.[/quote]
- 1979 to 2007 - incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275% (middle class rose 40%)

- 1979 to present - average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000 as the result of tax-cuts

- 1992-2007 - top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

- 2007 to present - despite the econmon recession, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, while that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%.

prediction: these figures will mean nothing to the warriors of the right who will jump to the defense of the top 1 or 2% while continuing to villify everyone else.

- 1979 to 2007 - incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275% (middle class rose 40%)

- 1979 to present - average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000 as the result of tax-cuts

- 1992-2007 - top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

- 2007 -top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.

- 2007 to present - economic recession resulted in a 36.1% drop in median household wealth but only a 11.1% drop for the top 1% (further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%)

- 2002 to 2007 - income of the top 1% grew 10X faster than the income of the bottom 90% with 66% of total income gains going to the 1%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

The "American Dream" has been used for centuries to perpetuated the myth of social upward mobility, when in fact a class system based on wealth has been been firmly established and flourishing for centuries.

This steady shift in wealth into the hands of the top 1% hasn't occured as a matter of chance, almost 50% of the House and Senate are also members of the "millionaire club" and the remainder are not far behind.

Amigo said:

No, cutting taxes on the rich help them run businesses, thus making poor people able to get jobs.

Click to expand...

Please explain! Inquiring minds wish to know; do you understand what you are talking about or did Sean Hannity tell you this?

New report out by the Congressional Research Service on income inequality.

Bottom line:

While earnings inequality increased between 1996 and 2006, this was not the major source of increasing
income inequality over this period. Capital gains and dividends were a larger share of total
income in 2006 than in 1996 (especially for high-income taxpayers) and were more unequally
distributed in 2006 than in 1996. Changes in capital gains and dividends were the largest
contributor to the increase in the overall income inequality. Taxes were less progressive in 2006
than in 1996, and consequently, tax policy also contributed to the increase in income inequality
between 1996 and 2006. But overall income inequality would likely have increased even in the
absence of tax policy changes.

Click to expand...

Changes in the Distribution of Income Among Tax Filers Between 1996 and 2006: The Role of Labor Income, Capital Income, and Tax Policy Thomas L. Hungerford Specialist in Public Finance December 29, 2011
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42131.pdf

tessaesque said:

I think if we initiate an isolated tax increase there will be an effort to create uncertainty that will then plague those lower down the rungs. We will see a general "tightening of the purse strings" from those in the 99, 85, 50% classifications as they worry that the rich being required to pay more will "trickle down" to more lost jobs or wages which remain stagnant for the next several years. It will slow economic growth and stall the recession as people begin to worry that these "losses" will be passed down the line and affect the "middle class".

Click to expand...

That's what some have said every time tax increases are proposed. Its never happened after the tax increases were made. The trickle down that was supposed to happen, ain't happening. Its staying at the top and being invested in jobs for other countries.

Lets look at some important where, what and how questions:

Where are the jobs that were supposed to have been created during the last decade of tax cuts to the so called "job creators"???

What is the incentive for the working class to keep voting for people that only give tax cuts to those at the top???

How gullible do you think the working class are that they would keep voting contrary to their economic interest???

If the Bush Tax Cuts Have Failed at Job Creation, Why Are So-Called "Job Creators" Still Fighting for Them?

"Lowering taxes on "job-creators" has not produced jobs. Period. Lowering them further is unlikely to have a different result. To call taxes "job-killing" is Republican doublespeak, as is calling anyone who makes more than a million dollars a "job creator," hedge fund managers taking home multi-billion dollar paychecks included. As it turns out, the Bush tax cuts were job-killers.

Looking back at recent history, it would seem that job growth is highest when tax rates are higher and when taxes get cut, jobs disappear. If this was not the case, then the last decade of Bush tax cuts would have produced jobs, not hemorrhaged them. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, under President Clinton from January 1993 to January 2001 the nation gained 22.7 million total jobs. During Bush's eight years in office (January 2001 to January 2009) the nation actually gained a net 1.08 million jobs but because there were gains in government jobs (small government be damned!) the private sector actually lost 653,000 jobs during that period."

Robbie Gennet: If the Bush Tax Cuts Have Failed at Job Creation, Why Are So-Called "Job Creators" Still Fighting for Them?

Romney’s tax plan would cut his own taxes by nearly half, new analysis finds

"The revelation that Mitt Romney pays a tax rate of around 15 percent opens the door to another question: How much would his own taxes fall under the tax plan he would pass if elected president?

Here’s the answer, according to a new analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice that was provided to me this morning. Under his plan, Romney in 2013 would see his taxes cut by nearly half of what they would be if you use current law as a baseline."

Romney’s tax plan would cut his own taxes by nearly half, new analysis finds - The Plum Line - The Washington Post


At least voters will have a clear choice in November!