Why did Democrats agree to $1 in tax increases for every $3 in spending cuts during the GHW Bush Administration and then renege on the spending cuts?
Explain to me how tax increases put 25 million unemployed or under employed Americans back to work full time paying full taxes?
Who pays those tax increases and does that change the 70 million income earning Americans who pay zero in Federal Income taxes forcing them to pay something?
Answer those to my satisfaction and I will agree with tax increases
But I disagree with the notion that, with regards to hiring at least, a tax credit =/= a tax cut. In both cases the business owner is being given back money by the gov't. In BOTH cases it is entirely possible for the business owner to simply pocket/save the money and not hire the workers if the marginal efficiency of investment is simply not worth it.
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
You need to get over your obsession with people who aren't paying income taxes. Most of them are poor/unemployed, students, or elderly/retired people. You've previously stated that you are retired. I guess we can assume, then, that you are primarily living on benefits and capital gains, and thus paying an exceptionally low rate?
I would only add that this is more true of established business. Most businesses don't turn a profit until after year five. Once this has been achieved capital investment into new equipment is easier than hiring. Prior to that, hiring is the best way to manage growth.
For this reason, growth among smaller businesses is percentage wise, exponentially higher than that of established business, and why most job creation is with small business, not large corps.
You don't seem to get it, over 65 million INCOME EARNERS9(NOT UNEMPLOYED) aren't paying ANY FIT because of tax laws yet your obsession is raising taxes on the employers and rich people as if they aren't going to change their behavior with less personal income due to tax hikes. What you don't seem to understand is that we don't need a 3.7 trillion dollar govt.
Haven't seen an answer to the questions posed, not surprising because the answer would destroy your argument.
In any case, of course raising taxes increases revenue. We saw that very clearly under Clinton, and we saw very clearly under Reagan and Bush that cutting taxes reduces revenue.
You seemt be arguing against yourself. On the one hand you complain because x number of people aren't paying taxes, and then you complain that taxes should not be reaised. Which is it?
What you really seem to be saying is that we should cut taxes for the rich and increase taxes on the poor and middle class. Isn't that right? And that, of course, WOULD reduce consumer demand, because the poor and middle class have comparativel little (or no) disposable income. Raise their taxes and it will translate directly to reduced consumption. The same is not true of very wealthy people who have more disposable income than they typically utilize.
I have answered your question on whether we need a $3.7 trillion government at least three times now and you simply refuse to acknowledge it because you have no answer to my response.