Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!
FilmFestGuy;1058920081]
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_690596.html
They've got money, but they're not hiring. By your philosophy, they should automatically be hiring, right? Because they have money? Lots of it, even. So, why aren't they hiring?
They aren't hiring because the only thing that will get them hiring is if there is high enough demand for their products that they are required to hire more workers to keep up.
I wonder who "they" are and I wonder if I was in their position not knowing what my taxes were going to be would hire either. then there is the healthcare costs that will kick in. I believe that 80% of the businesses in this country are small businesses and not those evil corporations. They seem to be the ones not hiring either. I think you are on to something however if we could only find a way to increase demand for products. Wonder what kind of program would put more money into spenders's hands?
Yes, there were tax cuts for all levels - but the benefit was most largely laid at the feet of the wealthiest.
It didn't produce results for basically anyone else:
Income Gaps Hit Record Levels In 2006, New Data Show — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
So then the bureau of economic analysis isn't a credible source? I wish someone would give me credible sources for economic data.
Interesting article you gave me but wonder why it took data from 1979 to 2006 sand stopped at 2006. I always get confused when I hear about income gap and blame that on taxes. Aren't taxes something paid after income in earned? How would takes have anything to do with income gaps? Call me confused. I wonder if maybe lower taxes would help put money into the hands of people to create demand? I still think BEA must have it wrong because they show economic growth of over 4.5 trilloin dollars in the Bush 8 years which is the highest in U.S. history. how can that be?
See here (amongst meaning places):
CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
CBO and CBPP both agree with me. The Bush tax cuts drove up the deficit. In fact, even one of your own admits that tax cuts expand the deficit.
Well then the U.S. Treasury which is the checkbook of the country got it wrong as they show tax revenue going up AFTER the tax rate cuts. I don't know how that can be. I always trusted CBO too until I read somewhere that their projections are seldom right as evidenced by their projections with the Obama stimulus. Oh, well, they probably only got it wrong with Obama and not Bush. I just don't understand it though so help me. According to official numbers, unless you have a better source and I am waiting for OC to give me a better source, the Treasury Dept. shows revenue going up after the tax cuts so call me confused but how could anything that grows revenue cause deficits?
Now I have a different take on Cantor's comments but could be wrong and of course you be right, but the fact is we have 16 million unemployed Americans today. I was surprised that is up over 3 million since Obama signed his stimulus plan and those unemployed people aren't getting any tax cuts but also aren't paying any taxes. Without those tax payers and all that spending it would seem to me that tax revenue will indeed drop and create larger deficits. Now I wonder what is going to happen when they raise taxes and how we get those 16 million unemployed back to work paying taxes. Any ideas? Seems McConnell however agrees with the U.S. Treasury that tax revenue didn't drop with the tax cuts, maybe because we had more people paying taxes?
No, and your partisanship is showing here by mischaracterizing everything I'm trying to say instead of trying to debate points. I like my money and my family is making more than we ever have and both recently got raises. I hope to be one of the top 20% of earners one day as I further and further advance in my career.
My partisanship? You mean my screenname gives me away? Good for you, making more money than you ever made? How about those poor less fortunate? Are you sending more money to the govt. to help solve the problem? What exactly do you do with all that money you are making? Maybe you can give some hints to the rich because obviously as has been stated by others they don't spend their money. Good luck on being in that top 20% so you can contribute more money to the govt. I hope you make it as I will be looking for you to help me help solve the poverty problem.
The point about the various levels of income-earners is this: I'm referring to tax cuts as short-term stimulus. It has to go to people who will spend it. Saving it doesn't do anything for the economy. Period.
Now I hadn't thought about that, savings doesn't help the economy at all? I thought that savings went to banks who lent that money to people to buy homes, make home repairs, build businesses. I wonder where the banks get that money if it doesn't come from savings? You are probably right however about the short term benefits of tax cuts. My bet is that when you get more of your own money in each pay check that it probably gets boring and you stop spending after a while as you probably don't outgrow things and don't need anything after you purchased everything you want. The of course there is that little savings thing that you don't like. Remember SS will be there for you so no need to put money aside for retirement.
I would return tax rates to Clinton level rates (let the Bush cuts expire) for the top two income levels. I would lower the rate slightly on the bottom earning levels. For the top tiers (more likely to be business owners), I would give a tax-break for each new-hire (full-time with benefits only) all the way to the point where they can have an effective rate of 0% - as long as they hire people and purchase equipment.
Why just the Clinton levels, the govt. needs the money badly? Let's raise them back to the Carter levels. Sounds a little complicated having different levels of taxes for different levels of income especially when businesses don't know from year to year how much they will be making. Then there is that little issue of healthcare taxes that are going to hit. Wonder if your incentive to hire will offset that expense? Then there is that little equipment issue and depreciation expense. Businesses really don't need to write off depreciation. I wish Businesses would be more patriotic and give more to the govt. to really help give tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes.
Again, I'm not talking about tax rate: if at the end of the fiscal year, they show that they increased their full-time payroll, then they earn tax benefits - and for me - I would be willing to let that go all the way to no tax, as long as they hire people.
Sounds like a great idea, just think of the govt. employees we could hire and have the taxpayers pay for to monitor business hiring. I sure hope that tax credit offsets the rising costs of business including I am sure you would want a liveable wage for those employees plus their healthcare benefits. How about retirement, 401K, dental, and eye glasses?
I actually read your column before (it's an opinion piece, not an article) you linked it here and I disagree.
You are probably right, the rich will just sit back and do their patriotic duty and pay those higher taxes. I know that NY just passed a millionaires tax to raise revenue. Wonder how that is working out for the state? I was surprised to see the IRS reporting lower revenue from the rich when tax rates were raised. Wonder why?
The rich do spend. The top 1% spend a lot. The problem is, they don't need stimulus to do it. The effect of a tax cut has little to do with them, because their earnings are so high. They are already capable of spending as much as they want.
I know but since it is there money, think it is right to take it from them? Probably so as they have a duty to pay for those who can work but choose not to as well as to keep up their charitable giving like they do when they had more spendable income. I was amazed at home much money I had to give to charity when my spendable income was higher. Oh, well, I can send it to someone in D.C. and let them divy it out to some other state and not my local community. We are all Americans right?
As far as the infrastructure: do you deny that Wal-Mart uses American infrastructure more than your insurance agent does? Does a business man who takes meetings on both coasts use the infrastructure more than the clerk at your local Hardees?
Absolutely, they have all those polluting trucks on the road stopping in those truck stops buying that high priced diesel fuel and paying use taxes on every gallon. I thought that excise taxes on gasoline and diesel was supposed to pay for infrastructure expenses but I could be wrong. How about finding out for me?
It's not crazy. It's crazy obvious that large corporations and wealthy financiers frequently use a much larger share of infrastructure than the average work-a-day individual. I don't touch an interstate to get to my three-person office + one intern office.
You are probably right large corporations and wealthy financeirs deserve to pay more because they obviously take more from the poor people and offer nothing of value to the community or their employees. I always wondered about those corporate taxes though because I don't recall ever seeing a corporation in the grocery store? I wonder where that money goes?
Please explain to me how the Bush tax cuts were good when most people had basically zero income growth from 2000 to present (and that includes 2000-2006, when Republicans controlled everything).
I wish I could answer that question but don't know where you got that data. Sure seems unlikely to me that people with more spendable income made less money. I don't believe Bush was in office in 2000 when we went into recession but could be wrong. He may have been creating policy from the state house in TX. Zero income growth, huh? Let me know where I can find that information. NOw I know some blog or site can provide that for us. Let me know when you get the answer.
(Sorry that took so long, a friend stopped by).
And please, let's stick to facts and not make assumptions. In no way do I think income belongs to the government. It is earned by individuals for their work, product, or services provided. But taxes are a necessary evil for our government to run. When you say things like that, you're relying on stereotypes. I would prefer to have a debate about numbers, philosophies, and facts. Not assumptions based on stereotypes given us by talking heads. These things can be open to interpretation and there are differing ideas. That's what our country is about.
[/QUOTE]
No problem, friends are more important that educating me. Are you sure about that, you had me convinced that the govt. needs the money more than the individuals. Taxes aren't evil at all and it seems to make sense that we send all our money to the govt. and let them give us back what they think we need. That way everyone would be in the same boat.
I don't know I think those talking heads on MSNBC, CNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS are much smarter than me and I particularly like the way they destroyed President Bush because Bush deserved it and how they are doing their best to help Obama because the country is in worse shape due to Bush. I was just shocked at how everyone told me how stupid Bush was that he was able to do so much damage especially with a Democrat Congress. He fooled them all and I am just sick about it.