The Compromise - Page 6 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

kip Foss · #76 12-08-2010, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffa98

The only way to do it fairly would be to get rid of all the loopholes currently in place, Mortgage deduction, etc etc. The only thing in "MY" plan that could be deducted would be education(college) other than that nada. Take the gross income multiply by .1 send it in.

Think of the money that could be saved by not having to employ the 1000's of irs agents to police the returns.

As far as capital gains- Most people do not realise that that money is taxed at least 3 times......When does it stop??

Think of the unemployment: accountants, CPAs and tax preparers, tax form printers, paper and ink makers, the shipping industry, tax attorneys, IRS agents, and all the other associated with gathering taxes.

aklim · #77 12-09-2010, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I would be a MOST benevolent dictator. I am old enough that my testosterone levels have dropped; I bear no one any ill, ( well almost no one).
Trust me- I would make a great ruler of the world.

Not sure what show I saw but one guy said to someone else: Do you know how they say "Fawk You"? "Trust Me".

MS Fowler · #78 12-09-2010, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Not sure what show I saw but one guy said to someone else: Do you know how they say "Fawk You"? "Trust Me".

Trust me; I am not like other people.
Make me the benevolent dictator and I will be able to show you hjow much you can trust me.
Trust me.

SwampYankee · #79 12-09-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kip Foss

Think of the unemployment: accountants, CPAs and tax preparers, tax form printers, paper and ink makers, the shipping industry, tax attorneys, IRS agents, and all the other associated with gathering taxes.

Too big to fail?

MTUpower · #80 12-09-2010, 07:01 PM

I've read the thread but won't comment of on it's content. I do have to say that while I don't agree with the total republican view of tax cut extensions, I'm glad BHO did what he did. It does two things: it helps the economy, and moves him closer to the center. It was the latter that was impressive to me- he pissed off the far left and moved more right.

MS Fowler · #81 12-09-2010, 08:11 PM

It may be as you say; it certainly looks that way on the surface.
However, I am not convinced. I think it was a shrewd, calculated politicval move. It gets the extension of unemployment benefits right now for which he can take credit.
But the 2 year extension isn't enough time for busines to plan. Most businesses run 5 years or more ahead of today, so a 2 year repeive isn't much, although it is something. However, it gives the dems the ability to run against tax cuts in 2010---Because I do not believe it is a long enough extension tpo satisfy the business community, there is likely to be no stimuls to the economy. That sets up the 2012 election so the dems can say "We tried tax cuts, and they didn't work"
Shrewd!

Local2ED · #82 12-09-2010, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

It may be as you say; it certainly looks that way on the surface.
However, I am not convinced. I think it was a shrewd, calculated politicval move. It gets the extension of unemployment benefits right now for which he can take credit.
But the 2 year extension isn't enough time for busines to plan. Most businesses run 5 years or more ahead of today, so a 2 year repeive isn't much, although it is something. However, it gives the dems the ability to run against tax cuts in 2010---Because I do not believe it is a long enough extension tpo satisfy the business community, there is likely to be no stimuls to the economy. That sets up the 2012 election so the dems can say "We tried tax cuts, and they didn't work"
Shrewd!

So a two year extension isn't enough time for a business to plan on hiring people yet ten years of tax cuts and business was still uncertain about producing those jobs that would only materialize if they were to keep the tax cuts. I'll ask the question again, how many years of tax cuts to the upper 2% until their can produce those mythical jobs?

kip Foss · #83 12-09-2010, 09:37 PM

As I understand it the Bush tax cut for the rich applies to personal income not business profits. If this is the case it precludes 'trickle down economics' since generally money to operate a business and therefore hire employees comes from a bank and not out of the owner's personal account.

Secondly, there is no need for business to hire new employees if the buying population does not have any money. No demand requires no supply.

Both the Reagan and Bush sr. administrations proved that trickle down economics does not work. The extra money that the upper 2% of the population will have from this tax gift will not be funneled directly to the unemployed. I dare say the majority will be banked or invested in the stock market. Neither of these options will put any money into the populous and without money in consumer's hands there will be no demand for goods.

Local2ED · #84 12-09-2010, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kip Foss

As I understand it the Bush tax cut for the rich applies to personal income not business profits. If this is the case it precludes 'trickle down economics' since generally money to operate a business and therefore hire employees comes from a bank and not out of the owner's personal account.

Secondly, there is no need for business to hire new employees if the buying population does not have any money. No demand requires no supply.

Both the Reagan and Bush sr. administrations proved that trickle down economics does not work. The extra money that the upper 2% of the population will have from this tax gift will not be funneled directly to the unemployed. I dare say the majority will be banked or invested in the stock market. Neither of these options will put any money into the populous and without money in consumer's hands there will be no demand for goods.

Maybe I misunderstood their argument somewhere but I thought the top 2% of the earners had said they were responsible for job creation,ie. small business, could be wrong though.

kip Foss · #85 12-10-2010, 12:14 AM

They may well be responsible for job creation but the money for that creation comes from banks and not their personal income. That is the reason companies are incorporated, to shield personal assets from business failures.

Billybob · #86 12-10-2010, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kip Foss

They may well be responsible for job creation but the money for that creation comes from banks and not their personal income. That is the reason companies are incorporated, to shield personal assets from business failures.

I wonder where the banks get their money from and where rich people put the personal incomes?

kip Foss · #87 12-10-2010, 12:42 AM

As I explained earlier the rich can put all the money they have into the bank or stock market and business can borrow all the money they want from these sources but if there is no money in the pockets of the consumer how is business/industry going to sell their product. Demand and supply-it is basic capitalism.

MS Fowler · #88 12-10-2010, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kip Foss

Both the Reagan and Bush sr. administrations proved that trickle down economics does not work. The extra money that the upper 2% of the population will have from this tax gift will not be funneled directly to the unemployed. I dare say the majority will be banked or invested in the stock market. Neither of these options will put any money into the populous and without money in consumer's hands there will be no demand for goods.

If it was "proved" that trickle down economics does work, please explain why tax revenues--the money collected by the treasury, INCREASED under Reagan, and his tax cuts.

Trickle down is the only theory of economics that does work, long term. Increased government spending does not. The Keynesian economics are wrong. The Austrian school more accurately mirrors reality.

Chas H · #89 12-10-2010, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

If it was "proved" that trickle down economics does work, please explain why tax revenues--the money collected by the treasury, INCREASED under Reagan, and his tax cuts.

Trickle down is the only theory of economics that does work, long term. Increased government spending does not. The Keynesian economics are wrong. The Austrian school more accurately mirrors reality.

Revenues increased because of inflation and a general increase in population. If revenues did actually increase why did Reagan's successor find it neccessary to increase taxes, even after his famous gaffe of "read my lips"?
Reagan might have made things work if he had reduced spending to equal the tax cuts, but he didn't. After all the hand wringing about the national debt and the deficit, you'd think some of the those doing the whining would realize it was Reagan that set the ship of state sailing on its present course.

SwampYankee · #90 12-10-2010, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Local2ED

I'll ask the question again, how many years of tax cuts to the upper 2% until their can produce those mythical jobs?

I don't have an answer other than we've hired a salesman, an office manager and three sales representatives (although technically not employees) within the past two years. It may not seem like much unless you consider we only had 23 FT employees before the new additions. We're lucky to be diversified enough, even as a small company dealing with Ag products, to not be doing poorly right now (which should not be confused with doing well, "flat" is the new "up"). Many segments of the economy are getting hammered by the current economy. Will a tax increase to the upper 2%, which includes many small business owners at the low end of that threshold, help produce more jobs?

Maybe I'm missing something (I'm not the brightest bulb in the drawer

), but aren't the "Bush Tax Cuts" just a halting of a tax increase rather than an actual reduction in taxes. IOW, they're not a reduction from an existing level but rather a temporary measure to prevent an increase? It might be semantics but it's not unlike the reduction of an increase being touted as a cut. Technically yes, but not really.

I don't know how much it's changed since '05, but then the Top 1.5% earned $250,000+ even though that $250K number is bandied about in the 2% discussion (maybe that is the threshold now?). Which, if correct, would mean the Top 2% is somewhere in the $225,000 range+. I submit there is a huge difference between $225K/yr. (or $250K/yr.) and $1MM/year+ despite being lumped together in the same category. Small business owners taking home $250K/yr. are going to feel that hit far more than the multimillionaire corporate CEO's yet somehow their lumped into that "greedy" Top 2%. And if we're counting on small business to provide the jobs to get us out of this mess that ought to at least give pause.