Republican Governor learns his tax cuts for the rich didn't work

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Answer
So, punitive taxes, still on a Progressive sliding scale.

It's about taxing people at a rate that makes sense to boost the economy.

Please cite some examples of countries "taxing themselves into prosperity ?" Also, how does withdrawing from the monetary supply, slowing capital flow, and halting money velocity increases the economy ? With that kind of thinking, the U.S. GDP should be well into 20-30 trillion a year when considering the 2.8-3.5 trillion dollar yearly revenue income of the federal government over last several decades.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

The core issue, as you cling to, is that too many people are dependent on the Govt stealing from someone else to offset their life choices. Those safety nets, that you champion, are funded via theft.

And funny thing, is you completely move from actually addressing my statement about Gates and Buffet and go directly to butt-hurt mode.

Will you address the statement??? I don't think I will hold my breath, as Progressives typically will avoid truths like this.

So much nonsense Mac..

I'll do you this favor on Gates and Buffet.

You accuse them of hypocrisy because they both employ and deride the corrupt policy, accounting loop-holes that the wealthy class has purchased for themselves from politicians.

That line of thinking confuses me.

Gates, Buffet and Zuckerberg are the wealthiest people on the planet.
They are "self made", indisputably brilliant men and have changed the world they lived in.

The donate massive sums to charitable causes right now and have all pledged to give away their fortunes before they die or at the time of their death.

They also very precisely have explained that US tax Policy is rigged to favor the wealthy, like themselves.

You are angry at them because they use those legal and unfair accounting measures and tax policy for the wealthiest that have been bought and paid for from politicians.....while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that those loop-holes and unfair advantages exist?

How the hell do you reconcile that?

And they...unlike the Kochs (family money) et al. are actually admitting that the system is rigged in their favor and speaking out for change? hypocrisy or honesty?

What you seem to be asking them to do is quietly pay more in taxes at their leisure, but stay quite and let the rest of the worlds wealthy elite continue to further exploit and use the corrupt political system.

And...SO...Again...get rid of safety net programs...reduce defense spending to a minimum....and we still have taxes....and a system that is rigged to favor the wealthy and a subsequent shrinking middle class and growing poor population. What then Mac? Whatever the money circulating..whatever the amount in taxes...if the system is biased to accumulate money where money is already concentrated...then we are on our way to Oligarch Monarchial Rule...the wealthy and the peasant class of the old world.

You attack on Buffet, Gates et al. acknowledges the faulted/corrupt tax policy...but only suggest less taxes, not fixing the corruption.

it makes no sense.

a reply to: Indigo5

So why is Buffett fighting the government on taxes the government says his company owes?

Oh...and since the evil Koch Brothers were mentioned....their charitable giving rivals that of Buffett.

a reply to: Indigo5

It makes perfect sense. You are just pitching it as such, to accommodate your stance in using them as some shining example.

Very simple.

They have made billions...decry the tax policies as unfair to everyone else...pay people millions to find those tax policy loopholes...use said loopholes...and continue to make money.

There is no stopping them from paying more money into taxes OR not using the loopholes.

Hypocrites. Just like every other Progressive.

a reply to: Indigo5

And who the hell said I was angry they are using the tax code?

I pointed out that they are hypocrites. And you champion them, go figure.

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: Answer


I didn't say it's fair. I'm saying it's necessary to restore the U.S. economy.

No it isn't.
Taxation does not lead to Country based prosperity. You're right, restoring the middle class will lead to prosperity but that's not possible under the current system.
Taking from some is not the answer. I certainly hope it isn't. The problem is, we're in a sinking ship and we need an answer that's realistic, not an idealistic wet dream that will never work in the real world.

originally posted by: Answer
Allow me to extend an olive branch... I would love to have a system that didn't require ridiculous levels of taxation but this is the boat we're in. If we could eliminate the majority of social programs, reduce the size of the federal government, and do what's needed to greatly reduce taxes, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, it's not that easy.

It is easy. Just need people in Govt that actually abide by the Constitution. Good luck with that. Again, we need an answer that is based in reality.
It is just as easy to do as raise taxes on people. No, it's really not.

originally posted by: Answer
I'm not advocating a tax increase because of some noble idea of fairness. I'm simply looking at the situation and considering a rational fix.

Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. You keep referring to my idea as simply "raising taxes." My idea would raise taxes on those who simply accumulate wealth without directly contributing to job growth. As the rich get richer, the economy suffers because they do not proportionately contribute to economic growth. They horde money and invest in whatever gets them the best returns, often doing even further damage to the economy. These same people are influencing politicians to keep passing more loopholes for them. I am NOT proposing a tax increase on job creators and I'm actually proposing a massive tax decrease for the upper-middle class and below. Raise taxes on the people who are simply accumulating greater wealth and reduce taxes for people who are working or providing jobs so those people can A) spend more to boost the economy and B) expand their business to hire more people. We all know that the economy thrives when people are able to spend more. More spending leads to job creation. I have nothing against building wealth but to do it at the detriment of the middle class, thereby destroying the economy, should be considered a criminal act.

If we move toward removing the ultra-wealthy's ability to influence politics, we'll all benefit. We are now living in an Aristocratic Oligarchy, not a Representative Republic and without drastic measures, it's only going to get worse.

a reply to: Answer

So, raise taxes on the rich and all is well.

Sounds like every other Progressive and Big Govt pitch.

SO much for equality for all.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Answer

So, raise taxes on the rich and all is well.

Sounds like every other Progressive and Big Govt pitch.

SO much for equality for all.

You either have a blind agenda or your reading comprehension is not so great.

Tell me what, exactly, about our current system suggests "equality for all"???? The middle class is disappearing while the ultra-wealthy continue to gain more wealth that does absolutely nothing for the economy.

I'm asking for a return to a system that would allow wealth equality in our country. We've had a working system before and our country was thriving. In the 70's, the wage gap started growing immensely and it continues to grow. Am I asking for the rich to not be rich? No... I'm asking for the ultra-rich to take the burden off of the job-creators and middle class so the economy can survive. A good economy benefits EVERYONE but, currently, the wealthy aren't concerned because they'll continue to live large while the rest of the nation suffers... right up until it's too late and it all comes crashing down.

You're going to keep complaining about "Progressives" and "Big Government" right up until poverty becomes the norm and the only classes left are the ultra-rich and the peasants. The wealthy "conservatives" have certainly trained you well. You champion the cause of the extremely wealthy because they've ingrained in you that any attempt to restore the middle class is pure Socialism. Propaganda at its finest.

originally posted by: Indigo5


Gates, Buffet and Zuckerberg are the wealthiest people on the planet.
They are "self made", indisputably brilliant men and have changed the world they lived in.

The donate massive sums to charitable causes right now and have all pledged to give away their fortunes before they die or at the time of their death.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Answer

That is the thing. It isn't equal or fair right now.

The system, is operating under the Progressive based sliding scale.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Answer
So, punitive taxes, still on a Progressive sliding scale.

It's about taxing people at a rate that makes sense to boost the economy.

Please cite some examples of countries "taxing themselves into prosperity ?" Also, how does withdrawing from the monetary supply, slowing capital flow, and halting money velocity increases the economy ? With that kind of thinking, the U.S. GDP should be well into 20-30 trillion a year when considering the 2.8-3.5 trillion dollar yearly revenue income of the federal government over last several decades.

When you take one line out of context, it's easy to get confused.

I never said we should tax people into prosperity. I advocated a tax system that would remove a large part of the tax burden from job creators, the upper-middle class and below. I advocated higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy who do not contribute to job growth. What I actually advocated was a system to boost the middle class, thereby allowing for economic recovery.

Every single action taken by the ultra-wealthy to grow the economy and contribute to job growth should be tax deductible. Those who simply accumulate wealth while not contributing should bear a larger burden without massive loopholes that allow them to pay a lower percentage of income tax than the average wage earner.

The growing wage gap is destroying the economy. A corporate executive making tens of millions of dollars annually while the same company's average wage earner is making 35k a year just does not make rational sense and it's clearly not the road to prosperity.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Indigo5

So why is Buffett fighting the government on taxes the government says his company owes?

Berkshire Hathaway’s disagreement with the IRS's assessment has nothing whatsoever to do with Warren Buffett’s observation that he is personally under-taxed.

If Berkshire Hathaway’s Board of Directors and Corporate Officers believe that the IRS assessment is incorrect and that Berkshire Hathaway does not owe the taxes the IRS claims it does, they would be breaching their fiduciary duty to the shareholders if they did not dispute it. It happens every day in corporate America.

Oh...and since the evil Koch Brothers were mentioned....their charitable giving rivals that of Buffett.

Nope...Buffet holds the world record for charitable giving (annually).

Warren Buffett has bested his own personal philanthropy record once again, donating $2.8 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and several other charities as part of his annual giving pledge. The gifts given Monday top last year’s $2.6 billion donation.

www.forbes.com...

Lifetime Charitable Donations...#1 Gates at 30 Billion, #2 Buffet at 20 Billion
I can't even find the Kochs on the Forbes top 50 list
www.forbes.com...

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: NavyDoc

We already have the highest corporate income tax in the world, guess what, corporations are going overseas to places like Ireland and Singapore where people want those businesses.

If this is true then why are foreigners eager to open factories here in the sates? Taxes isn't what makes these companies move overseas greed is the reason.

These people have created the very problem that they are complaining about.

The only reason why people is crying that there is a problem is because everyone bought into the propaganda the "evil rich" paid for their media to put out to the public. Before NAFTA and the other "free trade" agreements that ruined our economy the government stuck it to the rich and guess what happened? They still got rich. So they could still keep the companies here in the states and pay the higher taxes and still make a great profit but that isn't enough to satisfy the "evil rich".

The factories are in the US because it is cheaper to build a product where it is going and get the cheap foreign labour to come to us rather to build it elsewhere and then ship it over and face both the expense of the actual shipping and tariffs associated with it. However, the corporation, the money central, stays overseas.

You missed out a very very important bit - I added it in for you in bold print.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Answer

That is the thing. It isn't equal or fair right now.

The system, is operating under the Progressive based sliding scale.

The income tax system STARTED as a tax on the wealthiest of households. Please tell me where your noble idea of a more Constitutionally-aligned, fair, conservative system comes from? It's not based in reality. One of the earliest income taxes was on the top 10% of households ONLY.

Remarkably, the last time there were very high tax rates for the top bracket was during The Great Depression to help the economy recover. The rate rose to 75% and then 94% for the wealthy. Ironically, the top rates were lowered to 24% in the 1920's before the big collapse. I don't want to draw too many parallels but history seems to show that lower tax rates for the rich don't really help the economy as much as Conservatives would lead us to believe. In fact, the US has seen its most prosperous years during times of better wealth equality. As wealth inequality increases, the economy decreases. These are facts.

a reply to: Indigo5

Yep, I misread an article......and you did not look at Forbes too hard. David Koch was number 38...for the calendar year 2013.

a reply to: Answer

Not picking on you, or trying to be a jerk. However there are some glaring & seriously wrong assumptions on your part...

-MacMan : It is easy. Just need people in Govt that actually abide by the Constitution.
-Answer : Good luck with that. Again, we need an answer that is based in reality.

If the concept of getting the government to operate under and within the law, is not based on reality ; There is no solution to anything involving government, an no solution that this same government could possibly enact.

My idea would raise taxes on those who simply accumulate wealth without directly contributing to job growth. As the rich get richer, the economy suffers because they do not proportionately contribute to economic growth. They horde money and invest in whatever gets them the best returns, often doing even further damage to the economy.

This is seriously flawed... The concept that wealthy people do not contribute to economic growth, is so misguided it's hard to tell where to start. Lets look at the statement, they horde money. Where is it being horded ? Under their beds ? Buried mason jars around their property ? A giant Scrooge McDuck vault that they swim in ?

Banks, treasuries, bonds & stocks... First the banks, where the lion's sum would be "horded" if you will. What happens to deposits when they are placed into bank inventories ? DO they simply sit in a locked box ? Is it shrink wrapped and vacuum stored for retrieval later ?

No... It goes to work, the bank puts it to work whether the depositor likes it or not. Infact, the interest added to a savings account is payout for the work the bank makes the money do. This fiduciary commodity, adds to economic growth by allowing banks to give : Business loans to start up businesses, home improvement loans that put construction workers to work, auto loans that keep the automobile industry chugging along, not to mention the poor sap who needed the car to get to work in the first place... Loans for schooling, small/large purchases, etc. etc. etc. The examples could go on, but no need to be exhausting, right ?

Now the second issue, they invest their money, thus not leading to economic growth, but only growth of their wallets. How did you reach that conclusion ? The concept of "investment/investing" is economic growth ! They invest in a business, the business hires more workers, growth, the invested business buys new equipment, thus stimulating growth in an industry outside the original investment's scope, growth in two fields now, if you will. Investment is economic growth, without capital, there is no economy. Unless we're talking about a barter system. "Hording" their wealth in treasuries allows economic growth, though poorly managed by the FED-Gov, but growth all the same. Etc.. etc.. etc..

These same people are influencing politicians to keep passing more loopholes for them.

Again, back to the begaining. If the concept of a government operating under & within the law is an idealogical wet-dream, then there is no workable solution. This will never be solved, nor undone under that thinking/assumption.

I am NOT proposing a tax increase on job creators

Yes you are, you simply just don't understand it.

Raise taxes on the people who are simply accumulating greater wealth and reduce taxes for people who are working or providing jobs so those people can A) spend more to boost the economy and B) expand their business to hire more people.

Again raising taxes, to feed a behemoth Government does not improve the economy, nor cause economic growth. As to the middle class, and the poor. Most of them already have an extremely light tax burden when it comes to income & property taxes. The tax reductions that would benefit them the most would be reductions in things like gas-taxes, sin taxes, death taxes, sales taxes (when they are the ones doing the selling), reducing sales taxes on grocieries, daily needs commodities etc. is where they would get the most savings to put back into the economy.

Well anyways, im afraid if I continue on it'll look more and more like im just bashing on ya, which I'm not. I just think your view is wrong.

Anyways, take care !

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Indigo5

Yep, I misread an article......and you did not look at Forbes too hard. David Koch was number 38...for the calendar year 2013.

thanks. found it..

So Koch gave 1 Billion in charity over his lifetime (note that the summary includes "Policy Programs"...ahem..political.. "think tanks" etc. aka Kochtopus

And Gates has given 30 Billion over his lifetime...Buffet 20 Billion..

By my math that means that Buffet has given 20 times to charity what Koch has? Even including Kochs pet think tanks to further his political agenda?

Or another figure it cites...

Warren Buffet has given away 30% of his net worth to charity...Koch? 3%
www.forbes.com...

I think we can both agree that your claim that they donate comparable amounts to charity was mistaken.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Answer

Not picking on you, or trying to be a jerk. However there are some glaring & seriously wrong assumptions on your part...

-MacMan : It is easy. Just need people in Govt that actually abide by the Constitution.
-Answer : Good luck with that. Again, we need an answer that is based in reality.

If the concept of getting the government to operate under and within the law, is not based on reality ; There is no solution to anything involving government, an no solution that this same government could possibly enact.

My idea would raise taxes on those who simply accumulate wealth without directly contributing to job growth. As the rich get richer, the economy suffers because they do not proportionately contribute to economic growth. They horde money and invest in whatever gets them the best returns, often doing even further damage to the economy.

This is seriously flawed... The concept that wealthy people do not contribute to economic growth, is so misguided it's hard to tell where to start. Lets look at the statement, they horde money. Where is it being horded ? Under their beds ? Buried mason jars around their property ? A giant Scrooge McDuck vault that they swim in ?

Banks, treasuries, bonds & stocks... First the banks, where the lion's sum would be "horded" if you will. What happens to deposits when they are placed into bank inventories ? DO they simply sit in a locked box ? Is it shrink wrapped and vacuum stored for retrieval later ?

No... It goes to work, the bank puts it to work whether the depositor likes it or not. Infact, the interest added to a savings account is payout for the work the bank makes the money do. This fiduciary commodity, adds to economic growth by allowing banks to give : Business loans to start up businesses, home improvement loans that put construction workers to work, auto loans that keep the automobile industry chugging along, not to mention the poor sap who needed the car to get to work in the first place... Loans for schooling, small/large purchases, etc. etc. etc. The examples could go on, but no need to be exhausting, right ?

Now the second issue, they invest their money, thus not leading to economic growth, but only growth of their wallets. How did you reach that conclusion ? The concept of "investment/investing" is economic growth ! They invest in a business, the business hires more workers, growth, the invested business buys new equipment, thus stimulating growth in an industry outside the original investment's scope, growth in two fields now, if you will. Investment is economic growth, without capital, there is no economy. Unless we're talking about a barter system. "Hording" their wealth in treasuries allows economic growth, though poorly managed by the FED-Gov, but growth all the same. Etc.. etc.. etc..

These same people are influencing politicians to keep passing more loopholes for them.

Again, back to the begaining. If the concept of a government operating under & within the law is an idealogical wet-dream, then there is no workable solution. This will never be solved, nor undone under that thinking/assumption.

I am NOT proposing a tax increase on job creators

Yes you are, you simply just don't understand it.

Raise taxes on the people who are simply accumulating greater wealth and reduce taxes for people who are working or providing jobs so those people can A) spend more to boost the economy and B) expand their business to hire more people.

Again raising taxes, to feed a behemoth Government does not improve the economy, nor cause economic growth. As to the middle class, and the poor. Most of them already have an extremely light tax burden when it comes to income & property taxes. The tax reductions that would benefit them the most would be reductions in things like gas-taxes, sin taxes, death taxes, sales taxes (when they are the ones doing the selling), reducing sales taxes on grocieries, daily needs commodities etc. is where they would get the most savings to put back into the economy.

Well anyways, im afraid if I continue on it'll look more and more like im just bashing on ya, which I'm not. I just think your view is wrong.

Anyways, take care !

You say I don't understand but you left out a huge part of what I've been saying:

Any money spent on job creation, directly or indirectly, should be tax deductible. I fully understand that some of the money invested leads to job growth and some of the money invested leads to new loans, etc. I'm not an ignoramus.

I've also said a few times in this thread that an even better solution would be to shrink the government to a point that a very low income tax would suffice... but we both know that's not going to happen.

Here are the facts: history shows that reducing taxes for the upper brackets doesn't boost the economy. History also shows that raising the tax rate for the upper brackets boosts the economy. Again, it's a fact that greater wealth inequality leads to a worse economy and the inverse is also true. We can discuss hypotheticals and what-if's all day but there are some things that already have historical precedence.

a reply to: Answer

I'm sorry, but this is nonsequitor...

history shows that reducing taxes for the upper brackets doesn't boost the economy.

And then state :

Any money spent on job creation, directly or indirectly, should be tax deductible

So, lowering capital-gains taxes does not help the economy, but lowering capital-gains taxes will...

See the issue with your statement ? I assume you are referencing "Trickle down economics", but you don't seem understand what it actually entails.... As your claiming it doesn't work, but then state it's the only thing that will work...

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Answer

I'm sorry, but this is nonsequitor...

history shows that reducing taxes for the upper brackets doesn't boost the economy.

And then state :

Any money spent on job creation, directly or indirectly, should be tax deductible

So, lowering capital-gains taxes does not help the economy, but lowering capital-gains taxes will...

See the issue with your statement ? I assume you are referencing "Trickle down economics", but you don't seem understand what it actually entails.... As your claiming it doesn't work, but then state it's the only thing that will work...

Now you're arguing semantics. Your quoted statement was part of a much larger earlier plan that I already typed out.

I'm not going to keep explaining it multiple times for the late-comers to the thread who take quotes out of context then claim that I don't know what I'm talking about. I know you're not trying to "pick on" me but it's frustrating to revisit what I've already said because you didn't read the thread.