So you admit that they don't automatically create jobs when they have to pay less taxes. They can just sit on it and they do. Steeeerike!
even sitting on my money creates jobs, because the money is in the bank and the bank has more money to loan out to folks starting businesses and whatever. but these folks usually have their money in stocks and investments whatever, which also helps the economy.
I do not admit that. I can admit that increasing taxes on the rich does not create more revenue, though.
If that's how you read it, ok. While I wasn't in on the "business side" of my company in 2000-01, I know we did not go in the tank. In fact, we added employees. I think - no, I know - that what's bad for my employer will eventually be bad for me. Revenues have significantly decrease in the last 2 years. As a result, I can't give raises, and I can't expand a department that needs expanding. If loss of business revenue has an effect on the employee, I can't imagine why an increased tax burden will not. Neither do I kiss their asses. I just don't get excited about what they have and I don't. The rich will always pay more taxes than me. Now can I ask you something? You often speak of that class of ultra-rich that does nothing but live off their trust funds, the Paris Hilton-type, I suppose. Can you tell me exactly how many of these people there really are out there, and if we could really solve our budge problems by taxing the living bejesus out of them? I ask because anger over the free ride (my words, not yours) the idle rich seem to be getting is a recurring theme with you. You know we right wing TFers love pulling your moderate chain. :wave:
The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 1% of the taxes. The top 2 percent pay over 97% of the taxes. Argument over.
Bejeesus? We are only talking about a return to the taxation levels of the 1990's, which was a prosperous time for America. We had the right balance between spending and taxing and were posting surpluses and paying off the debt. The TEMPORARY tax cuts of Bush were always supposed to expire. It was an experiment that failed to boost the economy because nothing ever trickles down. Now the republicans want to make it permanent even though it adds $700 billion a year to the deficit. The tax codes were stifling in the 1980's and the tax cuts of Reagan restored balance. But the republican notion that even more cuts will produce even better results has failed. We can't get something for nothing. Neither party is going to cut Medicare or Social Security. The only way to balance the budget is to pay for medicare and Social security with sufficient income, not with borrowing. Cutting income while spending this much is irresponsible.
Red, I believe the logic you have is flawed. Lets say at we go back to the 90's tax rate. All this administration will do is spend all of that money on their social agenda. It will not pay down debt. I think that should be clear to anyone. What needs to happen before all else is SERIOUS spending cuts. If we fail to make the right cuts, taxes wont mean a damn to the budget.
People in China. Yes, I guess they are putting people to work. People that don't pay a dime of taxes and don't spend a dime of their money here.
