BSAM, your logic only works if you can trust those that lead these businesses to do the right thing. To date, it has been our leaders that have failed us. 1. Bank CEO's took in huge personal rewards while destroying our economic stability. They took risk that resulted in short term personal profit and now we must pay for it. 2. Corporations across this land are initiating layoffs as a first course of action instead of addressing their compensation models. These CEO's are proving that they place personal net worth and personal compensation above that of fellow employees and ultimately the general US economy. Exeutive compensation has escalated to a ratio of 433:1 from a ratio of 40:1 in the 1970's. Do you really think these CEO's are looking at resolving national economic issues? 3. UBS has a list of 52,000 offshore accounts that the US believes are used to avoid paying taxes. The initial list of 250 people is believed to have cost the taxpayers upwards of $300 Million every year. Similarly, the top 400 top earners in the US last year paid less, by percentage, that middle class america. These represent your leaders of corporate america. should we give their companies additional tax breaks so that they can claim better performance and put the difference in their own pockets? Tax breaks to corporations should come with caveats. Those caveats must include job creations and not job losses. Those that don't want to play this game can pay the tax man instead so the tax man can pay those that go unemployed. I hate taxes like everybody else but somebody has to pay the unemployed and without a guarantee, simply cutting business taxes will not have teh intended results you think they will have. Greed has showed us that.
I would be very interested if anyone on this board knows the stats on the percentage of small business that NET over 250K? Certainly in my town/city I don't know personally of any cafe/garage/cleanor/retail/or any small business person making that after expenses. That seems to be the only argument the Repubs come up with and just not sure if the stats/facts support it. I know when we were in the 33-38% tax bracket we still had a pretty good life after taxes.
Excellent point. The real issue are those with the big fancy cars, multiple homes, and living the rich life don't consider that "good life" unless it is accompanied with $2000.00 bottles of wine, private jets, and a half dozen club memberships. So instead they lobby the Republicans to protect them from living the life of simple wealth instead of ultra-wealth. Most amusing is how these very same people want it well known how charitable they are so as to appear concerning of the lesser class. Fact is many stole everything from those people so they could afford the lifestyle and are simply giving back pennies on the dollar out of ego. That way they think they own you.
If you'd read about the FairTax you'd see that anyone classified as being at the poverty level or below would pay zip in income tax and zip in payroll tax. The ONLY reason that any logical democrat would not like the FairTax is complete SELF INTEREST, because the power to control tax is a very powerful thing.
I find this website to be a very strange place for wealth envy, but yet here it is............very odd.
Ok time for a little economics 101: What do think happens when those FILTHY RICH people buy those fancy cars, planes, yachts, huge homes, etc. ? The companies that supply all that and the thousands of products that they're made of EMPLOY PEOPLE. Those people get to earn money to pay their bills and take care of their families. See this is simple stuff.
So BAM, do you pay taxes on stocks or bonds you buy? How about when you sell? Most of the wealthiest people in this nation pay only 15% on their income because profits are considered capital gains and not considered income. How would you offset your losses or don't you? Are capital gains now taxed at the new rate and if so, who collects it? Do you pay a tax on the house you purchase? If so, when and how? What is to prevent people from buying out of country since such purchases would not be taxed making such purchases cheaper. Advantage: The wealthy who would travel more easily overseas.
this WAS the theory of "trickle down" economics but somehow it just didn't work that well imo, the basis of both sides of the argument is the "filthy" rich and "dirty" poor. The great "middle" class is not benefited by trickle down nor higher taxes, and it seems to me that the plan doesn't tax the middle and certainly the rich CAN afford higher taxes. They paid them in the past and we had good economic times.
A little better economics class - Who do you think adds more to the economy on a regular basis, the 100 people employed at $50K/year each putting most of that back into the economy or the single person making $5 Million a year and spending some of it foolishly on some overpriced luxury items? My bet is that the 100 employed people would provide the economy with a far greater overall boost than the lone soldier at $5 Million who laid off the 100 people. I'll even bet that teh lone soldier is out traveling overseas and spending money outside this country where the 100 people are putting most of that money right back into the good old U S A.