I pay more than 250k per year in taxes. Apparently I’m rich. I think this entire debate is a red herring and that Obama is class-baiting. A desperate act from a diminishing President.
If Obama is class-baiting, he learned it from the Republicans, who have been class-baiting for decades. Guess which class is winning.
Apparently not the President. He is class baiting and he appears desperate. If it makes you feel better to blame the Republicans then good for you. Raising taxes will nit stimulate growth. It simply will not. Simplifying the tax code, lowering corporate tax rates and eliminating various deductions (and the AMT) is a great start. I think that will do more to stimulate the economy.
There has been some bi-partisan support for the above. Long may it continue.
If calling the President “desperate” makes you feel better, then good for you. Thrust! Parry! Riposte!
It always has in the past.
Are you under the misconception that there is a shortage of capital that is stifling job growth? Because there isn’t. American companies are awash in cash, much of it stashed overseas. If you are as wealthy as you suggest, you must know this.
why would they spend given the state of the economy? There is still a sense that there is no value in certain sectors (read: things have yet to hit the bottom). An uncertain President isn’t helping.
And my friend, my comment on how much I pay in taxes is entirely true but never confuse intellect with wealth. In my experience cunning and aggression are often the keys to “wealth”.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Point taken.
I wouldn’t presume the other way. Should I assume you’re slow because you’re “poor” (if indeeed you are, you could be filthy rich for all I know)?
As for your cash comment, why do you feel that US corporates are not spending? Walk me through it.
Lack of demand. Lowering corporate taxes will not change that, especially if coupled with deep spending cuts. Can you say 1937?
Lack of demand for what? We already have a retained earnings tax. Do you suggest that we raise that and force companies to spend? Again, walK me through this.
Raise taxes on corporations and those making more than $250,000. Increase federal spending on infrastructure projects, creating jobs, which puts cash in the hands of peole who actually spend it, rather than sheltering it offshore. Demand increases, growth ensues, and the rich get richer.
It’s the way we have always dealth with economic downturn, and it has always worked. Tax cuts and spending cuts never have. This is not some speculative debate; we know it works, because we have been here before.
This entire discussion is so dishonest I want to puke. First, when we hear about proposals to raise taxes on those with incomes over $250,000 that refers to taxable income, so the actual income of those affected would be much higher and push them even further away from wherever we want to define middle class.
Second, raising tax rates on taxable income over $250,000 just means that someone having, for example, $300,000 in taxable income will pay a slightly higher rate on 1/6 of their income. This is not some draconian burden on the upper middle class.
Isn’t that what we have been doing? Wasn’t the stimulus supposed to do that? And really, the tax cuts in the 80’s seemed to help move the economy along or is that all a charade?
So what should the marginal rate be? 60%? 80%? That will encourage growth and investment how? We’re struggling to borrow money you feel taxing the “rich” will allow us to spend further on infrastructure?
The stimulus was far to small, by a factor of 2-3. Thank conservatives in Congress for an outcome that was less than it could have been.
Interesting choice of words, charade; yes, that is it, perfectly. The tax cuts were in no way responsible for any improvement in the economy, but they did balloon the deficit unecessarily.
How about a compromise? I have no problem with returning to the rates we had after the Reagan tax cuts.
Between increasing revenue and deficit spending, we might be able to put enough people back to work to increase demand and jump start the economy. But only if conservatives are thrown out of both houses. They really don’t have any incentive to improve the economy, they are winning the class war they started 30 years ago.
Actually, Reagan himself saw that his tax cuts were foolhardy. After he cut them, he raised them – What? Eleven times? Seventeen times? I assume you mean the rates that were in place after he adjusted them.
I think you’re making some startling assumptions. I do not believe that a larger stimulus would have resulted in anything other than more debt. The increase in tax revenue certainly would not have supported an increase in the stimulus at the levesl you are suggeting. Frankly I think there are no more options in the Keynesian play book. Why not lower tax rates, encorage investment by reforming the tax code and rewarding new businesses and new business spending?
Because investment does nothing to create jobs. Business is sitting on their huge mountain of cash because there is no demand. Cutting their taxes does nothing to increase demand, so their cash reserve just grows larger. Ask yourself this; why did they eliminate all those jobs in the first place? Because they had excess capacity making products that no one was buying. Why in the world would they add capacity now, and make even more unsellable products?
Somebody has to start spending money before we will get out of this mess. Consumers can’t, they don’t have any; business won’t because no one is buying their products. Who does that leave?
You two appear to be talking past each other. Fear Itself is talking about a short-term solution to a near-term problem, and Lochdale is talking about how to make the most of a functioning non-recessionarÝ economy.
But because my solution to the short term jobs problem requires tax increases and deficit spending, it is anathema to conservatives. Their toolbox contains only a small government hammer, so every problem looks like a nail.
But, to be fair (in case that is something you are interested in), libersls tend to find reasons why government programs designed to fis short-term problems need to stick around (and the higher taxes need to stay in place to support them).
I keep hearing about this big mountain of cash big businesses all seem to have so it must be true. Can you link to the quarterly financial statements for a couple of these businesses?