Then I don’t understand your objection to letting the Bush tax cuts expire because that would just bring us back to Clinton era rates.
Is the problem that we are going to extend the tax cuts for some people the problem. Does it matter at all that the vast majority of the income increases over the alst ten years have been enjoyed by the folks who are not going to get their tax cuts extended while the ones who are getting their tax cuts extended were pretty much treading water?
Because we’re in a recession and taking money from the people who create jobs is counterproductive.
And you think that, this time, they’ll actually create jobs instead of socking it away overseas because…?
“High tax bracket” does not automatically equate to “Creates jobs.”
Yeah, the temporary tax cuts have been in place for 10 years. Shouldn’t we just be flooded with jobs now? Where are all the jobs that these tax cuts were supposed to generate? What have they been waiting for, exactly?
The fact is that the wealthy are already sitting on fat stacks of cash, but they aren’t creating any jobs with it now. What makes you think that if we just give them more, then they will finally start creating jobs?
Where are these people you speak of? They don’t live in this country.
For the last 8 years we’ve had extremely low unemployment rates. That was followed by a housing bubble collapse that took thousands of banks down along with a considerable amount of money out of the stock exchange.
You don’t really get it. The “wealthy” consist of many different people including those who own/operate their own business. If you raise taxes on these people it will take away capital away from a business.
In general, people with money don’t sit around in a room throwing stacks of cash at each other. They invest it. Raising taxes removes money that would otherwise go in to the market.
Did you read the report from Moody’s in the post right before yours? When given a tax break the rich don’t invest, they save.
It doesn’t matter what the rich do with the money. Economic conservatives believe a rich person creates a job every time he spends, saves, invests, speaks, watches TV, or stands alone in a forest very, very still.
And nothing anyone can say will dissuade them from their view.
Unless they save it in a mattress it’s placed in an institution that leverages money. Whether they invest money in their own company, stock in another company, or a bank that lends money it is investment capital.
I know my company has a lot of hard costs built in to the operation of running the business. I like to keep about 5-6 months of that operating expense on hand. Any else goes into creating more business. It goes without saying that in busy times, we hire more people. Jobs don’t get started in down times. So in down times (yes, even with tax cuts) my savings is going to be a higher percentage of overall dollars than in booming times?
That doesn’t mean that I am saving MORE money. I didn’t see in the article that it listed the dollars spent vs dollars earned so I may be off base here but that is a real world scenario.
If all of a sudden I get a new tax in a down year, I am making less money. This works the other way as well, if I got a tax hike in a booming year I might not notice.
So in essence both of you could be correct.
And they will invest it wherever in the world will give them the best returns, and to diversify - they’d be stupid not to. Money is not patriotic. So thanks in advance for using your tax cuts (sorry, “lack of tax increase”) to fund jobs and the economy of the rest of the world.
In addition to using their dollars to fund companies in the US, they’ll be investing in companies such as:
Gazprom
Petrobras-Petróleo Brasil
Royal Dutch Shell
BP
BHP Billiton
Nestlé
Total
HSBC Holdings
Toyota Motor
Vodafone
China Mobile
Bank of China
EDF Group
Roche Holding
Rio Tinto
Vale
The moody article above pointed out that the wealthy invest money rather than spend it. I’m not sure where the disconnect is regarding this phenomenon. Where do people think money comes from when it is borrowed or stocks are issued?
Yes some of the money is invested overseas just as US companies sell products overseas. What’s your point? Rich people have to be patriotic and only invest in US companies? Do you really want to go down that path in a conversation?
Since teabaggers have advocated getting rid of the Department of Education, I’m inclined to view this as a question of resources:
Should the government stop giving aid to kids who are trying to get an education so that some wealthy person can invest more in oil futures? On one hand, if Americans study math and science, we may create a better tomorrow… on the other hand, Scrooge McDuck wants to make a wager on what light Brent crude will be going for in 6 months.
I’m with the student.
The Federal Government Department of Education is redundant to State educational systems. Scrooge McDuck would suggest that half billion dollar schools not be built as overpriced sculptures so that more money can be used to educate children.
We can play straw-dog scenarios indefinitely.
So in essence it is all economic activity and doesn’t matter who is holding the money or what they are doing with it. In the end it is all good. Is that what you are saying?
Also, invested money gets taxed at the capital gains tax rate of 15% which means the wealthy are being taxed as if they made $8,376 – 34,000/year (there is only one tax bracket below that).
No, my point is the their money is NOT patriotic. If you figure that the entirety of any extra money they get from a tax cut will stay in the US and benefit only US companies and create only US jobs, then you are deluded.
States offer Pell grants? Shoot, I didn’t even apply for these thousands of dollars in state grants back when I was in college. 
As I understand it, the school serves 4,200 students. I also understand that the funds for it were raised by a local California bond issue. I’m not quite understanding why Scrooge McDuck thinks this has very much to do with the US Department of Education or Federal taxation.