Love that Bush Legacy.
Oink, oink.
~GNOP
Party of the People (heh heh)

Eat the rich
There's only one thing that they're good for
Eat the rich
Take one bite now and come back for more
Eat the rich
I gotta get this off my chest
Eat the rich
Take one bite now and spit out the rest
....
Their attitude might taste like shit
But goes real good with wine

Aerosmith
Get a Grip
Eat the Rich

Almost three-quarters of the highest earners' income was in capital gains and dividends taxed at a 15 percent rate set as part of Bush-backed tax cuts in 2003, the statistics show.

this is what is driving the increase in total income. Most of it is unearned. Those folks are encouraged to sell assets they might otherwise hold and create a taxable event.

The top 400 earners received a total $138 billion in 2007, up from $105.3 billion a year earlier.

that generates almost $28 Billion in revenue for the IRS (assuming the 20% effective rate the article mentions).

I wonder how that compares to the higher marginal rates in effect before GWB took office. meaning, how much revenue did we generate off of the top 400 earners in 1992?

Money begets more money, it's not a bad thing. I'm poor right now, and it doesn't affect me one bit when someone in my neighborhood is becoming exponentially more wealthy.

Hell when I become wealthy it won't be fucking over the guy thats in the situation I'm in now.

People who have money know what to do with their money, and that leads to more money.

I wonder how that compares to the higher marginal rates in effect before GWB took office. meaning, how much revenue did we generate off of the top 400 earners in 1992?

Doesn't matter. The President during a debate said the optimal amount collected isn't what we should strive for, it's a matter of 'fairness'.

I'm poor right now, and it doesn't affect me one bit when someone in my neighborhood is becoming exponentially more wealthy.

the argument from the left is that it does affect you. They claim that higher tax rates force these people to reninvest into more hiring and capital expansion.

But as the article points out, 3/4 of the income is unearned (dividends and capital gains). Not selling a stock or some land or some other real property subject to capital gains is going to create what job???? I don't know..... I also don't know how not earning dividend income will create a job either.

perhaps the leftist economists here can tell us Andy.

"Those folks are encouraged to sell assets they might otherwise hold and create a taxable event."

That's assuming it was capital gains and not dividends. I'd love to see a breakdown, but I have no doubt it's mainly dividends, especially when looking at Tax Year 2007. I've always pointed out that dividends are the main source of income for the wealthiest, and that's where the 60% rate cut happened under Bush: 38.5% to 15%.

Two generations ago, it was considered unconscionable to tax sweat-of-the-brow labor more than unearned income. Now it's standard operational procedure. And back then, unemployment wasn't taxable. Today, the top bracket for unemployment is more than double the top bracket for qualified dividends.

perhaps the leftist economists here can tell us Andy.

Yeah that'll be interesting. Capital gains tax gets optimal income to the government at around 12-13%. BUT IT ISN'T FAIR!

Two generations ago, it was considered unconscionable to tax sweat-of-the-brow labor more than unearned income.

by whom?

My point is that there are a lot of realities in our tax code that someone might find "unconscionable".

I get a $3000 tax credit for my 3 kids
I get to deduct all property taxes and interest on my home
I get to deduct my tighing(sp) to my church (which pays for my kids private education)
I get to file "married jointly" and enjoy a tax benefit that 2 unmarried folks can't get.

The list of "unconscionable" items in our tax code is endless.

Today, the top bracket for unemployment is more than double the top bracket for qualified dividends.

how does one earn unemployment in the top bracket?

Two generations ago, it was considered unconscionable to tax sweat-of-the-brow labor more than unearned income. Now it's standard operational procedure. And back then, unemployment wasn't taxable. Today, the top bracket for unemployment is more than double the top bracket for qualified dividends

Class warfare is a myth as this clearly points out.

how does one earn unemployment in the top bracket?

Unemployment usually pays, I believe, 60% of your average paycheck. A top bracket job would have top bracket unemployment.

Is unemployment taxed or not?

I don't know. Thankfully, I have not been on it.

Class warfare is a myth as this clearly points out.

why don't you answer these 2 questions 726?

what was the tax revenue from the top 400 earners in 1992?

How does a higher tax rate on dividends or captial gains create a job for you?

"how does one earn unemployment in the top bracket?"

Get laid off.

"Is unemployment taxed or not?"

Yes, at regular income rates. For 2009 only, the first $2,400 isn't taxable on a federal level, nor most states, although some do add it back in before assessing taxes.

"by whom?"

Anyone with a conscience.

"Unemployment usually pays, I believe, 60% of your average paycheck."

Not true. There are caps, from state to state.

"A top bracket job would have top bracket unemployment."

If you're in the top bracket (~$350,00 or more) and you get laid off and get, say, a $436/wk benefit, that benefit is taxed at the top marginal rate.

Aerosmith
Get a Grip
Eat the Rich

Aerosmith?

Aerosmith sux.

You wanna eat the rich?

Eat this:

"I also don't know how not earning dividend income will create a job either."

When the tax laws changed to advantage dividends, companies came under more pressure to disperse profits.

That was also when i switched my and my clients investments to focus more on dividend-paying stocks. Good choice, in retrospect.

2009 US economy: largest transfer of wealth to financial/political elite in global history

Amerika don't need no stinking wealth distribution.

The wealth of this nation is where it belongs: in the hands of the few.

They have Amerika's best interests at heart, and will strive to ensure that this nation remains the greatest on earth.

God bless the rich.

Weren't the tax cuts supposed to create jobs?

It seems the rich have more money, yet we don't seem to be creating more jobs.

Love that Bush Legacy.
Oink, oink.
~GNOP
Party of the People (heh heh)

#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

I dont have time to take away from my busy and productive daily broadcast schedule but I am willing to wager that if you researched it that you would find a lot more dems and/or liberals that were 'rich' than you would the right..
maybe not more but just as many....
but BY ALL MEANS dont let this get in the way of your class warfare bush bashing since you sound just like ROSIE and garafallo on the radio spot they did....

I dont have time to take away from my busy and productive daily broadcast schedule but I am willing to wager that if you researched it that you would find a lot more dems and/or liberals that were 'rich' than you would the right..
maybe not more but just as many....

I completely agree but have a few questions.

Does this mean liberals actually work? Are you saying that all liberals are not welfare receiving deadweights as is commonly stated?

hey I USED To know a liberal that worked....may have even been two...lol

hey I USED To know a liberal that worked....may have even been two...lol

So of the 400, there isn't a near 50/50 split as you said in post 26?

Companies shouldn't pay dividends anyhow. If you want a monthly check, buy bonds. Companies should hold on to their cash, and reinvest it in operations.

Congress will raise taxes on dividends, with pie-in-the-sky hopes and dreams about all the extra money that will come pouring into the Treasury. Then companies will simply cut back dividend distributions, and poof--it's gone. But that won't stop the libbies on the DR from getting really excited about the initial headlines: "Obama, Democrats Pass Bill Raising Top Rates On Dividend Income; $250 Billion Over Next Decade Forecast."

And none of it will come.

When the tax laws changed to advantage dividends, companies came under more pressure to disperse profits.

and you think that has caused a depression in job creation?

Seriously, how many jobs weren't created because of this tax benefit?

Furthermore, I would assume the stock value of these companies rose as more investors flocked towards these due to tax advantages...correct? You just admited to advising your clients.

That should be good for employees when stock values rise correct?

That was also when i switched my and my clients investments to focus more on dividend-paying stocks. Good choice, in retrospect.

you are a stock broker and an accountant?

never seen one of those. Is that legal?

But that won't stop the libbies on the DR from getting really excited about the initial headlines: "Obama, Democrats Pass Bill Raising Top Rates On Dividend Income; $250 Billion Over Next Decade Forecast."

And none of it will come.

and that should be the crux of the argument. Will it actually generate more revenue?

I asked earlier about how much revenue the govt was collecting on the 400 weathiest in 1992. I can't find anything. everything I find keeps avoiding that and focuses on the rates only (and the political influence it is buying).....which tells me that the revenue for our govt is much much higher as a result of the lowering of the rate (dividends and cap gains) even factoring for inflation.

But I will admit that I don't know.

"and you think that has caused a depression in job creation? "

I think when companies have lower rates, and individuals have lower rates, it's relatively more advantageous to take out profits and suffer the smaller hit, and when corporate and individual rates are higher, it's relatively more advantageous to reinvest in the company, be it equipment, long-term capital, or labor.

"Furthermore, I would assume the stock value of these companies rose as more investors flocked towards these due to tax advantages...correct?"

And how did that help the workers?

"That should be good for employees when stock values rise correct?"

Only if company ownership through stock purchases is part of the compensation plan. Most people work for companies who don't issue stock.

"you are a stock broker and an accountant? "

I'm neither. I'm a long-time actor who got pressed into tax help by my fellow artisans 25 years ago, and that grew over the last 9 years into their also seeking my advice on investments. I advise, they invest.

Beating the market 9 years out of those 9 didn't hurt, either.

Does this mean liberals actually work?

in the to 400?

I don't know.

top 400

"And none of it will come."

That's bullshit. It came last time. You're right in suggesting it won't be as rosy as the Dems will claim, but stating it won't increase revenues at all is crap.

"I asked earlier about how much revenue the govt was collecting on the 400 weathiest in 1992. I can't find anything."

I guarantee you none of them pay as high a percentage of their income in federal taxes as you do.

Seem fair?

"which tells me that the revenue for our govt is much much higher as a result of the lowering of the rate (dividends and cap gains) even factoring for inflation."

Why on earth would it tell you that, when simply factoring inflation proves you wrong?

On top of that, if rates on the top earners dropped the most, and they ended up paying a larger percentage of the tax pie, that means they controlled much, MUCH more wealth.

So of the 400, there isn't a near 50/50 split as you said in post 26?

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2010-02

I dont follow you...who said anything about 400 or 50/50?

OHHHHHHHH hello

the little light just came on...

I guarantee you none of them pay as high a percentage of their income in federal taxes as you do.

Seem fair?

clarify.....Federal only? no state, FICA etc.?

I still say someone should look for some stat about how many of the rich are dems and/or libs...

Why on earth would it tell you that, when simply factoring inflation proves you wrong?

This thread is about the top 400 earners only.
And I can't find anything about what the top 400 earners in the country paid in Federal income taxes in 1992.

I still say someone should look for some stat about how many of the rich are dems and/or libs...

I don't give a shit really.

Ideology doesn't drive those 400 anyway. Betting on the horse that wins is what's most important to those folks. They need to have a friendly relationship with whoever gets in congress or the WH.

On top of that, if rates on the top earners dropped the most, and they ended up paying a larger percentage of the tax pie, that means they controlled much, MUCH more wealth.

which is good reason why they should pay a larger % of the pie....agreed.

or are you arguing something else?

"clarify.....Federal only? no state, FICA etc.?"

All federal taxes, including income and FICA.

The American who pays the highest percentage of their income in federal taxes isn't the millionaire, or the billionaire, but the W-2 wage earner who makes about $108,000 a year.

States vary, but what isn't paid in income taxes is made up other ways. Texas, for example, isn't the lowest-tax state, despite the fact it has no income tax.

" I can't find anything about what the top 400 earners in the country paid in Federal income taxes in 1992."

The author of this piece, David Cay Johnston, has written extensively about this. He wrote a book a few years ago regarding the high-end advisors and investors. If you can get through the first chapter without wanting to puke, you're a better man than I.

"or are you arguing something else?"

Just refuting the next stop on this train: the whine that the rich are overburdened with taxes.

All federal taxes, including income and FICA.

my "effective" federal bracket was 6.3% last year. when you add in FICA(my half), that doubles to about 13%.

refer to my #11. all sorts of "unconscionable" breaks.

Just refuting the next stop on this train: the whine that the rich are overburdened with taxes.

fair enough.

For all you who are ignorant enough to think this is all something new here's lyrics written in/about 1921:

Ain't We Got Fun

Every morning Every evening
Ain't we got fun
Not much money Oh but honey
Ain't We Got Fun
The rent's unpaid dear
We have'nt a bus
But smiles were made dear
For people like us

In the winter In the summer
Don't we have fun
Times are bum and getting bummer
Still we have fun
There's nothing surer
The rich get rich and the poor get children
In the meantime In between time
Ain't we got fun

Every morning Every evening
Don't we got fun
Twins and cares dear Come in pairs dear
Don't we have fun
We've only started As mommer and pop
Are we downhearted I'll say that we're not
Landlords mad and getting madder
Ain't we got fun
Times are bad and getting badder
Still we have fun
There's nothing surer
The rich get rich and the poor get laid off
In the meantime In between time
Ain't we got fun

"my "effective" federal bracket was 6.3% last year."

You're missing the other half of your employment taxes, which would theoretically be going to you otherwise.

So your marginal rate (the amount paid on your last $100 of income) is 40.3%.

The last $100 the billionaire makes in dividends is taxed at 15%.

So your marginal rate (the amount paid on your last $100 of income) is 40.3%.

how do you figure that? I make over the max for SS and what is over that falls into the 25% bracket

"how do you figure that? I make over the max for SS "

Sorry, I thought it was right at the max.

So subtract a little, and you're back at 40%: 25% Federal, and 15.3% FICA, between what you pay and what your employer pays on your behalf.

Compare that with the 15% rate for the onerous task of walking to the mailbox and opening the dividend check.

I'll bet they got socked in 2008 and 2009, though. Considering the massive losses on real estate, mortgage bonds, non-Treasury debt, stocks, commodities, funds (especially leveraged and hedge funds)--it's not likely you saw similar headlines for the last two years.

How did george Soros do shorting the market, while advising Obama? How did he get Obama to give 4 billion to PBR, one of his major holdings, to do offshore drilling...to send to China?

Love how the left thinks only the right benefits!

And today, the rich are hurting. Which time period would the average American rather be living in? How is the job market these days compared to 2007?

And today, the rich are hurting. #55 | Posted by JOE

LMAO!!!!!

And today, the rich are hurting. #55 | Posted by JOE

LMAO!!!!!
#56 | Posted by Chill

Well, we are. Aching ribs from laughing at the Rubes, terrible carpal tunnel problems from counting the gelt, and, oh my, you would not believe the aching back from stacking it sky high.
~ Oliver "Who's Your Daddy" Warbucks

"Compare that with the 15% rate for the onerous task of walking to the mailbox and opening the dividend check."

Considering the distance to that mail box at the mansion it could be pretty onerous to have to walk out there but then you could always just send the butler.

#58 | Posted by danni

Zing! FF!

LMAO!!!!!

So the rich got 31% richer in 2007. I wonder how much less rich they became in 2008 and 2009? And again - if you could pick an economy to live in, would it be 2007, 2008 or 2009?

"I wonder how much less rich they became in 2008 and 2009?"

I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the richest made out quite well in both 2008 and 2009 because they unloaded their stocks and real estate before the bubbles burst. The richest people I know say they did fine these past couple of years. I imagine if you bought gold three years ago you'd be pretty happy about now.

Weren't the tax cuts supposed to create jobs?

It seems the rich have more money, yet we don't seem to be creating more jobs.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2010-02-18 12:08 PM | Reply

Winner winner chicken dinner.

And don't forget that America is broke thanks to a shrinking middle class.

The tax cuts encourage people to cash out of their local business at favorable cap gain rates, the jobs disappear. The money is then invested in multinational companies with great dividends taxed at 15% and the jobs are shipped overseas.

Ah the myth of lower cap gain and dividend rates will "create" jobs.

What it does is create offshoring and massive wealth for the uber wealthy.

Which time period would the average American rather be living in? How is the job market these days compared to 2007?

#55 | Posted by JOE

you talking about the job market that BushCo left us after ravaging the US and World Economy with his reckless policies? Ask us again in 3 years after Obama has had a chance to turn this mess around.

ME? I would prefer the Clinton years. Lots of jobs and mucho potential. And how about that Deficit huh?

Now if the Rethugs had cared more about their Country then than their Party we may have been able to build on those successes instead of destroying them.

"Compare that with the 15% rate for the onerous task of walking to the mailbox and opening the dividend check."

Please, it is direct deposited.

Would want to scuff up the pedicure.

WOuldn't^^^

then than? just covering my grammar bases I guess!

you talking about the job market that BushCo left us after ravaging the US and World Economy with his reckless policies?

No. I'm talking about that horrible year of 2007, when the rich got 31% richer.

OH! you are talking about the year that Big Oil made 123 billion in profits while we paid record high gas prices...

Yea... I remember that year now... My butt is still sore from that one.

hmmm . . . often things are not as they seem - -

Wall Street Journal:
"more than 600 private jets landed in D.C. for Obama's inauguration ceremonies.
One of the four runways at Dulles was closed off for extra parking . . .
that's twice the 300 private jets the DC Airport Authority logged for Bush"

"Compare that with the 15% rate for the onerous task of walking to the mailbox and opening the dividend check."

oh come on. get with the times.

I'm sure it was done electronically.

Aerosmith
Get a Grip
Eat the Rich

Aerosmith?

Aerosmith sux.

You wanna eat the rich?

Eat this:

Motorhead - Eat the Rich

#21 | Posted by Dave at 2010-02-18 11:22 AM | Reply |

hey I USED To know a liberal that worked....may have even been two...lol

#28 | POSTED BY AFKABL2

Dude...totally not our fault you have no friends.

hmmm . . . often things are not as they seem - -
Wall Street Journal:
"more than 600 private jets landed in D.C. for Obama's inauguration ceremonies.
One of the four runways at Dulles was closed off for extra parking . . .
that's twice the 300 private jets the DC Airport Authority logged for Bush"
#69 | POSTED BY MARKH

Might it be that a hell of a lot more people attended the inauguration of the first Black President? Hmm... Stupid logic!

Actually, it was exactly what it seemed. A lot more people were excited about Obama than they were about Bush. Plus, you have to agree that the inauguration was a bit more historical regardless of your political leanigs.

Damn, Sycophant. Guess I should have refreshed before posting. Right on.

The govt can take away 100% of all the monies of the rich (income and investments) AND your life will not get any better - BUT it may get worse if your job is impacted by the loss of their spending [ref the luxury taxes imposed under Carter which hurt the working class].

Plus, you have to agree that the inauguration was a bit more historical regardless of your political leanigs.

No.

I don't have to agree to that.

I saw a little unqualified, half-black piece of Marxist shit spout a bunch of platitudes in the cold.

Then I watched the economy continue to go to shit as the little jack-off instilled his anti-business and anti-American ethos into the American popular culture.

Nothing will improve until this little punk is removed from the equation---"historic" or not.

Don't take flying lessons, JAK. You're as deranged and full of hate as Stack was.

JAK thinks George W Bush hung the moon. JAK stared into W's eyes and said "this is MY man!". Birds of a feather .... W isn't nearly as hate filled though.

"The govt can take away 100% of all the monies of the rich (income and investments) AND your life will not get any better -"

But no one is talking about taking 100% of all their money are they. When you start a post with such an idiotic strawman argument you just make yourself look like the simpleton you probably are.

If I'm not mistake Warren Buffett said "Recessions are when the Rich get Richer"

"If I'm not mistake Warren Buffett said "Recessions are when the Rich get Richer"

#81 | Posted by 90c2cab"

QTF

Then companies will simply cut back dividend distributions, and poof--it's gone.

Maybe. But then people that rely on dividends as part of their income will avoid those shares and the stock price will fall.

Double edged sword.

that's twice the 300 private jets the DC Airport Authority logged for Bush"

Mad because Obama was more popular than lil BUsh?

And today, the rich are hurting. Which time period would the average American rather be living in? How is the job market these days compared to 2007?

Exactly, I was driving past the unemployment office last week and saw Warren Buffet standing in line.

Mad because Obama was more popular than lil BUsh?

not nearly as mad as you were when Bush got elected twice.

But then people that rely on dividends as part of their income will avoid those shares and the stock price will fall.

And I think that can hurt jobs and job creation.

But I think Danni and Danforth disagreed with that position.

Fuck stockholder dividends, just another wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

Example: Your health insurance company is a publicly held stock.

You pay health insurance premiums, those premiums go up.

Your health insurance company makes a profit and pays dividends to the wealthy.

Poor and middle class cant afford to invest in health care stocks as they are too busy paying for food and shelter

Transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

Good luck trying to find competition to keep your health insurance in line

"not nearly as mad as you were when Bush got elected twice."

Seems like you would be angry about that one about now too??? How's that debt feeling??? Lose much equity in your home??? Know anyone unemployed???

Poor and middle class cant afford to invest in health care stocks as they are too busy paying for food and shelter

I guess they can't buy stocks in anything then can they? Heath care stocks work the same as other companies...sell product/service...make profit.....poor left out.

Transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

how does the poor transfer wealth they don't have?

that statment always gives me a laugh.

"And I think that can hurt jobs and job creation."

You continually put words in other people's mouths. I never said that falling stock prices couldn't hurt job creation, I never said stocks paying dividends hurst job growth.

I said that special lower rates of tax on capital gains was touted as a way to create jobs but those jobs never materialized and those tax cuts really just enabled the wealthy to have more money to invest in the stock market and real estate market thereby creating a bubble economy, which is exactly what happened.

Seems like you would be angry about that one about now too??? How's that debt feeling??? Lose much equity in your home??? Know anyone unemployed???

I was just responding to 726 over the private plan remark he made. Don't get hysterical.

I sold a home in 2007. Made $80K. Sold a home in 2009. Lost $2,500. (pissed me off).

yes, I know some unemployed folks. I knew some in the 90s when Clinton was in office. I didn't pin those on him though.

Are you saying all recessions are avoidable based on who we put in the WH?

angry hack.

You continually put words in other people's mouths. I never said that falling stock prices couldn't hurt job creation, I never said stocks paying dividends hurst job growth.

My bad. I hate when others do it so I will humbly apoligize. But you were talking about how companies aren't affected unless they issued the stock directly and bought the shares back etc..... It appeared as though you didn't think companies were affected when stock prices drop or raise.

But to the point of job creation??? You don't know if it created jobs or not. We can't tell how many jobs Obama is saving or creating or whatever....too difficult to determine IMO.

Just as difficult to determine with regard to those specific tax cuts.

Why do you keep challenging me when you can't answer any of my questions?

eberly shouldn't repeat the lie that Shrub was elected twice. Vote rigging in Florida and Ohio decided those results, with help from a partisan SCOTUS by five Bush Family appointments.

We live in a sea of lies, designed to transfer money from your pocket to the pockets of Wall street fraudsters who own Washington. They operate a giant Ponzi Scheme riff with special favors and fraud, at the computerized trading counters, at ratings companies, in securities marketing, and at the Treasury, Federal Reserve and SEC.

For Greece Goldman-Sachs provided currency exchanges which hid Greece's debt, then garnered commissions selling more of their bonds, then armed with inside information about the currency exchanges they executed bought Credit Default Swaps that the Bonds they sold would fail, and finally they launched a short selling attack on the bonds which includes a rumor mill. Do these practices have anything to do with the Real Estate debacle in this country? They should be facing fraud charges, instead their former CEO gives them hundreds of billions of unconditional bailout money.

What is wrong with this picture? Only a stupid idiot would conclude from these facts that the heart of the problem is that Obama is a Socialist or Communist. Even if he was its better than what we have, which is a country run by organized crime. These monster Corporations commit fraud routinely while being provided cover by bi-partisan political machinery anxious to receive more of their campaign contributions.

Poor and middle class cant afford to invest in health care stocks as they are too busy paying for food and shelter

I guess they can't buy stocks in anything then can they? Heath care stocks work the same as other companies...sell product/service...make profit.....poor left out.

Transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

how does the poor transfer wealth they don't have?

that statment always gives me a laugh.

#90 | Posted by eberly

oh poor dont have health care!?
we should probably do something about that.
Thanks for playing.

Those that have health care? transfered to the wealthy by taking their money, giving it to publicly owned health insurance companies that turn a profit and hand out dividends to wealthy investors. see wealth transfer.

Example

i am experiencing a 64% increase in my health insurance premiums. My health insurance company paid dividends. My money is being transfered to the wealthiest. There is no competition to protect my interests.

oh poor dont have health care!?

where did I say that? I said they don't have wealth.......which might be we refer to them as poor. LOL

Those that have health care? transfered to the wealthy by taking their money, giving it to publicly owned health insurance companies that turn a profit and hand out dividends to wealthy investors.

thanks, we appreciate it. You also bought gas, groceries, etc... from corporations also FYI.

i am experiencing a 64% increase in my health insurance premiums.

are you poor? that was the only class of people I was referring to above.

eberly shouldn't repeat the lie that Shrub was elected twice.

yeah, I'm aware of the controversy. It was in all the papers.

LOL

"But to the point of job creation??? You don't know if it created jobs or not. We can't tell how many jobs Obama is saving or creating or whatever....too difficult to determine IMO."

There are people who have learned how to analyse the available data and come up with fairly accurate estimates of what is creating jobs. It isn't an exact science but it is a good enough science that most large companies use similar studies to determine whether they can sell their products in certain markets, etc. It's the best we have and the lack of a more exact measure is hardly an argument to dispute the claims that they have, in fact, created jobs. If you want to dispute their claims I think the burden of proof would be on you.

There are people who have learned how to analyse the available data and come up with fairly accurate estimates of what is creating jobs.

it is a political beachball that gets beaten to shit by both sides.

"Fairly accurate estimates"???

there is nothing but debate and blame. if they were fairly accurate then there would be some agreement.

there isn't.

If you want to dispute their claims I think the burden of proof would be on you.

if you disagree then they are a "right wing hack" and that passes for "burden of proof" in your eyes.

With regard to tax rates........IMO, I think there is little impact on jobs by manipulating those rates (specifically on the 400 wealthiest households). Raising them does not generate jobs and lowering them does not generate jobs. Those are ideological wedges to drive because of the sheep who lap it up.

I believe that trickle down economics is nothing more than an ideological driven concept accepted by folks who believe in lower taxes and a smaller govt. I don't think lower taxes generated jobs......but I don't think higher taxes do either.

"but I don't think higher taxes do either."

I think I probably agree with you but higher taxes would help us have a debt free government which would be able to create jobs during a recession and help the country keep unemployment lower without building a huge long term debt. Then when we aren't in recession those higher taxes would pay for the deficit we incurred during the recession. We hae plenty of infrastructure repair that needs to be done right now, we could easily create plenty of jobs if we had the money to pay for them. At some point repairs need to be done anyway.

I think I probably agree with you but higher taxes would help us have a debt free government

I doubt we will ever agree on how to create a "debt free govt" but there is no question that it would help us weather a recession better than a "debt full govt".

The best year George Soros ever had.

Well, you do need money to make money...seems natural....

Love that Bush Legacy.-DocSarvis

That's funny. Because I'm nowhere near rich yet since Obama took office I have had more taken out of my check than when Bush was in office. Maybe Obama hasn't passed anything related to taxes in a bill but something certainly happened because I take home a few dollars less every two weeks ever since this year started.

"and that should be the crux of the argument. Will it actually generate more revenue?"

When Reagan cut taxes in the 1980s it doubled the federal income tax revenues. It also had the unintended effect of "progressivizing" the tax structure by shifting it to the right. In other words, cutting taxes noy only helps the rich (it does), but it helps everyone else as well.

Consider what would have happened if instead of cutting taxes on the wealthy, Reagan had increased them. First it would have reduced the incentive to efficiently utilize labor or captial. Instead, people would have elected to spend their surplus wealth, as opposed to investing, or spend more time on leisure activity than working. And remember, these are the country's highest income earners, providing the most valuable services to the greatest number of people. So in addition to decreased tax revs, you are also suffering an increasing scarcity in already scarce labor markets. Do you really want to discourage doctors from working more? I certainly don't. It' sure not going to do anything for healthcare costs.

Wealth creation is a synergistic process that requires both labor and capital, and the process will work most effectively when those factors of production are able to benefit from it. IMHO, income should be treated like equally, regardless of where it came.

As we often see here, the wealthy in this country are regarded with a lot of derision, especially by those on the left. I can only guess that it is the last vestiges of marxism, under which the rich only get rich at the expense of the poor. The obvious problem with that theory is that if you were to eliminate the rich altogether, it wouldn't make the poor any better off. It's not going to make them more entrepreneurial, or more productive, or more qualified for a high paying job. In all likelyhood the poor would be far worse off, as many are currently reliant on the rich to sustain them. Imagine what would happen to a four year old who all of the sudden found herself alone without parents to care for her. Would she be able to produce her own food or see to her own medical needs? Most likely not. That would be the vast majority of the poor in the absence of the rich.

It would have been much higher if the so called "Fair Tax" crowd had their way.

Warren Buffet says he pays too little taxes..

#108 | Posted by Legio
Warren Buffet says he pays too little taxes..
---------------------
There is a check box on your IRS form that will allow you to pay more taxes, so Warren Buffet can check the box. Problem Solved.