i remember when billion was a big number. it's crazy.

O.K., you say you aren't against the middle class, but you (and like Republicans) have a recipe that can only result in 2 classes.

1) Employers can pay employees the least amount that it will take to get people to survive, and come back to the job. It's 100% up to the employer. They don't want them to have to pay any medical benefits etc. Republicans claim that the market will result in the higher skilled employees being paid the most, and they are the ones that should get offered medical(if the company so chooses to do it.)

2) Republicans want low taxes on everyone, and everything. This results in low amounts of money raised to run a Gov't. They often favor a flat tax(same income tax rate for everybody...regardless of income level.)

3) Republicans want to keep Gov't expenditures low, and that goes right along with their low tax rate desires.


Now, it sounds o.k., but it never works. Whoever owns the company is gunna usually pay their employees the least of the profits that they possibly can. Then, they want to pay very little tax on their profits. Then, that results in virtually no money for the Gov't to correct the problems created when the employer refused to pay their employees much. The Republican response to this is what? All at once now......."GET A BETTER JOB."So,people upgraded their skill levels to get better pay and benefits. Should work beautifully, Right? It doesn't. You have a whole country(INDIA) full of people who tried this. Once the employers realized their were a lot of highly skilled people, they did what humans do, and they started paying less and less(because high computer related skills were easy to get.) Capitalism is about who has power. It rewards those who have the power(and their friends,) and punishes all others. What Republicans don't realize is we've tried it the way they want it, and it worked very badly. All these things they hate(taxes, Social programs, Medicare, Social Security etc. ) came about because their way didn't work. It creates 2 classes only. Sure, if you lower taxes on business, then there will be a lot of jobs. Almost all will be poor paying jobs. These businesses you say will move? Where they gunna move? Some place with low taxes and low paying jobs? O.K., so you want them to stay here(with low taxes.) What you gunna complain about next? I know. The companies want to move because people will work for less elsewhere. We are bankrupting these companies by paying people too much. Lets lower salaries to keep jobs here. It's endless, and that's why you live surrounded by low paid Republican hillbillies. If low taxes on business resulted in higher salaries, then the South would have the highest paid workers(they don't.) They have a lot of dumb Republican Hillbillies making Corporations rich.

in other words, you didn't read any of the links i put up. and i'm STILL waiting for you to tell me what will work, not what won't.

4) Some 70 percent of the corporate tax burden is borne by workers in the form of lower wages and fewer high-paying jobs.


7) A new OECD study found that corporate taxes are the most damaging kind of tax.

13) An EU study of 50,000 companies found that a 1 percent increase in marginal corporate income tax rates leads to a 0.92 percent decrease in real wages.

18) For every dollar the government collects in revenue, the corporate tax may actually cost the government $1 in revenue through slower economic growth.

edit~ the above, and others found in a link above, was written by "James Pethokoukis is the money and politics blogger for U.S. News & World Report , where he writes the monthly Capital Commerce magazine column. Pethokoukis is also the assistant managing editor of the magazine's Money & Business section. He has written for many publications including the New York Times, the American, USA Today, Investor's Business Daily, and TCS Daily. Pethokoukis is also an official CNBC contributor and appears frequently on that network's Kudlow & Company, Power Lunch, and The Call shows. In addition, he has appeared numerous times on MSNBC, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, CNN, and Nightly Business Report on PBS. A 1989 graduate of Northwestern University where he double majored in Soviet politics and American history and a 1991 graduate of the Medill School of Journalism, Pethokoukis is a 2002 Jeopardy! champion. "

dont even try it! I am out...O-U-T of political discussions.

Sports..sports..sports.

Scuds, before i go, I will leave you with a little ammo. economy did fine under clinton with tax hikes

nothing like making a liar of yourself.

from the cato institute, in which it states that reagan lowered the corporate tax rate from 46 to 34 %. it was 35% under clinton.


http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_0707_48.pdf

And? The economy didnt do well under clinton?

did you read it? and i made the comment due to the fact that clinton and reagan both had essentially the same % rate on corporate taxes. if clinton 'raised' it, he sure raised it a lot. :rolleyes:

i uh, thought you weren't engaging?

I noticed an untruth so i responded. Corporate tax rates were raised during clinton. Economy soared and deficit went down.

But hey, I guess we can take an article from cato as unbiased.:)

Carry on. Sorry for intruding with facts.

Back to sports.

what untruth was that?

Of course the tech boom had nothing to do with that...but Al Gore did invent the internet...

That the economy does poorly when you hike taxes.

Why is there always an excuse to why the economy did well under clinton? Greenspan gives him a tremendous amount of credit.

Do you think Clinton was fiscally conservative?

well, after all the reading i've done, and the links i put up above, from economists who say that the corporate tax should be kept low, and reading nothing to dispute that from scuds or yourself (other than clintons 35% tax rate compared to reagans 34% being some kind of proof-wow, HUGE difference there)...well, i guess i'll go with the pros on what they have to say.

i just did a search on higher corporate taxes growing the economy. i'll let you know when i find something. so far it's all the same that it'll slow it down.

I dont need partisan drivel to form my opinions about the economy. the quote was that higher taxes are bad for the economy. My stat proved that statement wrong...its not always the case.

speaking of greenspan:


Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, speaking at a Treasury Department event on business taxes, said the problems of higher U.S. tax rates in a global economy are being masked by the low global cost of capital and declining exchange rates.

This will be temporary, however. “The cost of capital is not going to stay down at this level,” Greenspan said. As the cost of capital rises, the problems of higher U.S. tax rates relative to other countries will become more apparent, he said

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson earlier opened the event, saying, “Our current business tax system is clearly not optimal.” Paulson called for a comprehensive review of the way U.S. business is taxed, arguing the current system distorts the economy and harms business growth. “It is time for a comprehensive look at our system for taxing business,” he said. Paulson echoed comments he made in a recent Journal op-ed.

However, Paulson’s push for streamlining the corporate tax code is out of synch with Democrats in Congress. Democrats in the Senate and the House of Representatives, under new balanced budget rules, are pursuing a wide range of corporate tax hikes and revenue raising options, such as taxation of carried interest on hedge fund managers’ income. Tax reform isn’t on the tax committees’ agenda.

Greenspan stressed that lawmakers should act now to lower rates while the economy is good. “When all of a sudden the Baby Boomers retire … pressure is going to be for higher taxes, not lower taxes and to do anything that effects the corporate tax rate on the downside will run into political resistance.


that was from july '07.

:rolleyes:

In a perfect world, free of human nature, lowering corporate taxes COULD have a positive effect on the overall economy and everyone in it. I dont think anyone with a brain would deny that. The problem is human nature...namely-greed.

The main problem in our economy is the deficit. i dont see how you can attack the deficit while lowering taxes. It wasnt done during Reagan or either Bush. Now if all the corporations passed those tax breaks on to their employees in the way of benefits and increased wages, then yes trickle down would work. But that isnt the case. Do you need the numbers to prove it?

Theory and practicality are often two very different things.

Sen. Barack Obama proposes a welfare plan that will transfer billions from those who earned to others who didn't.

He doesn't call his plan "welfare" or "hand-outs," which would be accurate. Instead, Mr. Obama portrays this massive redistribution scheme as "tax cuts." Who could object to tax cuts?

Obama says he will "cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families ... ." The first of many problems with this claim is that only 62 percent of U.S. households pay income taxes at all. How then, under Mr. Obama's plan, can most of the other 38 percent who already pay no income tax also get a tax cut?

Answer: Their tax liability will be reduced by giving them tax credits. Most people recognize the absurdity of lessening a burden that's already zero. But, hey, it is an election year.

In one sense, 95 percent of workers and their families will benefit from this plan with either less money going out or more coming in. But they profit only at a huge cost for the remaining 5 percent, who happen to earn more income than Mr. Obama thinks proper.

That small minority of the populace will be stuck with the bill. Their taxes will increase in order to provide for the cash not collected from or handed out to 95 percent of us. This no doubt has a short-sighted appeal for many of the 95 percent.

This is nothing new to Washington, a place where people send their money in order that the government can disperse it to people who didn't earn it. Obama's promise only enhances the scope of this practice.

In 1999, about 30 million tax filers had no income tax liability after taking advantage of credits and deductions. The number had mushroomed to 44 million by 2006, according to the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit organization that has provided information about government finance since 1937.

"The nation's tax and spending policies redistributed more than $1 trillion in income from the top 40 percent of American households to the bottom 60 percent of households," the Tax Foundation reports.

Mr. Obama is proposing to buy the support of a broad swath of voters with the money earned by a narrow band of America's most wealthy. He assures us that no family making less than $250,000 a year will see an increase in taxes. Why $250,000? It's probably as arbitrary as the rest of the numbers in his plan. Why eliminate taxes for seniors making less than $50,000, as he proposes? Why not $30,000 or $75,000? Why provide a 10 percent mortgage interest tax credit instead of 5 percent or 20 percent credit? Why reduce taxes by $3,700 on married couples making $75,000 with two children, one in college? Why not $5,000 or $1,000?
We suspect Mr. Obama's metrics have more to do with how many votes he can acquire, rather than how much fairness he can inject into the system. And he will acquire those votes by taking, then spending, other peoples' money.

The Heritage Foundation says Mr. Obama's tax proposal would increase the U.S. top marginal income tax rate from 42.7 percent to 56 percent, making it comparable to Sweden's 56, Germany's 57 and Belgium's 60 percent. Part of the price paid in those economies, says the Heritage Foundation, is high unemployment - up to 9.8 percent.

Moreover, high tax rates also encourage capital and income flight to lower-taxed areas

LOL after he was out of the job. He has said lots of things contrary to how he performed after he left.

and i've said the same thing more than once, that i don't like either candidates plan as both suggest a tax break to individuals, while both have the deficit increasing under their plans. the deficit will hinder this nation, as other countries will really be questioning our ability to ever get out of debt.
but i also think now is the wrong time to raise the corporate tax rate, which is what i was trying to get across from the beginning. in good times, you raise it, but certainly not in bad times. reagan lowered the rate, clinton bumped it up one percent. it worked for both at the time. but these are different times now.

But this is why i shouldnt waste my time arguing about it. No one acknowledges the basic points of the discussion. You guys just paste stuff from partisan sources that agree with your cause.

I will save you the trouble. There is a guy i know well that will completely agree with you guys. He is one of if not the most influential lobbyists in DC. PM me if you want the name.

What i am saying is save the canned rhetoric.

Cant you come up with your own thoughts and support them with your own facts?

Where is the theory that says that raising taxes has a positive effect on the economy? How can hurting business help the economy?

but what if someone had listened? where would we be now?
also, you use greenspan as a way to give props to clinton, and now you take the other tack?

What about cutting spending? Understandably the current administration hasnt done very well with it but these two clowns dont even bother talking about it, dont even give it lip service.

he gave props to Clinton while he was still in office and then afterward. His book is an interesting read if not totally agenda filled.

What you really have to think about is what would have happened if people chose NOT to listen to Greenspan when it mattered. Where would we be?

i did a search since i wanted to educate myself on the topic, since all i got here is that i was a republican. those are the things that came up. had i found the opposite, i would have put that up. i'm trying to learn about the stuff...exactly how could i back up my pov if i found it to be incorrect? i said back a few pages ago that i was basing my initial thoughts on what i have observed over the last few years in my current job. as well as how things have been going for the last 11 years that tony has worked at his job. so, i did searches, and that's the stuff i found. in other words, i did have my own thoughts, my own facts, and from what i've read, i was pretty much on the right path.

and all that stuff i found, and put up..all of that is partisan? the guy from us news? the guy from the ny times?

Now, we are talking!!!!

Hurting business doesnt help the economy. We have to prioritize though. this deficit is killing us. I think we all agree.

yes, clinton was aided heavily by tech boom. i will contend that his policies greatly AIDED the boom.

A big part of what made his economy was his fiscal responsibility. He realized that the deficit was killing us.

yeah, we have a choice between two proponents of larger govt and bigger deficits. wonderful.

We agree. I completely agree.

What will work? For who? Scandinavia and Canada have some of the best Standards of Living. If you lower tax rates on business are you also gunna make sure your salary increases when the company does well? I don't think so. You're living in probably the most business friendly area of the country, but the workers are paid the least there. Sounds like you enjoy static salaries for workers. So that's "working" for you. I heard Canada is one of the most business friendly countries, and has a top 3 type standard of living. I don't think you could stand for their personal income taxes though. There is no country that works well with the Republican Recipe (low business regulation, low taxes of all types, and low Gov't spending.) That doesn't work, but keep pushing that crap.

However we have had the tech bubble burst and housing bubble burst and are dealing with increased competition in the global market not to mention considerably higher energy prices since those times. Thats not even talking about the current global banking crisis. The deficit simply has to be dealt with over time and cutting spending would be a start. The handouts should wait too but those help get people elected.

You cant compare countries. 80% of canada is not even inhabitated. Scandinavia is closer to a state. I am still waiting on how raising taxes helps workers accross the board. Please dont bring in people who make $7 an hour because unskilled labor will never do exceedingly well simply because they are unskilled and easily replaced.

You said yourself that Corporations are not interested in the welfare of workers. You can't mandate that they "help" workers(something I doubt you give a s-h-i-t about...so, it's an odd question.) So, the only way to help workers is to get some of the profits back in taxes that go for what you call "handouts" like social security, medicare etc. I think you're saying that some higher paid workers are hurt by higher taxes. Maybe, but they would have a house full of people to take care of if there were no Social Security, and Medicare. I'd be having to pretend I care about what story my mom would be telling me. She'd probably be living with me(she was just a worker.)

Cutting spending where though? 54% of spending is on military. 30% is on human resources aka hand outs and what not.

Where do you want to cut? And then on top of that, you want to cut while ALSO giving a tax cut?

Coach does this mean you arent mad at me anymore? I promise i will not post a pick to your pick thread ever again. I defer to you as the greatest football handicapper i have ever seen.

LOL...Anything with her in it is a riot. Can she entertain us somehow for 4 years? Maybe Fox will pay her some incredible amount to replace Hannity.