Clinton: The rich aren't paying their fair share

[bytor2112]

Yes of course. Sending rich people's money to Washington will surely create new jobs...right???

[FunkyTown]

Yes of course. Sending rich people's money to Washington will surely create new jobs...right???

I think the point is, 'People who don't have jobs shouldn't be required to make up the bulk of taxes. Taking $1000 away in sales and other taxes from someone who earns $10000/year is far harder on them than taking $100, 000 away from someone who earns $1, 000, 000/year.

[bytor2112]

I think the point is, 'People who don't have jobs shouldn't be required to make up the bulk of taxes. Taking $1000 away in sales and other taxes from someone who earns $10000/year is far harder on them than taking $100, 000 away from someone who earns $1, 000, 000/year.

People who don't have jobs don't pay the bulk of taxes and I am fairly sure she is referring to federal income tax. That burden is shouldered by the wealthiest among us and in fact only 47% of Americans pay federal income tax.

It is the height of ignorance to believe that raising taxes creates more jobs and a stronger more vibrant economy.

Edited May 28, 2010 by bytor2112

[FunkyTown]

People who don't have jobs don't pay the bulk of taxes and I am fairly sure she is referring to federal income tax. That burden is shouldered by the wealthiest among us and in fact only 47% of Americans pay federal income tax.

It is the height of ignorance to believe that raising taxes creates more jobs and a stronger more vibrant economy.

True. However, the problem is that the stimulus package is requiring that the country pay it back somehow.

Taxes are going to have to be raised for someone.

Yes, the stimulus package was bad. Yes, I disagreed with it. Yes, it passed any way.

What do we do now? Who pays for it?

[bytor2112]

True. However, the problem is that the stimulus package is requiring that the country pay it back somehow.

Taxes are going to have to be raised for someone.

Yes, the stimulus package was bad. Yes, I disagreed with it. Yes, it passed any way.

What do we do now? Who pays for it?

Lower taxes = economic growth = more jobs = more tax revenues. (and most critical....slash government spending)

[FunkyTown]

Lower taxes = economic growth = more jobs = more tax revenues. (and most critical....slash government spending)

I know that's the theory, but it's based on a bell curve.

There hits a 'Sweet spot' of taxes where you'll maximize revue compared to job creation. I'm sure if you could prove mathematically that the government will hit this perfect revenue stream via a specific taxation curve, the government will take your advice.

After all, it would be madness if you said 'Hey - You can get $99 billion dollars in taxes if you implement a flat tax of 2% instead of roughly 15% - Here is the mathematical proof based upon historical averages' and they said 'Yeah. Thanks. We appreciate your input, but what we really want to do is put our foots on the throats of the American people'.

If you can prove your hypothesis - And I'm not being facetious here - Present your findings to your senator and he can then present it to the senate. By providing proof that this will create a win-win situation, you can solve your governments problems.

Otherwise, a lot of people are terrified that lower taxes will place the US in to the same situation as Greece. And without a foreign government to prop up the US, hyper-inflation would be a very real threat in that case.

The US can not, for the good of all its citizens, default on its debt. It would be catastrophic. That's got people nervous. The tax-man is now a very necessary evil.

I sincerely hope you can prove your hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt. With warnings of another financial crisis looming and companies going blithely on without changing tactics, I am concerned for you.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I think Clinton's comments are preposterous. She cites Brazil which has a high tax to GDP ratio and that the country is booming. Therefore high tax rates are good for the economy.

I would suggest that the Brazil economy is booming in spite of the taxation, or that the taxation levels are so high due to the supposed profitability of business which leads to higher tax revenues. High taxation didnt' cause the boom in the economy. And this is probably due to some healthy underlying fundamental such as cheap labor, natural resources, or other factor condition which makes Brazil attractive to do business with. Not their high tax rates.

On the other hand, I agree that the rich don't pay enough in taxes. In Canada, it was always the middle class that got taxed. The rich figure out how to avoid the taxes, or threatend to counteract the new taxes with moves that make the government think twice.

For example, the government wanted to levy a hefty Employer Health Care Tax on big business in Ontario. This would be based on gross payroll numbers. Big business responded by refusing to hire full-time any more workers so they didn't have to balloon their payroll figure with all those full-time people and their associated benefits. So, big business avoided the tax, and line workers suffered by not getting full-time work.

[FunkyTown]

I'm honestly not even kidding with that last post. Thought I'd post this so you can know where I'm coming from.

I realize that we disagree on the level of government intervention, but there is clearly a point when things like that have to be set aside.

The stimulus package was a bad idea. Now, to make up for the losses incurred during the meltdown, companies are doing the stupidest thing possible. They're borrowing money at these low interest rates to buy commodities. This is causing commodities to conflate to absurd levels - Like gold. With the value of the US dollar dropping in comparison to foreign currencies, when the bottom drops out of the commodities market, you're looking at a perfect storm for the financial sector.

The US with its stimulus package. The EU with their stimulus packages. If there's another drop of the financial market, you're looking at the western world being brought to its knees by theories. There will still be goods. We just won't be able to afford them.

It happened in Niger. Bleah. Bad all around. That's why, though I know that it sounds facetious, I honestly do hope you can prove what you're saying.

[Just_A_Guy]

The US can not, for the good of all its citizens, default on its debt. It would be catastrophic. That's got people nervous. The tax-man is now a very necessary evil.

No, but we could (theoretically) re-apportion the debt so that the states whose representatives voted for the measure wind up carrying the bulk of the debt.

But it'll be a cold day in heck before that happens.

[FunkyTown]

No, but we could (theoretically) re-apportion the debt so that the states whose representatives voted for the measure wind up carrying the bulk of the debt.

But it'll be a cold day in heck before that happens.

Sure. But then they'll say that the costs of the Iraq war should be born exclusively by the representatives who voted for that.

Dangerous precedent, but could be effective.

Right now, the US is acting much like Greece did when Greece overspent. They were told they had to either raise taxes to pay for the government programs they created or they'd need to cut those government programs back and maintain the level of taxation.

There were riots in the streets. Hopefully, it doesn't get that bad in the US.

But then again, hopefully they'd have booted Greece's butt to the curb rather than bail them out. That didn't happen.

[applepansy]

Funky,

At my house if we can't afford something it doesn't happen. We can choose to borrow the money to go to a movie or dinner (credit card) but we end up paying for it eventually with interest. Ecoomic principles work at all levels including government. If they don't cut programs we'll be in even more trouble as a nation. Just like we'd be in more trouble as a family if we used our credit cards without thinking about who would pay it all back.

Will people get upset? yup! Just like my kids did when I said we couldn't afford to see the movie they wanted to see. It didn't matter that their friends were seeing it. It didn't matter if we had a credit card. There wasn't the extra income to afford the movie.

Our government needs to quit coddling people and be real. We as a nation cannot afford what is happening. But nobody is going to listen to me. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

Sure. But then they'll say that the costs of the Iraq war should be born exclusively by the representatives who voted for that.

Considering that TARP has us spending $356 billion in two years ($178 billion/year) versus the Iraq War's having us spend $725 billion in seven years ($103 billion/year)--

I can live with that.

[Moksha]

Considering that TARP has us spending $356 billion in two years ($178 billion/year) versus the Iraq War's having us spend $725 billion in seven years ($103 billion/year)--

I can live with that.

Oh yeah, well isn't it time those TARP people show us a sufficient body count to justify their efforts?

[Moksha]

Bytor, shouldn't Clinton be teaching the poor to fish for more effective tax shelters through their tax attorneys instead of bugging the rich?

:)

[bytor2112]

Bytor, shouldn't Clinton be teaching the poor to fish for more effective tax shelters through their tax attorneys instead of bugging the rich?

:)

Not sure Clinton could teach the poor anything and seriously doubt that she could ever relate to the struggles of the poor. Moksha, humor aside, the poor don't pay taxes.....income taxes. When 47% percent of the citizenry bear the tax burden or rather when 47% fund the governments entitlement programs and fund wars like Iraq and bailout GM and AIG, we have a problem.

It really isn't about paying taxes for me, we should all be paying taxes.... a FAIR or FLAT tax preferably. Whichever, the bigger issue is how our government chooses to waste our money.....that is where I become hacked off. That's why the Tea Party Movement.....it's about waste. Slash the budget, eliminate redundancy and waste and then talk to us about the need to raise taxes.

Edited May 29, 2010 by bytor2112

[Just_A_Guy]

Oh yeah, well isn't it time those TARP people show us a sufficient body count to justify their efforts?

I'd settle for getting the unemployment rate back to where it was when TARP passed.

Edited May 29, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[HoosierGuy]

It is the height of ignorance to believe that raising taxes creates more jobs and a stronger more vibrant economy.

That statement to me has "Republican" written all over it.

[FunkyTown]

Not sure Clinton could teach the poor anything and seriously doubt that she could ever relate to the struggles of the poor. Moksha, humor aside, the poor don't pay taxes.....income taxes. When 47% percent of the citizenry bear the tax burden or rather when 47% fund the governments entitlement programs and fund wars like Iraq and bailout GM and AIG, we have a problem.

It really isn't about paying taxes for me, we should all be paying taxes.... a FAIR or FLAT tax preferably. Whichever, the bigger issue is how our government chooses to waste our money.....that is where I become hacked off. That's why the Tea Party Movement.....it's about waste. Slash the budget, eliminate redundancy and waste and then talk to us about the need to raise taxes.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. A fair or flat tax is the way to go.

It would require less administration, would tax the wealthy as much as the middle class and would help prevent tax shelters if implemented correctly.

Though I do take issue with 'The poor don't pay taxes'. Depending on where they live, they pay sales tax and that can be a real burden on them since losing those few hundred or thousand a year is critical for them. Not so much for someone with a lot more money.

But you're right that the middle class has an unfair burden placed upon them.

[Hemidakota]

Yes of course. Sending rich people's money to Washington will surely create new jobs...right???

Same sentiments as the last poster [comments]; "...Another Dimwitted Liberal..."

[Hemidakota]

Considering that TARP has us spending $356 billion in two years ($178 billion/year) versus the Iraq War's having us spend $725 billion in seven years ($103 billion/year)--

I can live with that.

I believe the truth will eventually get out how much TARP and other social programs will cost us in the trillion and not billions. Eventually, our 'house of card' economy will collapse on itself.

Will they blame Bush for that one? Most likely...or, Obama will create another sideline event to cover up or distract the public. Remember, a false messiah comes in creating his own event then turned it around as a savior in helping us out of it.

[bytor2112]

That statement to me has "Republican" written all over it.

Your statement has "ignorant" written all over it. Label it what you will, but the fact remains that higher taxes will not create a stronger economy or create jobs.

Edited June 2, 2010 by bytor2112

[bytor2112]

Though I do take issue with 'The poor don't pay taxes'. Depending on where they live, they pay sales tax and that can be a real burden on them since losing those few hundred or thousand a year is critical for them. Not so much for someone with a lot more money.

Taxes yes....federal income tax...no.

[HoosierGuy]

Your statement has "ignorant" written all over it. Label it what you will, but the fact remains that higher taxes will not create a stronger economy or create jobs.

That statement is a typical Republican/Conservative statement. I've heard it a thousand times and always from Republicans.

So lower taxes will help create a stronger economy along with the trickle-down effect?

[Hemidakota]

It usually does...

[Guest]

That statement is a typical Republican/Conservative statement. I've heard it a thousand times and always from Republicans.

So lower taxes will help create a stronger economy along with the trickle-down effect?

Time to break out your Economics for Dummies book. Lots of nuggets of information there.

To make it easier for you, I'll give you the free e-link from the author that gives you a sneak peek at certain chapters on that book.

Welcome to Learn-Economics.com, the on-line home of Economics for Dummies

Pay special attention to Chapter 17 and go through and read carefully the articles cited. Now, this is an Economics book - not a Republican/Democrat/Whatever book.

For more nuggets of information for you, here's an article (not extracted from the Economics for Dummies book, but the title of the article is Economics for dummies which can get confused with the book) that provides some good insight in a "layman" wording. Might be easier to understand.

Economics for dummies - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

A good quote from that article:

"It's not hard to understand supply-side economics. High taxes slow down economic activity. That's why we tax cigarettes."

Study and learn. Then you can argue.

Edited June 2, 2010 by anatess