Yes, jobs are created by demand. However, the cheap stuff most poor people buy are made in China. Not here. Is it stimulating the Chinese economy you are advocating?See, you argue one thing, then when countered, bring up another thing as if your original point never mattered.
Tell me WC, aren't jobs also created through demand? If that million dollars were distributed, then the families spending it would be supporting and creating job growth in the areas that they spend their money, right?
As for countering, I prefer not to focus on BS.
Their investments most often become capital to start new businesses and new jobs. It still doesn't create good jobs here in the USA to redistribute money. just more burger joints, retailers selling foreign made products, etc. We need to return manufacturing jobs, not service jobs. Service jobs will follow naturally.
Have to disagree with you there WC. They tend to buy domestic beer and smokes.
OK, you got me there. But I am also against buying drugs with tax payer dollars.
Hmmm... how curious. Why are so many manufacturing jobs in China? I mean, aren't all those rich people creating jobs in the US?
If you don't think something is a strong point, you shouldn't bring it up in the first place.
Jobs are jobs, in my humble opinion. I would like manufacturing to come back, but how do you suggest America competes for low-skilled menial labor, when said labor could be done in a third-world country by people getting paid dollars a day for long shifts and less regulations?
Why should they when liberal policies are pushing them away.
My God. I get tired of people's short sightedness. There is no single solution. There are several things that need to be done to work in conjunction with each other.
You're right. Then everyone refuses to talk about my stronger points. That's OK with me though. I repeatedly try to get answers on some things, never getting them, and people come back to things with less importance. That's when I know I won.
Why did the manufacturing jobs leave when the Republicans were in control of the government?
They've been leaving for years. Free trade agreements you know. Ever since, I have been advocating reducing or eliminating corporate taxes. The talk from democrats of increasing taxes on the rich just accelerate this problem.
What is the actual corporate tax rate that is paid by businesses?
Average doesn't matter. not all have the write offs others do.
Do your own research for those numbers. A 35% marginal rate is too high. After the corporation tax is levied, then the stock holders pay tax also. The owners are double taxed.
Just say you have no idea.
I doubt any company of size actually pays a full 35%.
lol average doesn't matter
Agreed, but wouldn't eliminating deductions and lowering rates give a more predictable revenue? Stop some from paying nothing and others from paying much more?
You didn't address the double taxation issue.
I'm fine with that, but you're pretending everyone pays the full rate.
No need to. If they cash out, they pay tax on the gain.You didn't address the double taxation issue.
A measly 15%. That's the first tax that needs to go up.
What policies in particular?
Also, if they don't care about supporting the American consumer, why should the American consumer care about how much they get taxed?
You seemed to suggest that low tax rates = more GDP, while throwing out other issues. Remove the beam in thine own eye, good sir.
Tell me, what several things could be done in conjunction to increase manufacturing in the States? I know you've mentioned tariffs before, which I support. What else?
Feel free to discuss what you think are your strongest points. I'm pretty sure you'll get replies.
Isn't a corporation considered a "person"? If so, that would go on to explain why the corporation itself could be taxed, along with the people who work for the corporation.
that's capitalism though and the consumer is responsible in many respects.
when i see a corporation that's not supporting Americas interests i say them and stop buying from them. that's the beauty of capitalism. if more consumers took that approach, collectively, we'd have these CEOs and corporations on their knees. it's too bad more people don't boycott. it's effective but the problem (and genius) of most of the corporations is they've tricked us into thinking we need them, when in fact it works both ways.
Last edited by mingus; 07-07-2011 at 11:12 PM.
I said years back that magic pink fairies would cause it to rain. My predictions of rain have come true as I said. Outside that, I don't care what you say.
I have been consistant on points that have come to pass.
Show me I'm wrong.
I said years back that sacrificing chickens to the flying Spaghetti Monster would cause the sun to go down. My predictions of the sun going down have come true. Outside that, I don't care what you say.
I have been consistent on points that have come to pass.
Show me I'm wrong
Unfortunately for you, the fact that your underlying assertion is a logical fallacy, Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, is rather central to your entire argument, and hardly a "sidetrack".
"tax cuts, therefore tax revenues than would otherwise be the case"
or
"democrats elected, therefore economic calamity"
Both suffer from the same lack of evidence for causality.
If you were better at analysing your underlying assumptions when trying to do this, you might have realized that before having it pointed out.
To support your "tax cuts = more tax revenues" case you cherry picked data from a chart, while ignoring the parts of the very same chart that actively refuted your assertion.
Sorry, not I am not convinced. Is all you have to offer is flawed logic, innuendo, and cherry-picking?
Or do you have something better?
The other thing is that you ignore the entire rest of the graph.Look at this graph. There was higher revenue after the tax cuts, and a sudden drop after democrats took control of congress.
How do you explain the jump in revenues after the tax increases in the early 50's?
How do you explain then the lack of massive increase in revenues after the upper rate is cut rather substantially in the 60's and then in the 80's?
If your theory were to hold true, both things should be impossible, but there they are, right in the graph you yourself posted.
You did read the rest of the graph to see if it fit your theory right?
Indeed things take place outside that graph.
Besides the tax cuts there was the housing bubble, an unsustained run-up. You cherry picked the tax cuts while not mentioning that, then turned around and talked about the Democrats gaining control of congress just as that same financial crisis came to a head.
You attempt to use that graph to support your main point, "taxing the rich more does not increase government revenue." while at the exact same time acknolwedging the fact that events outside the graph affect revenues.
Answer this question:
What cir stance could lead to a reduction in top rates on the rich, while maintaining a stable amount of tax revenue, either in terms of % of the economy, or absolute dollars?
Whatever the Dems did or didn't do, it doesn't seem to be working.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43682730
Whatever the Dems did or didn't do, if the Repugs win in 2012, they will certainly CONTINUE to make the hated government worse, and life for Human-Americans much worse. Their fantasy is that "the sacred, worshipped free market self-correctingly solves all problems". They know, we all know, that's a lie.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
