Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Here’s the truth about tax cuts:

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 4, 2012, 6:25 a.m. EST by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This is from the Congress’s own think tank some highlights.

“Although the statutory top marginal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950s, the average tax rate for the very rich was much lower. The average tax rates at five-year intervals since 1945 for the top 0.1% and top 0.01% of taxpayers is shown in Figure 1. The average tax rate for the top 0.01% (one taxpayer in 10,000) was about 60% in 1945 and fell to 24.2% by 1990. The average tax rate for the top 0.1% (one taxpayer in 1,000) was 55% in 1945 and also fell to 24.2% by 1990, following a similar downward path as the tax rate for the top 0.01%. Between 1990 and 1995, the average tax rate for both the top 0.1% and top 0.01% increased to about 31%. After 1995, the average tax rate for the top 0.01% was lower than that for the top 0.1%.”

“It is recognized that measure of U.S. income disparities have increased over the past 35 years. According to income tax data, average inflation-adjusted or real income increased by 116% (that is, about doubled) since 1945. Average real income increased by 395% for the top 0.1% and by 692% for the top 0.01% over this period. Average real income for the balance of the top 1% in the income distribution (i.e., all but the top 0.1%) increased by about 165%. The share of income going to the top 1% increased from 12.5% in 1945 to 19.8% in 2010. Three-quarters of this increase in income share went to the top 0.1%. Since the major changes in the distribution of income were largely due to changes in the top 0.1% of the income distribution, the focus of the analysis is on the top 0.1%.”

Concluding Remarks: “The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.

The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.

However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.”

http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/documents/CRSTaxesandtheEconomy%20Top%20Rates.pdf

UPDATE: 11/28/2012

The GOP are worried their cover-up will become uncovered

http://www.rollcall.com/news/emails_reveal_gop_concerns_about_withdrawn_crs_tax_rate_report-219428-1.html?pos=hln

90 Comments

90 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

there wont be any tax cuts there will be deduction cuts... what they could previously have claimed as an deduction will be counted as taxable money.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The Bush tax cuts will expire because the House GOP will not compromise.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1479) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Hey, would you help us??

Putting together a postcard link to petition congress.

Anyone else you can solicit would be great, Bensdad, Zen???

http://occupywallst.org/forum/now-that-we-got-our-guy-reelected-why-dont-we-do-s/

[-] -1 points by Coyote88 (-24) 2 years ago

What is "congresses own think tank"?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It's a bunch of PhDs that do research for congress people like the Heritage does for the GOP or Pew for the Dems. Roughly speaking nothing here surprises me, I've been watching this for a bit and saw jobs soar after Clinton raised taxes and fall like brick after Bush cut them.

[-] -1 points by Coyote88 (-24) 2 years ago

So higher taxes mean more jobs. Check.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

If you want a fair tax system support the dem approach. It is only a 1st small step, but it is in the right direction

http://www.nationofchange.org/white-house-rules-social-security-out-fiscal-cliff-talks-1354111853

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Over the past couple of decades it has, I think it's because we have let taxes fall below the "sweet spot" like 98.6 is for body temp, there is a good spot, we can't take our body temp to zero nor can we taxes to zero, or even too close to it if we want the nation to live.

[-] -1 points by Coyote88 (-24) 2 years ago

So what is the sweet spot?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

hard to say, we know that when we took them from 35 to 39% (top rate) we created 23 million jobs, when we cut them back to 35% we lost jobs,l so going to say 42% top rate would seem a good place to start, then if you create jobs the next year you might try 45% and see if you create more or less.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Rates typically have little to do with revenue. What was the change in Gov revenue from the top 0.1 % of earners over the periods noted above? Could it be that the top 0.1 % are clever enough (or just have clever accountants) to adapt to changing tax laws and minimize the tax that they actually pay?

Also, it does not always follow that an increase in the tax rate, or even an increase in revenue, for the top 0.1 % transfers wealth to the bottom 25%. Most Gov programs in fact take money from both the rich and the poor, waste most of it, and give what's left to the middle class.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I see little support for your positions in the report, however tax rates have nothing to do with creating jobs so raising rates is not a threat to the economy nor is cutting rates a boost, so in light of that might as well try to get the debt paid. Let's take the top rate back to 90 now and see if it works as good as when Clinton raised it to 39 we didn't owe as much back then.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 2 years ago

I would think that "tax rates" have a lot to do with creating jobs.

Lets say a business is taxed at 20% but that business is selling its products world wide and business is good.

Is that 20% tax rate just as good for a business that is only selling local and is not doing so well?

Lets change things by saying that a business taxed at 20% selling worldwide is not doing so great is that 20% tax rate good for that business?

Or how about the small businesses that is taxed at 20% and is doing great is that tax rate good for that business?

The economy has a "hugh" effect on how well a business does along with the taxes it has to pay. More revenue = able to pay more in taxes

Less revenue + able to pay less in taxes.

Which portion of the business sector employes more people - it's the small businesses sector so if they are being strangled by paying higher taxes then they have no other choice to either cut costs - reduce employees hours or cut employees or go out of business.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

A lot of people have said that as it turns out though they don't, if they did we would be awash in jobs as taxes have been on a steady 65 year decline.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Business Taxes are regressive and disproportionately hurt the poor because they tax items like food and clothing that are normally exempt from sales and consumption taxes.

Also, since many small businesses are LLCs or Sole Proprietorships the profit is taxed as personal income so that tax will also have regressive consequences.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 2 years ago

You hit the nail on the head about small businesses being LLCs or Sole Proprietorships. Those businesses are the "blood line" for the economy and when they are "styfeled" regardless of what the cause is the economy will slow down.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

It is harmful to the poor in particular to heap taxes on these businesses since it translates to higher prices, reduced competition, and reduced supply.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Well if you study the Gov revenue generated from the top 0.1 % over the periods noted above you will find that there is little correlation between rate and revenue except in the limits. There is a strong correlation between revenue and income (I would go out on a limb and define it as causal). So if the goal is to generate revenue to pay down the debt (or other good use) then the best way to do that is to increase the income of the top 0.1%.

What do you suspect is the best way to do that?

BTW, notice that the report gives details about rates only, not revenue. That should make you suspicious. They do however note that economic growth is uncorrelated to tax rates, but fail to understand what that means for revenue. As Laffer points out rates and revenue are in fact correlated, but only in the limits.

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Everyone knows that growth will be necessary to reduce the debt.

'correlation between revenue and income' - Wha? Maybe I missed something. You have a link on that?

I think the correlation is between economic growth and revenue/debt reduction. Which does not necessarily require low tax rates, especially for the wealthy.

'the best way to do that is to increase the income of the top .1%' - huh? At your own peril. Don't subject the rest of what assemblance of democracy we have left to that kind of destructive notion.

Laffer proposes that there is some optimal point. Some economists argue that we are on the upward side of the slope.

'economic growth is uncorrelated to tax rates' - exactly. Done.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I did notice how Washington started taking in too much money after the world's largest tax increase of '93.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Why did they take in more money? Because of the change in rates? Not at all. It was because of the economic growth.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago
  • new rate 90% on income over $1 million.

  • Additional 5% cap gains tax on profit over $100k, 10% more on inc> $500k, 15% more on inc > $1 million.

  • new 3% wealth tax on principle just sitting making interest income.

That'll learn 'em.

-

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Are you trying to increase Gov revenue from the 0.1%? Will your plan achieve that goal? As the report points out there is little correlation between tax rates and economic growth. A more effective strategy for increasing revenue is to increase economic growth (which also has other advantages).

Why not devise a strategy that increases the income of the top 0.1%? Even at current rates that will surely increase Gov revenue from the top 0.1%.

What is the best strategy for increasing the income of the top 0.1%?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The peoples govt will NOT be used to help the .1% plutocrats.

The peoples govt WILL be used to help the 99%!

I agree increasing economic growth is the best way to raise revenue.

So then take all the tax increases I mentioned (from top 10% probably) and cut taxes/debt for working class,

Once they (the real job creatotrs) have money again they will naturally consume/spend, increase demand and economic growth. Only then will hiring start.

Also penalize outsourcing, reward insourcing.

Simple. Done.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree with you that economic growth is the right answer, however it is really not so simple to increase growth as you have probably noticed recently.

Will your tax plan increase or decrease economic growth? If you raise taxes but fail to achieve growth there will be no additional money available to cut taxes on the working class.

Don't get me wrong, cutting taxes is generally a good idea because individuals are usually better at spending their money than the Gov, but don't forget that the Gov has other deleterious means for generating revenue like borrowing it, or worse, printing it.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Raise taxes on the wealthy corps & individuals, . Use that revenue to cut taxes/debt for the working class.

cut spending (50% cut defense, & waste in non defense) use that to increase growth by investing in new energy tech/infrastructure, & cut the deficit.

The revenue from economic growth s/b used to cut the deficit/debt.

Easy peezy.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

If you raise taxes on the wealthy corps & individuals but their income drops there will be no increase in Gov revenue to finance the cuts in taxes/debt for the working class.

Growth is the key. It fixes a lot of ills.

BTW, the Gov has done a lot of investing lately ($ 2.5 trillion since 2009) and we have seen little growth . They are really not very good at investing (an investment in the S&P 500 over the same period grew by 75 %).

What other mechanism might increase growth?

http://money.cnn.com/data/markets/sandp/

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I disagree. These proposals WILL increase growth.

You excuses for the wealthy do not fly. I don't buy it.

Peace.

[-] -3 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

But the Gov just tried your proposal by investing $ 2.5 trillion since 2009 and we have seen little growth.

Private sector investments have done quite well over the same period.

What other mechanism might increase growth?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

They have tried very little of what I proposed. The $750b stimulus investment was too little (cut by repubs) and my tax proposals have not been tried.

Still the small stimulus did create growth. Wek growth because repubs have obstructed all jobs measures. They filibustered a million vet jobs bill! And state repubs fired almost a million state workers during this employment crises.

That is why the recovery is weak. Traitorous repub obstruction and firing of workers.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

They spent $ 2.5 trillion since 2009 and the result is anemic growth.

Surely there must be other mechanisms that will increase growth. What created growth from 1992 through 2000? What created growth from 1982 through 1988?

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 2 years ago

Oh, plus Reagan spent an enormous trillion or so of then dollars on military and defense spending increases. Some economists say this increased government spend also helped economic growth. No. It wasn't the tax cuts. Reagan increased government spend, didn't pay for it. Instead, lowered tax rates. Debt tripled. Right wing fuckshitup-onomics.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well said. Yesterday the people voted against that trickle down, voodoo economics, & the tea party.

Now we can refocus on activism/protests for change that benefits the 99%.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Actually Reagan increased military spending by only about 2% of GDP while actual GDP went from $ 2.5 trillion to $ 6 trillion. (Military spending as % of GDP actually went down from 1985 to 1992)

It must be something else.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

In the '80's Dems cooperated with Reagans economic plan which included tax increases!

In the '90's Clinton forced the repubs to agree to the tax increases on the wealthy.!

What do you suggest.?

[-] -3 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Do you believe that tax increases produce economic growth? The report in this post disagrees and claims the two are decoupled (see above).

[-] -3 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 2 years ago

What do you suggest.? I suggest you go out and make yourself a new tin foil hat

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't buy your numbers on profit. Sorry. They make obscene profits. They are of the largest corps on the planet!

And they are destroying said planet!

They must be taxed out of existence!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"Where on reciept"? We don't need to see anything on no stinkin reciept!

Gas companies? Let's boycott them all! They clearly gauge us! Look at the obscene qtrly profit. The massive amounts they spend on lobbying, on anti greetech ads.on exec compensation!

C'mon who don't know these corps are gauging us AND destroying our environment.?

Any one else?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Uncle.

One note, gas corps make about $0.07 per gallon in profit. The State on average takes about $ 0.49. Let's say you are successful with the above efforts and get the gas corps to cut their profit in half. You just saved $ 0.035 per gallon (less than 1 % savings). There are probably bigger fish to fry.

http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/gasoline-diesel-summary.pdf

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443687504577563383982418536.html

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We must raise taxes on large corps. We must assume they are unfairly passing taxes onto the consumer and constantly pressure them to cut prices.

Through protest/boycott & through the peoples govt!

"It's the only way to be sure"

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Where on the receipt that you get when you buy gas does it show the amount of Gov tax? How much of the price of gas is tax and how much is profit for the oil corp?

It will be impossible for you to protest or boycott if you can't answer these questions because you will have no idea where to start, or whom to protest.

Consumers will work automatically to reduce prices by making personal choices, but they must have the information needed to make the choice. Why let the Gov hide the info?

So again, where on the receipt that you get for your gas does it show the amount of Gov tax?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I disagree that corp taxes are passed on to consumers. That's what greedy corporatists threaten us with when they want to keep theirtaxes low.

They can take it from exec pay or stockholder divident. If they raise prices the consumer should just boycott their greedy asses.

Can't consume it if they charge too much. The market can settle that.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

How will you know whether the corp passes the tax on or not? Do you know how much of the price that you spend on a gallon of gas is tax?

I agree with you completely about the boycott. You can personally vote against high prices every day. That is the beauty of the market. What you can't do is boycott a tax if you can't see it.

You should insist that Gov look you in the eye when they tax you. Make them get rid of hidden taxes like the tax on corporations.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 2 years ago

Oil prices were rising through the 70's until it peaked in 1980/81, when it began declining steadily and dramatically through the 80's and was relatively stable through the 90's. So yeah, that's what caused the growth in the 80's.

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp

Construction spending doubled in the 90's.

http://www.census.gov/briefrm/esbr/www/esbr050.html

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Construction spending in the 90s was < 3 % of GDP. The GDP went from $ 5 trillion to $ 10 trillion in the 90s. Even if construction doubled that is only an increase of $ 0.15 Trillion compared to $ 5 trillion in GDP growth.

It must be something else.

Oil prices in the 80s were about the same as they were over the last four years of very anemic growth . GDP in the 80s grew from $ 2.5 trillion to $ 6 trillion.

It must be something else.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 2 years ago

Growth in the 80's was due to the monetary policy of Paul Volcker and lower oil prices.

Growth in the 90's was due to low interest rates and construction.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

What was construction spending in the 1990s as % of GDP? < 3%.

The average price of a barrel of oil from 1980 to 1990 adjusted for inflation was $73. The average price of oil over the last 4 years was $ 80.

It must be something else.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Large corp should pay taxes. Are you joking.? It is a privilege to do business here. They should pay taxes for the privilege/right to do business here.

And the taxed 2 time logic is non sense. I don't buy it.

They make profit *interest) off investments they should pay tax on it. Wed at the corp level.hat tax

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

But the corporate tax is just passed on to the consumer. If the business sells bread or clothing then the poor must pay tax on a commodity that is normally exempt.

Corporate taxes are the most regressive that the Gov can levy and the poor can't easily object.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I disagree with your suggestion that "more revenue is generated from a $ earned by the rich than a $ earned by other income groups."

That would be good reason to minimize taxes on thewealthy.

I also disagree that we should eliminate corp taxes. We should cut small business taxes, and reward all onshoring of jobs with some kind of tax break.

And where exactly do you think international money is going if not to the most powerful economy on earth?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I suspect that you are arguing that a lot of the money that the rich make is on interest (25 %) and capital gains (15 - 25%).

But, a lot of people pay less than 25% and that investment income is first taxed at the corporate rate (up to 35%) before it ever gets to the investors.

What is your argument for keeping any corporate taxes, regardless of business size?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Person C has been hoarding all the wealth from person A, B, D thru Z for 30 years so Ain't no thang!

I'm not against expanding the people that are entitled to the EITC covers.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

See, we mostly agree.

I say go ahead and try to take money away from the rich. Give it your best shot, but they have a lot of resources that they will use to resist.

Between me and you however, I would rather beat them at their own game.

Make America an irresistible investment opportunity for people with capital. Keep or lower the personal income tax rate, eliminate corporate income taxes, and let the money pour in from the US and around the world.

All profits from this new investment would generate tremendous revenue for the Fed, State, and local Govs. Remember that thanks to the progressive tax more revenue is generated from a $ earned by the rich than a $ earned by other income groups.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well I did say cut middle/working class taxes so yeah I agree better the govt not take my money in the 1st place.

It's the fat, lazy, loafing, govt handout takin wealthy who must have their taxes increased. They created the crash, they benefited from the crash, and have done nothing to help resolve the crash!

All Americans have to sacrifice, and help resolve the crash, the middle/working class has been sacrificing now forthe 4 years since the crash began so, it's the wealthys turn.

It's only fair.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Sparky seems to suggest we need to get the wealth less concentrated at the top.

My proposals achieve that.

So then you agree with my proposals.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

What about an increase in the EITC for low income working people?

BTW, persons A and B are normally quick to agree to take money from person C and give it to person D. - M.F.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Not at all.

Why let the Gov take your money, stick $ 0.63 of each dollar in their pockets, and then give it back to you? A more efficient solution is for them to just not take it from you in the first place.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I already listedthe things I thought would create the economic growth we need. I won't repeat myself.

I also believe we must raise taxes on the freeloading wealthy in order to deal with our economic problems.

What do you propose?

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

See post from SparkyJP above.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I've already listed the right way forward notwithstanding your disagreeing, And I have explained how the republicans have slowed growth.

What do you suggest?

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

The republicans are not slowing growth, Wall Street is. The right is obstructing progress, but inflation is the economic culprit. Economist all deny that we are experiencing hyperinflation but if you look at the production and post-production price indexes, you can see that prices have been climbing at an alarming rate for 3 years now. The Fed continues to hand our tax dollars to the banks behind the curtain with no increase in demand to circulate the new money, which causes inflation. This is debt and it's a mystery as to why the right isn't raising hell over this particular form of debt. The Fed is now printing 40 billion a month indefinitely, which is going to have serious consequences over the next 6 months to a year if demand doesn't catch up, and I don't mean slight improvements. Again, the right is mum on this type of debt, apparently Wall St handouts are an acceptable form of debt. The only political solution is to raise wages but Obama is clearly avoiding the issue so obstruction from the right has not come into play economically yet. The credit downgrades are not because they aren't passing budgets, the downgrades were and are retaliation for the new regulations passed by democrats, thus blame for that issue and it's impact rest with Wall St. Republicans are just making noise and are a good distraction but the enemy is on Wall Street.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Was Gov economic stimulus required to produce the huge growth in the periods from 1992 through 2000 and 1982 through 1988?

What caused the growth?

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

That 2.5 trillion went to companies, not the people. If you want to stimulate growth, there MUST be demand. That means putting money in the pockets of the masses to be able to spend that money on products and services that companies produce. What happened in the 1930's is happening again. Some history:

Marriner S. Eccles was the Fed chairman during the Depression. He understood after watching the great speculative bubbles of the 1920s pop into massive misery, that prosperity — to endure — needs to be shared. Looking back on those years, in his 1951 memoir Beckoning Frontiers, Eccles would do his best to explain the impact he set out to make. Mass production, he noted at the outset, demands mass consumption, but people can’t afford to consume if the wealth an economy generates is concentrating at the top.

In the years leading up to the Great Depression, that concentrating was accelerating. A “giant suction pump,” charged Eccles, “had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth.”

“In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands,” Eccles observed, “the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.”

Sound familiar?

Then as now, inequality was hollowing out the nation. Eccles put the matter bluntly: “Had there been a better distribution of the current income from the national product — in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups — we should have had far greater stability in our economy.”

http://toomuchonline.org/americas-most-egalitarian-banker/

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Finally, somebody in this forum gets it.

Give the money to the people.

What is the most efficient way to do this?

Don't take it from them in the first place. Cut taxes. Everybody's taxes. Increase the EITC for low income working people. You must also eliminate the ability of the Gov to borrow or print money.

Let the market work and you will get tremendous growth.

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Nice spin. So you support anarchy? Without revenue, there will be no government, courts or laws. Not a great environment for " tremendous growth". We've been doing the "tax cut" thing for a long time and hasn't produced jobs or growth. Most people understand that the problem lies with inequality .............. not more tax cuts.

[-] -3 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Was Thomas Jefferson and anarchist? If not then let's go with his definition:

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities. "

BTW how do you propose to make people equal? Make short people tall? The blonde brunettes? The weak strong? The tone deaf concert violinists? I personally would like Beyonce's butt.

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

How much more tax cuts would you give GE? Just under 1/2 their PROFIT was from the treasury! Don't you think that -45.3% (yes minus) tax rate should be considered corporate welfare? I consider it theft due to the unholy alliance between government and corporations. If mittens tax rate of 14% is horrible (which it is), what the hell is -45%. There are 29 more examples in the article below:

08-'10 Profit: $10,460,000,000

'08-'10 Tax: $-4,737,000,000

** '08-'10 Rate: -45.3% *

REVEALED: The 30 American Companies That Paid Less Than $0 In Income Tax Over The Last 3 Years

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-30-american-companies-that-paid-less-than-zero-income-tax-from-2008-2010-2011-11?op=1#ixzz2BRbBa8oy

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I would not tax GE at all. Corporate income tax is a regressive tax that disproportionately hurts the poor because it increases the cost of goods like food and clothing that are normally exempt from sales and VAT taxes.

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

So would you pad their earnings by 45% with taxpayer dollars too? Do you think they deserve that? Do you think the American people deserve to have their tax money funneled to corporations? That's what's happening. It's nothing more than corporate welfare and thievery.

They want the rights of an individual, and the tax loopholes of corporations.

If they make their money here, they can pay their taxes here too.

There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed. Mahatma Gandhi

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The individual owners of GE do pay taxes on the money that they make, but only after the Gov first taxes the corporate profit. These taxes are borne by the consumers of GE products. So corporate taxes are just hidden taxes on the consumer.

If GE makes and sells bread or clothing the poorest among us are hurt the worst by this Gov practice.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Of course not. GE must survive on its own and compete in the market place like other businesses. This is best for the consumer, drives innovation, keeps prices down, improves quality and productivity, and grows the economy.

Why do you think that Jeff Immelt likes to have diner with President Obama? Because he enjoys his company? No, he wants Obama to create advantages for his company in the marketplace.

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Why does Jeff Immelt have diner with President Obama? Because of the unholy alliance between corporations and government. It appears to have helped his company's bottom line by about 45.3% on the backs of American taxpayers.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

See, we agree again. Businesses should not be given unfair advantages in the market by Gov (in the limit this should be a philosophy-without-borders). This practice invites corruption, is bad for the consumer, and stifles economic growth.

Now, we agree about corporations, but what other institutions behave like this with the Gov, creating unfair advantages for particular groups and hurt the consumer?

[-] 0 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 2 years ago

Almost all of GE is now in China. Looks like Immelt is setting a good example for other corporations

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Today China has a middle class of 350 million. More than the entire population of the USA. Immelt would be a fool if he did not go after that market.

BTW, for the first time domestic consumption in China is growing faster than its exports. Do you realize what this means for US products and our economy?

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Coyote said "So higher taxes mean more jobs. Check."

You responded "Over the past couple of decades it has" and "when we took them from 35 to 39% (top rate) we created 23 million jobs"

NOW you're saying "however tax rates have nothing to do with creating jobs".

Which is it?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

It is true that if tax rates have an affect then higher taxes results in more jobs based on our experience over the past 20 years, taken over a longer period as the study does and going back 65 years there does not seem to be any relationship to job creation and tax rates, however rates were much higher then it could be that taxes are so low right now that they are discouraging job creation as there is little reason for investors to risk their money when government bonds are so plentiful.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

IF. That's a word that matters in big discussions. That somting "could be" does not mean that it IS. I don't believe it's intelligent to try to change an economy based on coulds and ifs.

If it is true that investors aren't risking their money because government bonds are so plentiful, then the problem is NOT the income tax rates.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

At least we agree that trying to move the economy by playing around with the IFs and COULDs of tax policy is folly.

We should base it on proven results, which would be that raising taxes creates JOBS you have convinced me, you see I am not inflexible.

I think you are right all this speculation about what could happen instead of looking at what has happened is what we have been doing wrong all along.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

In order to PROVE that raising taxes-and that act alone-created JOBS in the past, you have to investigate and be sure that no other outside events or acts were involved or responsible for those jobs being created.

SPECULATING that the JOBS you speak of were a direct result of raising taxes and NOTHING else is folly, and I do not agree with folly.

PROVING to me that the JOBS you speak of were a direct result of raising taxes and NOTHING else is YOUR job-because you are the one making the claim you are asking all other reasonable, non-foolish people to accept as truth.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

seems you have a good point about cutting taxes, we can PROVE it causes debt, but there's NO proof you get any jobs, so there is no argument for cutting taxes or even keeping them low as far as jobs go, now if you're talking about the wealth of the wealthy well that might be affected, but not jobs we can raise taxes with NO impact there as far as any proof goes

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I am not a fan of raising taxes on anyone. The Gov has demonstrated for years that it is a poor steward of our money. They are inefficient, corrupt, and inept a pretty much everything except infringing on the rights of citizens. We should be cutting off their money supply not increasing it.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Let's agree to start with 50% cuts in military spending, cutting waste, fraud & abuse in all programs, and cutting taxes for the working class/small businesses.

Hows that?

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Agreed. As long as the cuts in taxes are equal to the cuts in spending. There must also be a restriction on borrowing (like in most states).

Good luck cutting Gov waste, the two words are redundant.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I can agree on some limits on borrowing. No prob. I could support more cuts in spending than tax cuts because I would want to pay down the deficit/debt.

But otherwise I could agree with your suggestions.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

But the real trick is to convince the Gov to agree. They are addicted to power, and money is the needle through which the drug is injected.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We must get in the street and agitate all pols for this change that will benefit the 99%.