Romney says Obama won by showering black, Latino & young voters with big gifts.

[QUOTE=Droid101]Please watch this movie:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(film[/url])

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a1/InsideJob2010Poster.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

I have a degree in Economics bud. I've sat through dozens of lectures on the housing bubble and I know the theory inside and out. I probably won't watch it.

[QUOTE=bmulls]I have a degree in Economics bud. I've sat through dozens of lectures on the housing bubble and I know the theory inside and out. I probably won't watch it.[/QUOTE]
Me too.

Please, just watch it. Seriously. It's a good movie and completely non-partisan. Only about the facts.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]I'm going to sleep now, so I won't get into the rest of your post until possibly tomorrow, but please make sure to watch the short vid I just posted above.

Just wanted to get some explanation for your statement I quoted. Please show me any data that says tax cuts for the rich is 'good for the economy'. Everything I've seen in terms of hard data and facts shows that high GDP, job creation, and overall economic growth correlates positively to times when the top tax rate was higher. I'm not interested in theory (which we've seen fail over the last decade). Show me evidence.

I'll be looking forward seeing that in the morning. Have a great night :cheers:[/QUOTE]

An explanation for what I said requires theory to understand. There is evidence to back it up, but evidence can be very misleading. That's something I've learned 1,000 times over on this site alone. I see the Great Depression as evidence of central banking failure, government stimulus failure, and I see the wonderful year we had in 1946 (when government finally cut spending) as great evidence that the government needs to cut spending today.

But do other people see that? No. If they're predisposed to economic beliefs like yours, they see the exact opposite. The Great Depression is evidence that the free market inevitably causes economic chaos, and that government stimulus of all kinds is good for the economy. What the hell is up with that? Two entirely opposite conclusions drawn from the same evidence.

So how can you know which of these two viewpoints is correct? You need theory. You need a solid theory first, and then you re-examine the facts through the prism of your theory. Your theory is your flashlight in the dark hallways of "evidence."

I'll give you what I consider good evidence for why lower taxes is good for the economy. America in the 19th century. America became an economic superpower in the 19th century, with zero income taxes for most of the century (some income taxes were levied to fund war, but much less than today and not for as long a period). The 19th century saw tremendous rises in living standards for Americans, as we transformed our economy from agricultural to industrial. It was this century that saw the invention of the Steamboat, the price of steel drop tremendously, Railroads enabled country-wide travel, the invention of the sewing machine, and the telegraph. Gas stoves become more common than ever.

What spurred on these inventions was the low amount of regulations and taxes, which enabled entrepreneurs to easily start new businesses. This created the first batch of "retail workers" in America. Instead of farming, you could work the payment booth for the Railroad. You could get a job as a clerk for a local grocery store. This new division of workers is what created the American middle class. Instead of either being born into royalty or being a sustenance farmer, there was something inbetween. And instead of being born a farmer and dying a farmer, there were chances for promotion. If you worked hard, you could become a manager. You could earn a pay raise.

We take these things for granted today, but prior to the 18th-19th century, that simply was not how the world worked. 99% of the people were born poor, they worked their asses off just to survive, and then they died.

Now clearly, 19th century Americans lived much less luxuriously than we do today. They worked in sometimes dangerous conditions, with low pay compared to today's standards. But compared to prior centuries, the truly relevant measure, life had never been better. People moved to the cities, industry boomed, and immigrants flooded our borders in droves- searching for economic freedom that they could only find in the US. Unlike the rest of the world, anyone could become rich here. The governments role wasn't to expropriate and control the people, but to protect them, and otherwise leave them alone.

I have watched the first video you posted, I may get to the second one later but I need to rest my brain a little. I took some notes so I won't forget my thoughts so far.

Now, I've given you what I believe is evidence for lower taxes creating prosperity. In return, explain to me theoretically why higher taxes on the rich would work?

For those who think the repeal of Glass-Steagall caused the financial crisis!

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGl6D1H8qMQ[/url]

There were two parts of Glass-Steagall that were meant to work together.

1- The government guarantees bank deposits up to 250,000 dollars
2- the government separates banks into different groups to stop them from taking excessive risk.

The infamous "repeal" of Glass-Steagall only repealed the second item. If the government had simply repealed the entire Glass-Steagall, or better yet never even passed it to begin with, we would have been fine. But you cannot have one without the other! These acts were meant to counter balance each other.

But you're wondering, what kind of problems were caused by repealing only the 2nd part of the act, but keeping the first?

First of all, since bank deposits were backed up by the government, the banks had NO REASON to be safe with your deposits. Just think about it, the bank has 200GRAND in the vault. It can put that entire 200GRAND in the stock market. If the stock goes up, the bank gets PAID! If the stock goes down? The government subsidizes the losses. It's a win win for the banks! Of course they're going to take huge gambles with peoples money.

But banks weren't the only one whose behavior was affected by this regulation. The customers, you, me, the regular guy on the street.. ceased caring about how [I]safe [/I]banks were with our money. Think about it, when's the last time you read a consumer report on your bank? When's the last time anyone researched which banks were safest with peoples money? NEVER! We all do plenty of research when we buy a Plasma TV, but we don't even care to read one sentence about the banks we trust with our money! Why? Because we know the government is backing up our deposits! So because of this government deposit insurance, the market, aka US, you and me, the consumers, do not check the banks. We do not care what they do. This gives the banks carte-blanche to act reckless, all because of just one simple regulation. This is what we pro-capitalism people mean when we say that government regulation DISTORTS the market.

And furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the housing collapse in 2008 really had nothing to do with what Glass-Steagall was supposed to regulate. From the Washington Post, not exactly a crazy libertarian source:
[QUOTE]
Facts such as that Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch — three institutions at the heart of the crisis — were pure investment banks that had never crossed the old line into commercial banking. The same goes for Goldman Sachs, another favorite villain of the left.

The infamous AIG? An insurance firm. New Century Financial? A real estate investment trust. No Glass-Steagall there.

Two of the biggest banks that went under, Wachovia and Washington Mutual, got into trouble the old-fashioned way – largely by making risky loans to homeowners. Bank of America nearly met the same fate, not because it had bought an investment bank but because it had bought Countrywide Financial, a vanilla-variety mortgage lender.

Meanwhile, J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo — two large banks with big investment banking arms — resisted taking government capital and arguably could have weathered the crisis without it.[/QUOTE]

The partial repeal of glass-steagall legitimately had something to do with the crisis, but not because it was repealed.. because it was only PARTIALLY repealed. And even with that said, it really had very little to do with the crisis. The overwhelming bulk of blame for the housing boom and subsequent crash rests on the Federal Reserve, coupled with government guarantees provided to the banks.

[QUOTE=joe]
1- The government guarantees bank deposits up to 250,000 dollars
[/QUOTE]

How well do you know history? Why the **** would anybody use a bank if not for this guarantee? The entire banking industry would be history if not for the FDIC.

[QUOTE=embersyc]How well do you know history? Why the **** would anybody use a bank if not for this guarantee? The entire banking industry would be history if not for the FDIC.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Wasn't that what happened during the great depression? The stock market ccrashed and as one of the side effects, people either loss their money or pulled it out of the banks. Banks take peoples money and invest it.

Then people were weary about putting money bank into banks and thus why the government had to step in and insure a portion of the money americans put into banks.



That 250000 is insurance for Americans not banks. If we have another crash, banks don't get to keep your money.

[QUOTE=joe]An explanation for what I said requires theory to understand. There is evidence to back it up, but evidence can be very misleading. That's something I've learned 1,000 times over on this site alone. I see the Great Depression as evidence of central banking failure, government stimulus failure, and I see the wonderful year we had in 1946 (when government finally cut spending) as great evidence that the government needs to cut spending today.

But do other people see that? No. If they're predisposed to economic beliefs like yours, they see the exact opposite. The Great Depression is evidence that the free market inevitably causes economic chaos, and that government stimulus of all kinds is good for the economy. What the hell is up with that? Two entirely opposite conclusions drawn from the same evidence.

So how can you know which of these two viewpoints is correct? You need theory. You need a solid theory first, and then you re-examine the facts through the prism of your theory. Your theory is your flashlight in the dark hallways of "evidence."

I'll give you what I consider good evidence for why lower taxes is good for the economy. America in the 19th century. America became an economic superpower in the 19th century, with zero income taxes for most of the century (some income taxes were levied to fund war, but much less than today and not for as long a period). The 19th century saw tremendous rises in living standards for Americans, as we transformed our economy from agricultural to industrial. It was this century that saw the invention of the Steamboat, the price of steel drop tremendously, Railroads enabled country-wide travel, the invention of the sewing machine, and the telegraph. Gas stoves become more common than ever.

What spurred on these inventions was the low amount of regulations and taxes, which enabled entrepreneurs to easily start new businesses. This created the first batch of "retail workers" in America. Instead of farming, you could work the payment booth for the Railroad. You could get a job as a clerk for a local grocery store. This new division of workers is what created the American middle class. Instead of either being born into royalty or being a sustenance farmer, there was something inbetween. And instead of being born a farmer and dying a farmer, there were chances for promotion. If you worked hard, you could become a manager. You could earn a pay raise.

We take these things for granted today, but prior to the 18th-19th century, that simply was not how the world worked. 99% of the people were born poor, they worked their asses off just to survive, and then they died.

Now clearly, 19th century Americans lived much less luxuriously than we do today. They worked in sometimes dangerous conditions, with low pay compared to today's standards. But compared to prior centuries, the truly relevant measure, life had never been better. People moved to the cities, industry boomed, and immigrants flooded our borders in droves- searching for economic freedom that they could only find in the US. Unlike the rest of the world, anyone could become rich here. The governments role wasn't to expropriate and control the people, but to protect them, and otherwise leave them alone.

I have watched the first video you posted, I may get to the second one later but I need to rest my brain a little. I took some notes so I won't forget my thoughts so far.[/QUOTE]

So you took the long way to say what anyone with common sense already knew- there is no factual basis to back up the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy is beneficial to our whole economy. The only place where that works is in theory, which was put into action by Dubya... and failed miserably.

[QUOTE]Now, I've given you what I believe is evidence for lower taxes creating prosperity. In return, explain to me theoretically why higher taxes on the rich would work?[/QUOTE]

No need for theory. Here are some proven facts:

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Employment_growth_by_top_tax_rate.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.ourfuture.org/files/images/taxratesandeconomicgrowthcap.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/505c50e6eab8eaa51a000024-525-746/tax-rates-and-growth.png[/IMG]

[IMG]http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/505c53b4eab8ea6e27000000-770-602/share-of-income.png[/IMG]

[INDENT][B][U]BOMBSHELL: New Study Destroys Theory That Tax Cuts Spur Growth[/U][/B]

One economic theory has been repeated so often for so long in this country that it has become an accepted fact:

Tax cuts spur growth.

Most Americans have gotten so used to hearing this theory that they don't even question it anymore.

One of our two Presidential candidates is so convinced of the theory that he has built his entire economic plan around it--despite the huge negative impact additional tax cuts would likely have on our debt and deficit.
But is the theory true? Do tax cuts really spur growth?

The answer appears to be "no."

[B]According to a new study by the Congressional Research Service (non-partisan), there's no evidence that tax cuts spur growth.[/B]

In fact, although correlation is not causation, [B][COLOR="Red"]when you compare economic growth in periods with declining tax rates versus periods with high tax rates, there seems to be evidence that tax cuts might hurt growth.[/COLOR][/B] But we'll leave that possibility for another day.

[B][COLOR="Red"]One thing that tax cuts do unequivocally do--at least tax cuts for the highest earners--is increase economic inequality.[/COLOR][/B] Given that economic inequality is one of the biggest problems we face in this country right now, this conclusion is very important.

Before we go to the charts, a few observations.

First, this topic has become highly politicized, so it's impossible to discuss it without people howling that you're just rooting for a particular political team. Second, no one likes paying taxes. Third, everyone would like a tax cut, including me.

So I think we can all agree that everyone would prefer that tax cuts actually did spur economic growth.

...

[B][COLOR="Red"]Well, the bottom line appears to be that low taxes do not spur economic growth and DO cause greater economic inequality.[/COLOR][/B]

So, although it sounds like heresy, presidents and Congress-people who actually want to fix the economy might want to consider raising taxes rather than cutting them. Or, at the very least, keeping them the same.


Read more: [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9#ixzz2CP2lsjny[/url][/INDENT]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7Df5SH1PrU"]Rachel Maddow provides facts about 'Trickle Down' leading to the ever-increasing wealth gap[/URL]

So in summary, as you can [I]clearly[/I] see- the theory that tax cuts for the wealthy spur economic growth and everyone reaps the benefits of 'trickle down' wealth is a lie. The facts show that the times of highest job creation, highest gross domestic product (gdp), wealth parity, etc coincide with the times of the highest top tax rate.

[QUOTE=embersyc]How well do you know history? Why the **** would anybody use a bank if not for this guarantee? The entire banking industry would be history if not for the FDIC.[/QUOTE]

No it wouldn't! Banks would have to be more careful with what they do with peoples money, and people would have to be more vigilant with the banks they choose. The banking industry would be MUCH stronger without government guarantees. It's the guarantees that create the moral hazard and allow the banks to behave in ridiculous fashions with our money, you know, the type of things liberals blame on deregulation! Well no, it's regulation that causes that problem.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Exactly. Wasn't that what happened during the great depression? The stock market ccrashed and as one of the side effects, people either loss their money or pulled it out of the banks. Banks take peoples money and invest it.

Then people were weary about putting money bank into banks and thus why the government had to step in and insure a portion of the money americans put into banks.



That 250000 is insurance for Americans not banks. If we have another crash, banks don't get to keep your money.[/QUOTE]

During the Great Depression, very few people lost their money due to bank failures. It was propaganda back then and it's propaganda now. It was only 2-3% of deposits that were lost.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]So you took the long way to say what anyone with common sense already knew- there is no factual basis to back up the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy is beneficial to our whole economy. The only place where that works is in theory, which was put into action by Dubya... and failed miserably.



No need for theory. Here are some proven facts:

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Employment_growth_by_top_tax_rate.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.ourfuture.org/files/images/taxratesandeconomicgrowthcap.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/505c50e6eab8eaa51a000024-525-746/tax-rates-and-growth.png[/IMG]

[IMG]http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/505c53b4eab8ea6e27000000-770-602/share-of-income.png[/IMG]

[INDENT][B][U]BOMBSHELL: New Study Destroys Theory That Tax Cuts Spur Growth[/U][/B]

One economic theory has been repeated so often for so long in this country that it has become an accepted fact:

Tax cuts spur growth.

Most Americans have gotten so used to hearing this theory that they don't even question it anymore.

One of our two Presidential candidates is so convinced of the theory that he has built his entire economic plan around it--despite the huge negative impact additional tax cuts would likely have on our debt and deficit.
But is the theory true? Do tax cuts really spur growth?

The answer appears to be "no."

[B]According to a new study by the Congressional Research Service (non-partisan), there's no evidence that tax cuts spur growth.[/B]

In fact, although correlation is not causation, [B][COLOR="Red"]when you compare economic growth in periods with declining tax rates versus periods with high tax rates, there seems to be evidence that tax cuts might hurt growth.[/COLOR][/B] But we'll leave that possibility for another day.

[B][COLOR="Red"]One thing that tax cuts do unequivocally do--at least tax cuts for the highest earners--is increase economic inequality.[/COLOR][/B] Given that economic inequality is one of the biggest problems we face in this country right now, this conclusion is very important.

Before we go to the charts, a few observations.

First, this topic has become highly politicized, so it's impossible to discuss it without people howling that you're just rooting for a particular political team. Second, no one likes paying taxes. Third, everyone would like a tax cut, including me.

So I think we can all agree that everyone would prefer that tax cuts actually did spur economic growth.

...

[B][COLOR="Red"]Well, the bottom line appears to be that low taxes do not spur economic growth and DO cause greater economic inequality.[/COLOR][/B]

So, although it sounds like heresy, presidents and Congress-people who actually want to fix the economy might want to consider raising taxes rather than cutting them. Or, at the very least, keeping them the same.


Read more: [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9#ixzz2CP2lsjny[/url][/INDENT]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7Df5SH1PrU"]Rachel Maddow provides facts about 'Trickle Down' leading to the ever-increasing wealth gap[/URL]

So in summary, as you can [I]clearly[/I] see- the theory that tax cuts for the wealthy spur economic growth and everyone reaps the benefits of 'trickle down' wealth is a lie. The facts show that the times of highest job creation, highest gross domestic product (gdp), wealth parity, etc coincide with the times of the highest top tax rate.[/QUOTE]

Will respond later.. work calls.

Very quickly I'll say, why the hell is income inequality a problem? That's one of the things that are just assumed to be a problem, but really aren't. Why does it matter how much richer the rich are than the poor? The only thing that's important is how rich the POOR are. If the poor are living like Kings, does it matter if the rich are 100x richer than them? No. Would you rather a system where we have equality..... with everyone being equally broke?

Anyway, wish I could get into it more right now but AHHH, gotta go.

[QUOTE=joe] Why does it matter how much richer the rich are than the poor? The only thing that's important is how rich the POOR are. If the poor are living like Kings, does it matter if the rich are 100x richer than them? No. [/QUOTE]
Well, they aren't. Which is why we need to funnel some money down there so maybe they can live, period.

Anyway, income disparity IS a big deal if the poor can't eat. If it gets too big, this happens:

[IMG]http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/french/robes.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Let's continue the Bush tax cuts and let's give the big banks and lenders the green light to gamble us into a depression. That worked wonders for the country recently.

Again, this isn't a question of theory. We've seen the experiment play out in front of our eyes. It simply does not work. There's no way around it. The Republican fundamentals of economy were put to the test- we were supposed to see our economy boom due to the 'trickle down' of the rich getting richer and the financial sector being free to do as they please. Instead we got a recession that we only recently began to climb out of, that could've turned into a depression had someone like Mitt Romney been in power and allowed the financial and automobile sectors to go under as he wanted.

This is not a topic of debate. The Norquist plan is a complete and utter failure. The House Republicans need to cut ties with his failed philosophies and work with the President to undo the damage he caused and to start living in reality starting tomorrow morning[/QUOTE]


You want a system that simply does not work? Communism, socialism, austerity. It DOES NOT WORK. It hasn't worked anywhere else before, and it's not going to work here.

[QUOTE=Math2]You want a system that simply does not work? Communism, socialism, austerity. It DOES NOT WORK. It hasn't worked anywhere else before, and it's not going to work here.[/QUOTE]
You know what else does not work? Straight up Capitalism.

Guess what does work? A mixture of capitalism and socialism... you know, kind of like what we have had here in America for quite a long time.

[QUOTE=Droid101]You know what else does not work? Straight up Capitalism.

Guess what does work? A mixture of capitalism and socialism... you know, kind of like what we have had here in America for quite a long time.[/QUOTE]

It's done a lot of good as of late. Massive debt, and unsustainable welfare systems. I'm sure that's what we set out to do when we adopted our system.

[QUOTE=Math2]It's done a lot of good as of late. Massive debt, and unsustainable welfare systems. I'm sure that's what we set out to do when we adopted our system.[/QUOTE]
I'm done with you. You don't back anything you say up with facts, just mindless talking points from Rush or Beck. It's maddening.

[IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TmvmkcZWruk/TfqCPGXhzQI/AAAAAAAAAHE/fNSMsbyeGco/s400/Hate%2BTaxes%2BGovernment%2BRegulations%252C%2BLove%2BGuns%2B-%2BIt%2527s%2Bbetter%2Bin%2BSomalia.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Math2]You want a system that simply does not work? [B]Communism, socialism, austerity[/B]. It DOES NOT WORK. It hasn't worked anywhere else before, and it's not going to work here.[/QUOTE]

Ah, when all else fails and you have no real response to the truth, bust out the Faux News bullshit talking points :lol

[IMG]http://usahitman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ObamaCommieDictator.jpg[/IMG]

Facts are facts, homie. It's time to come to terms with reality, Boehner and his minions made it seem like they are ready to face facts and get off the Norquist leash after this morning's meeting. Hopefully they will be sensible and follow through so we can continue on the right path and right the wrongs of failed theories.

So Obama won the election by pandering to the minority? :confusedshrug:

Past: Bring african slaves over for free labor. Free them, destroy their communities via terrorism/drugs.
Result: D'oh!

Past: Rape, vilify, and steal from Mexicans, and then let them into the country to exploit them in the workforce.
Result: D'oh!

Really good article by Paul Volcker about the future of the country for anyone interested in a serious non-partisan opinion.

[url]http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/dec/06/what-new-president-should-consider/?pagination=false[/url]

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]

So in summary, as you can [I]clearly[/I] see- the theory that tax cuts for the wealthy spur economic growth and everyone reaps the benefits of 'trickle down' wealth is a lie. The facts show that the times of highest job creation, highest gross domestic product (gdp), wealth parity, etc coincide with the times of the highest top tax rate.[/QUOTE]

No, I can't clearly see that. All I've seen is a bunch of statistics thrown out. Statistics don't prove anything definitively. I'm not anti-statistic, but statistics can only be used to buffer your argument, they can't be the entire basis of your argument. I can just as easily say all of those economies would have been doing EVEN BETTER with lower tax rates, and at that point it's just my word against yours. There's no substance to anything you posted. There's plenty of statistics that show the 19th century in America was the greatest century EVER in terms of improving the living standards of humans, and this occurred with a zero percent income tax and a gold standard! So are you going to change your position to be pro-gold standard now? According to the way you argue your case, you should.

Please explain why raising taxes on the rich would improve the economy, without using any statistics. Explain why! Why does that make any sense? Why would taking money from some people who earned it, and then giving it to the government, create a better economy? Just explain how that makes any sense. Please. I'm not saying a good argument can't be made, but I haven't seen it yet in this thread.

And to say Romney has "built his entire economic plan" around lower taxes is ridiculous. Romney supports barely lower taxes than Obama. I support ZERO income tax. Romney is hardly better than Obama on taxes...he's a marginal difference.

[QUOTE=Droid101]Well, they aren't. Which is why we need to funnel some money down there so maybe they can live, period.

Anyway, income disparity IS a big deal if the poor can't eat. If it gets too big, this happens:

[IMG]http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/french/robes.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

Having an income disparity in itself is not a big deal if the poor can't eat.... the big deal is that the poor can't eat. The fact that other people are rich is irrelevant to the problem of the poor not having food.

The only scenario in which the income disparity would truly matter is in a world with a fixed amount of goods. So there's a fixed amount of food, a fixed amount of blankets, a fixed amount of medicine, etc. In that case sure, if the rich have all the resources... that has a direct effect on the poor.

But we obviously do not live in a world like that. The supply of goods can be raised or lowered. We can produce more food, more blankets, more medicine. So the question we must be asking ourselves is, how do we raise the supply? How do we make it so everyone, even the poor, have an abundance of goods? Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor does not grow the amount of goods in the world, it just redistributes the ones we already have.

Contrary to your beliefs, the rich are the last people we want to tax if the mission is to help the poor. It's the rich who supply all of us with the material goods we've come to take for granted. Xbox, television, laptops, kerosene, cigarettes, grocery stores.... those things all made people rich. And it was the human drive to become rich that propelled their creation in the first place. The higher you tax the rich, the less attractive it will be for people to create things like this in the future. And then the poor will be really in trouble.

[QUOTE=joe]
To add insult to injury, the [B]taxation you levy on the rich decreases the overall incentive to be rich[/B] in the first place, and it's often the rich people and their businesses which are creating the material goods in the economy.[/QUOTE]
I know! It's so hard being rich, right!? It's so much easier being poor and living on free food stamps from the government!

[IMG]http://sperraul.mnsi.net/images/comics/lucky_ducky.png[/IMG]

Romney's strategy was to win by giving gifts to millionaires and billionaires.

[QUOTE=joe]No, I can't clearly see that. All I've seen is a bunch of statistics thrown out. Statistics don't prove anything definitively. I'm not anti-statistic, but statistics can only be used to buffer your argument, they can't be the entire basis of your argument. I can just as easily say all of those economies would have been doing EVEN BETTER with lower tax rates, and at that point it's just my word against yours. [B]There's no substance to anything you posted.[/B] There's plenty of statistics that show the 19th century in America was the greatest century EVER in terms of improving the living standards of humans, and this occurred with a zero percent income tax and a gold standard! So are you going to change your position to be pro-gold standard now? According to the way you argue your case, you should.[/QUOTE]

Those are the quantifiable results of a comprehensive study done that covered about 70 years in this country in regards to top tax rate and its correlation to economic barometers. The findings clearly show that the times of highest growth, highest gdp, wealth parity, etc coincide with times of the highest top tax rate. These are facts. What [I]you[/I] posted, or rather didn't, lacks substance. I asked you to provide facts or anything that can back up the claim that lower taxes leads to a better economy. You gave me nothing, because there is nothing tangible to support that claim.

[QUOTE]Please explain why raising taxes on the rich would improve the economy, without using any statistics. Explain why! Why does that make any sense? Why would taking money from some people who earned it, and then giving it to the government, create a better economy? Just explain how that makes any sense. Please. I'm not saying a good argument can't be made, but I haven't seen it yet in this thread.[/QUOTE]

With more tax revenue, the government can invest in more infrastructure projects which creates more jobs. The increased revenue could (and will) be used to help reduce the deficit. larger deficits coincide with high interest rates which can lead to inflation and lower consumer/investor confidence which in turn affects the stock market (a taste of what we saw on wall street in the days after the election, the fear of the country going over the fiscal cliff being one of the main catalysts of the decline). With a higher deficit, we have less national savings which decreases the funds we have to invest in new business. So having more tax revenue on hand (coupled with lower spending) would cut into the deficit, thereby reversing the damage caused to our economy as a whole in addition with providing national savings for investments.

Again, look at the facts- they tell the whole story. An in depth study on how increased taxes affects the economy:

[URL="http://www.cbpp.org/files/4-24-12tax.pdf"]RECENT STUDIES FIND RAISING TAXES ON HIGH-INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS WOULD NOT HARM THE ECONOMY:
Policy Should Be Included in Balanced Deficit-Reduction Effort[/URL]

[QUOTE=Droid101]I know! It's so hard being rich, right!? It's so much easier being poor and living on free food stamps from the government!
[/QUOTE]

I didn't say it's easy to be poor, and I do not villify the poor. I for one grew up in a lower income family. I do not trivialize the difficult of growing up without a lot of money.

I am just talking about the reality of the situation. If all income above $250,000 is taxed at 50%, less people will strive to earn $250,000 than if the tax was 0%. If you raise the tax to 60%, even less people will strive for $250,000. Why put all the time and effort into building a business if the government is just going to tax half your income?

[B]"Yeah but rich people only pay like 2 cents in taxes in America!"
[/B]
Non-sense. Some do, if they earn their money off of dividends. But don't forget, those dividends were already taxed when the corporation paid their 35% tax. So though the dividends are only taxed at like 12%, they were already taxed once before at a much higher rate. Add them up, and the true rate is much higher than any secretary pays (and Warren Buffet is full of you-know-what).

And if you run a business, and thus earn "income" as opposed to dividends, you are paying 35% in taxes. Add to that your state tax, entitlement tax, sales tax, and you're approaching 50% taxes, or even higher in some states! Half of the money that you worked your ass off to earn... gone. Why do we want to do this to rich business people? These are people that create jobs, provide services, truly add value to society... and we punish them by taking half of their money. Forget how the rich person feels about this, why should even the POOR feel good about this? It's not to our advantage to treat rich people like this, just from a practical standpoint. We want these guys creating jobs and inventing new products for us to use. We don't want them giving half of their money to Washington, so they can blow it on drone strikes and dimwit regulators salary.

Do some rich people get their millions by leeching off of government? Do they get rich by screwing over the people, by using the government to fix the laws in their favor? Yes. But those aren't the people I'm talking defending. The rich people we should praise are the ones who make their money honestly, through voluntary market exchange. The guys who create a product or service we all love. Sure they get rich off of it, but why shouldn't they? Things like handheld foot massagers, recliner chairs, chess boards... why shouldn't the people who manufacture these things get rich? They provide us with great products at great prices. I don't see why I'm supposed to hate these guys, or why I'm supposed to prefer the government to be spending their profits rather than them.

Why does progressive taxation = hatred? You're too emotional about other people's money joe.

[QUOTE=Scoooter]Why does progressive taxation = hatred? You're too emotional about other people's money joe.[/QUOTE]

Nahhh that's not what I'm saying. It's hard to read tone over the internet. I was just saying like, "Man, I love all of these products I'm provided by businesses. Why am I supposed to hate these guys??" Not sure the word I'm looking for, I wasn't being vile though. My tone was nice in my head, you just can't read it the way I am saying it :D

[QUOTE=joe]

Non-sense. Some do, if they earn their money off of dividends. But don't forget, those dividends were already taxed when the corporation paid their 35% tax. So though the dividends are only taxed at like 12%, they were already taxed once before at a much higher rate. Add them up, and the true rate is much higher than any secretary pays (and Warren Buffet is full of you-know-what).

And if you run a business, and thus earn "income" as opposed to dividends, you are paying 35% in taxes. Add to that your state tax, entitlement tax, sales tax, and you're approaching 50% taxes, or even higher in some states! Half of the money that you worked your ass off to earn... gone. Why do we want to do this to rich business people? These are people that create jobs, provide services, truly add value to society... and we punish them by taking half of their money. Forget how the rich person feels about this, why should even the POOR feel good about this? It's not to our advantage to treat rich people like this, just from a practical standpoint. We want these guys creating jobs and inventing new products for us to use. We don't want them giving half of their money to Washington, so they can blow it on drone strikes and dimwit regulators salary.[/QUOTE]


So true. If you're like me and actually saving for retirement instead of expecting to freeload off the government, most of your retirement income will be taxed (for the 2nd time) at the capital gains rate. Raising this rate punishes people who worked hard and saved and invested.

[QUOTE=Lakers Legend#32]Romney's strategy was to win by giving gifts to millionaires and billionaires.[/QUOTE]

Of course, if you believe the crap Obama says.

[QUOTE=joe]Do some rich people get their millions by leeching off of government? Do they get rich by screwing over the people, by using the government to fix the laws in their favor? Yes. But those aren't the people I'm talking defending. The rich people we should praise are the ones who make their money honestly, through voluntary market exchange. The guys who create a product or service we all love. Sure they get rich off of it, but why shouldn't they? Things like handheld foot massagers, recliner chairs, chess boards... why shouldn't the people who manufacture these things get rich? They provide us with great products at great prices. I don't see why I'm supposed to hate these guys, or why I'm supposed to prefer the government to be spending their profits rather than them.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and this is the same defense the liberals use for welfare, but they will no doubt denounce this.

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A758sqzCcAEAPLh.jpg:large[/img]

[QUOTE=Math2]Of course, if you believe the crap Obama says.[/QUOTE]

:facepalm

Obama wasnt the guy speaking on the conference call with Romney's [B]DONORS[/B].

This is how delusional Romney and GOP are.. Romney is on a call explaining to his billionaire donors what went wrong. Romney's excuse is to say that Obama won because he gave people "gifts"


WTF were his donors expecting from him? :roll: nothing?

yet none of this strikes Mitt as totally absurd while he was rattling off excuses...

Thank God he lost

[QUOTE=Rose][img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A758sqzCcAEAPLh.jpg:large[/img][/QUOTE]


:lol


Is that McKayla's mom in the blue? :banana:

[QUOTE=joe]No, I can't clearly see that. All I've seen is a bunch of statistics thrown out. Statistics don't prove anything definitively. I'm not anti-statistic, but statistics can only be used to buffer your argument, they can't be the entire basis of your argument. I can just as easily say all of those economies would have been doing EVEN BETTER with lower tax rates, and at that point it's just my word against yours. There's no substance to anything you posted. There's plenty of statistics that show the 19th century in America was the greatest century EVER in terms of improving the living standards of humans, and this occurred with a zero percent income tax and a gold standard! So are you going to change your position to be pro-gold standard now? According to the way you argue your case, you should.

Please explain why raising taxes on the rich would improve the economy, without using any statistics. Explain why! Why does that make any sense? Why would taking money from some people who earned it, and then giving it to the government, create a better economy? Just explain how that makes any sense. Please. I'm not saying a good argument can't be made, but I haven't seen it yet in this thread.

And to say Romney has "built his entire economic plan" around lower taxes is ridiculous. Romney supports barely lower taxes than Obama. I support ZERO income tax. Romney is hardly better than Obama on taxes...he's a marginal difference.[/QUOTE]
But if we didn't tax income, how would we be able to fund our Military? Our Police force? Our fire DPT? To name a few?

[QUOTE=joe]I didn't say it's easy to be poor, and I do not villify the poor. I for one grew up in a lower income family. I do not trivialize the difficult of growing up without a lot of money.

I am just talking about the reality of the situation. If all income above $250,000 is taxed at 50%, less people will strive to earn $250,000 than if the tax was 0%. If you raise the tax to 60%, even less people will strive for $250,000. Why put all the time and effort into building a business if the government is just going to tax half your income?

[B]"Yeah but rich people only pay like 2 cents in taxes in America!"
[/B]
Non-sense. Some do, if they earn their money off of dividends. But don't forget, those dividends were already taxed when the corporation paid their 35% tax. So though the dividends are only taxed at like 12%, they were already taxed once before at a much higher rate. Add them up, and the true rate is much higher than any secretary pays (and Warren Buffet is full of you-know-what).

And if you run a business, and thus earn "income" as opposed to dividends, you are paying 35% in taxes. Add to that your state tax, entitlement tax, sales tax, and you're approaching 50% taxes, or even higher in some states! Half of the money that you worked your ass off to earn... gone. Why do we want to do this to rich business people? These are people that create jobs, provide services, truly add value to society... and we punish them by taking half of their money. Forget how the rich person feels about this, why should even the POOR feel good about this? It's not to our advantage to treat rich people like this, just from a practical standpoint. We want these guys creating jobs and inventing new products for us to use. We don't want them giving half of their money to Washington, so they can blow it on drone strikes and dimwit regulators salary.[/QUOTE]
Rich people more than get their fair share of tax breaks bro



[url]http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-deductions-favor-rich-1.aspx[/url]

[IMG]https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/533827_10151273396981749_1876991773_n.jpg[/IMG]

yea I think thats her mother.

I was only half paying attention when they did a quick clip on TV though.

[QUOTE=joe]I didn't say it's easy to be poor, and I do not villify the poor. I for one grew up in a lower income family. I do not trivialize the difficult of growing up without a lot of money.

I am just talking about the reality of the situation. If all income above $250,000 is taxed at 50%, less people will strive to earn $250,000 than if the tax was 0%. If you raise the tax to 60%, even less people will strive for $250,000. Why put all the time and effort into building a business if the government is just going to tax half your income?

[B]"Yeah but rich people only pay like 2 cents in taxes in America!"
[/B]
Non-sense. Some do, if they earn their money off of dividends. But don't forget, those dividends were already taxed when the corporation paid their 35% tax. So though the dividends are only taxed at like 12%, they were already taxed once before at a much higher rate. Add them up, and the true rate is much higher than any secretary pays (and Warren Buffet is full of you-know-what).

And if you run a business, and thus earn "income" as opposed to dividends, you are paying 35% in taxes. Add to that your state tax, entitlement tax, sales tax, and you're approaching 50% taxes, or even higher in some states! Half of the money that you worked your ass off to earn... gone. Why do we want to do this to rich business people? These are people that create jobs, provide services, truly add value to society... and we punish them by taking half of their money. Forget how the rich person feels about this, why should even the POOR feel good about this? It's not to our advantage to treat rich people like this, just from a practical standpoint. We want these guys creating jobs and inventing new products for us to use. We don't want them giving half of their money to Washington, so they can blow it on drone strikes and dimwit regulators salary.[/QUOTE]

Apparently, you're forgetting that ~75% of USA's net worth is in 10% of the country (top 1% has 35% of the total wealth). You can bitch all you want about taxes being unfair to the top 1% or top 5%, but you will [B]NEVER[/B] be able to refute the fact that the rich continue to get much richer while the rest of us are where we have been for past 30 years (or in many cases, rest of us are getting worse off).

You can complain about how we have a socialistic government or how the rich's wealth is unfairly being redistributed to the poor. The redistribution was already done and it was to the rich through policies the last 30+ years; what you're complaining about is a reredistribution to make sure nobody is unfairly treated. But here's the kicker: the rich continue to garner more and more wealth. Can you explain how if they are taxed more than half of their income? You're making it seem as if anyone making more than $250,000 is worse off than those making less. Perhaps you're forgetting the fact that a lot of them use loopholes (some legal, some illegal) to put a lot of their money in Cayman Islands or Switzerland or someplace where they can avoid paying a big chunk of their tax. What many of them are being taxed is AFTER the loopholes have been applied..

The average American making $60,000 cannot legally transfer money to Switzerland or someplace to bypass taxes that a corporate entity may be able to with legal loopholes. It would be too obvious to do it illegally if you only make $60,000 to begin with and parts of it disappear (if you're making millions, a couple $50,000 here and another $50,000 there disappearing won't be as noticeable), and it's also not cheap to run an overseas bank account. They probably cannot afford to store money overseas if most of their income is used up to pay mortgages, pay creditcard/electricity/etc bills while make a living.

You can jump up and down, scream at top of your lungs, cry or punch a wall somewhere. You will [B]never[/B] be able to refute that fact. That's the reality.

oh and don't forget about capital gains. They are taxed at 15% for those with money to invest or create bonds. I almost forgot about that. I just remembered the whole 'Buffett is taxed lower rate than his secretary' case. There are a lot of other ways/loopholes that can be used and are used.

[QUOTE=Rasheed1]:facepalm

Obama wasnt the guy speaking on the conference call with Romney's [B]DONORS[/B].

This is how delusional Romney and GOP are.. Romney is on a call explaining to his billionaire donors what went wrong. Romney's excuse is to say that Obama won because he gave people "gifts"


WTF were his donors expecting from him? :roll: nothing?

yet none of this strikes Mitt as totally absurd while he was rattling off excuses...

Thank God he lost[/QUOTE]

What were Obama's millionaire donors expecting from him?