DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Tax cuts and jobs

But that does not really create jobs.

You are talking about small numbers across the board as far as the tax cuts. It was $7 per check on average, IIRC. Does that create great spending? I doubt it.

We look at jobs and say "Oh, we better create jobs" and then we do everything except make it easy for employers to create jobs. It is the very soul and definition of insanity.

Quote:

---

"Rich" people buy all those same things, as well as cars, boats, atv's, they go out to eat, they go to movies, they go to shows, they travel, they stay in hotels, they invest (which employs people), they hire people to do their lawn, their snow, their painting, their siding, their roofing, they buy stuff that keeps the economy moving, tv's, air conditioners, mattresses, etc....and yet we want to tax them more, so they don't have more spendable income.................which in turn creates more poor people because the employees that work in the fields I mentioned (among hundreds of others) get laid off when the "rich" don't spend.

---

Arch, I think you have put it very well in the past. We are in deep trouble. Our debt is huge. We have to both cut spending and raise taxes. If the government disappeared tomorrow, it will still take 10 years to pay down the debt. Neither alone will be enough. But we also have a sluggish economy right now.

There are no choices that will start to pay down the debt and leave our economy as strong as it was 5 years ago. Greenspan said it best on Sunday; it is a choice between bad and worse. Extend the tax cuts and risk going to the brink with our debt. Tax cuts can only do so much to spur business, especially now, with lagging worldwide demand, thus you risk having little economic impact while taking us closer to default.

Or let the tax cuts expire. You will probably see some negative effect on the economy short term, but that is better to me than the long term economic effect of having the US default on it's debt. I'm fine with it even for me; I don't make much, would probably be considered middle class.

Just as another note, this is a political hot potato, having to be the administration to raise taxes. You see what it did the Bush Sr., just being associated with raising taxes likely cost him re-election. It would not be popular, but it is the right thing to do for the long term health of the country. I would hope it would be done, regardless of political consequences.

Quote:

---

But that does not really create jobs.

---

Agreed. But the social spending aspect is more about short term economic stabilization, possibly protecting some jobs, not really creating new, long term jobs.

Quote:

---

You are talking about small numbers across the board as far as the tax cuts. It was $7 per check on average, IIRC. Does that create great spending? I doubt it.

---

Likely true. But this is also about the extent of what the government can really try in the face of dangerous amounts of debt.

Quote:

---

We look at jobs and say "Oh, we better create jobs" and then we do everything except make it easy for employers to create jobs. It is the very soul and definition of insanity.

---

I'm not sure what else can be done. Taxes can be cut, to the detriment of our debt and long term economic health. But will this have a great effect, with general worldwide demand low? We can relax certain regulations, but again, will companies hire more people than they need with the extra money?

JMO, but the government gives lip service to "creating jobs" b/c that gets votes. But they are really limited in what they can do.

It's a choice of spending now in hopes of stabilizing the economy .... even though that has not worked yet ...... or accepting some pain today in order to stabilize the economy long term.

None of this stimulus stuff has a lasting effect.

So, if that isn't working, then something different must be tried.

I am in favor of cutting spending, eliminating the tax cuts and credits implimented over the past 10 years, closing tax loopholes, making taxes simpler ..... and then instituting a targetted jobs retention/creation tax credit where an employer earns tax credits based on their average employment, and their average growth in employment.

It would be simple to impliment, and would probably do more to increase jobs than all of this obscene and random spending.

Quote:

---

Payroll taxes are payroll taxes...income taxes are income taxes...regardless of who "administers" them.

Your attempt to equate payroll taxes to income taxes is an extremely weak argument.

---

IMO, any tax that comes directly out of your income is an income tax. The rest is just semantics.

Why is it a weak argument? Do payroll taxes not come out of your income and end up in the federal coffers? They are only collected separately because technically, SS and Medicare are entities somewhat separate from the rest of the budget. I was responding to an old Tax Policy Center document that the media has taken and makes it sound like 48% of Americans pay nothing to the federal government. That is simply untrue.

Quote:

---

If you do not like the 48% number that is thrown about regarding "income" taxes...wait until you equate payroll tax $$$ and income tax $$$ to the total tax collected using your new definition of "income" taxes.

The % of tax paid by income level will be even more appaling.

---

It's not that I don't "like" the number, it's that the number is a misrepresentation. If adding the two together results in something so appalling, why don't you show me some numbers? I'm not an expert at this, and would be interested in seeing your evidence for this statement.

Why not just have a consumption tax. You'd pay 12% state and 11% federal for a total of 23%. This would be on everything but food and meds, with the exception of food bought in restarants. Everyone ends up paying the consumption tax, including those that work under the table. Everyone pays an equal tax based on what they buy. If you can afford the $100,000 car, you pay 23%. If you can afford the $10,000 car, you pay 23%.

Furthermore, when you negotiate with an employer, if you get $50,000, you get paid $50K. You'll know exactly what you're going to make, as there are no income taxes, no witholding, no FICA, none of the other crap they take.

Have fun with this Ytown..... Those crafty democrats that care so much for the common working man and don't favor the rich are trying to figure out how to let the Bush tax cuts expire, some of them want the tax cuts to expire on everybody others only want them to expire on those evil rich people.. but only the evil rich people in red states...

Rep Nadler Wants Carve-Out for "Rich" NYC Residents in Bush Tax Cut Expiration

If Congress Creates Legislation Exempt Class to Minimize Effect, Isn't That Just a Sign of Bad Policy?

By Brenda krueger Huffman

(AXcess News) Chicago - Americans know Congress routinely exempts itself from legislation they enact. This has been going on for decades. These exemptions stick a thumb in the eye of the original integrity of the Founding Fathers mandating laws be "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

They specifically did not want lawmakers who were above the law. This was to ensure good laws. They wanted to protect Americans from a ruling and a non-ruling class. They knew there was a danger in having lawmakers whom were outside the laws they wrote.

A recent example of our "anyone but me" lawmakers' arrogance is the legislators' exemption in the healthcare reform. The law also contains a significant tax hike by imposing income tax on the value of a good insurance plan - a Cadillac plan. Congress expanded the "anyone but me" class to be the "anyone but me and my significant special interest contributors" class. Congress exempted the special interest Union class from this income tax hike.

Did the Unions scream for this carve-out for any reason other than the astronomical cost to their members it would represent? If Congress had to ensure an exemption class for this financial hardship effect, isn't that a sign of bad policy all around for all Americans?

Congress is encouraging letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Democrats are split on whether tax cuts should expire for all or just for those Americans they have defined as rich. Some Democrats and all Republicans believe raising taxes in today's weak economy is bad policy. Most prefer to leave the discussion until after the November elections.

In the heat of the discussion, exemption legislation is being put forth by U.S. Congressional members from New York. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) wants legislation to provide income tax rate adjustments for regional costs of living. Additional Democrats from New York City, Long Island, and surrounding areas are sponsoring the carve-out for their high-income earners - Carolyn McCarthy, Carolyn Maloney, Tim Bishop, Steve Israel, and Nita Lowey.

If this were to pass on its own or be slipped into another bill, the "rich" that Congress and the White House routinely demonize would be exempted from the effect of the tax increase. Are these New York Representatives acknowledging tax increases, even those on the highest income families in the country, would have a devastating impact on all Americans?

Other liberal policy cities like San Francisco would be included in this exemption adjustment for "high cost of living areas." Who makes up the difference - those in rural areas or more fiscally conservative cities and states should subsidize more fiscally liberal areas? Using this logic, should this adjustment policy be made for the state income tax rates for New York State too? If it costs less to live in Albany or Syracuse, should these residents pay a higher percentage (without adjustment) than those living in Manhattan (with adjustment) per dollar?

But wait a minute, President Obama and Democrat congressional members have been promoting for two years the Bush tax cuts are what caused the recession. The evil rich have not been paying enough - they have not been patriotic enough right? Doesn't VP Joe Biden believe it would be unpatriotic for New York Representatives to have their high income voters pay less in taxes?

The premise of Representative Nadler's argument is wrong. The dollar is worth the same whether you live in Texas or New York. The difference is the costs of things in New York are higher than in Texas as an example. Any city in the country with more regulation, more state and local taxes, higher property taxes, higher legacy pension cost, and more entitlement spending is going to cost more for residents to live there. This is directly the high cost city's fault.

Rewarding big spending cities by shielding their high income earners from federal income tax hikes is not an answer to bad policy. Ironically these are usually the same cities that have liberal representation in state and federal governing bodies whom enact high cost regulation and big spending policies. Should the people in Texas subsidize the people in New York, so they can continue their more liberal policies without equitable consequences?

High population areas naturally already receive a larger portion of federal monies in reality. Why should someone in Montana or Iowa be penalized by being forced to support destructive policies legislated in states like New York and California? In reality, the federal tax code already subsidizes higher cost states through the deductibility of state and local income and property taxes - well for now anyway.

Apparently some in Washington may just be realizing that if they raise taxes by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, their policies are going to impact their voters the most. It will also impact their states in general, because many residents will consider the "overall" tax liability of living in a higher tax state and move them and possibly their business to a lower tax state. Washington is also hot to discontinue current tax deductions like state and local taxes, mortgage deductions, and others in their never ending search for money they feel they rightfully need and deserve.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said unemployment benefits were good for the economy and created jobs. She meant having money in your wallet to purchase goods stimulates the economy. Does collecting more in income taxes put more money in any wallet but the politician to spend? Who knows how to spend money most efficiently for their family?

Tax cuts do increase economic activity which does increase government revenue. History has shown this under President's Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and GW Bush. The bottom line is the tax cut debate is a perfect example of legislation that needs an exemption to ensure the effect is not felt is really just a sign of it being bad policy in general.

web page

Also Willie, if what I did was so absurd, to combine income and payroll taxes, then why does this table do so? I didn't do this on my own; I got the idea from tax analysis done by experts.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/d...&DocTypeID=

The table (which adds all federal taxes together, including payroll and estate) shows that at the highest, 24% have zero or negative income tax liability (and the number is certainly lower than this, because this lumps people into quintiles, and thus averages out those with and without liability).

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/d...amp;DocTypeID=2

This second table shows that adding all federal taxes together results in a spread of taxes that more closely reflects what a quintile made (as a percentage of total income in the country; from the previous table), whereas looking in isolation at just the individual income tax, it would (falsely) appear as though as much as 40% of the country paid no tax.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/d...amp;DocTypeID=2

This final table shows the average effective tax rates. Notice that the lower and middle classes pay a larger percentage of their income towards payroll taxes. When all federal taxes are added together, the average tax rates show the top quintile paying LESS of an average tax rate relative to the other quintiles than if you took individual income alone.

If you took individual income alone, it looks like the top quintile is paying an effective rate that is 7 times the middle quintile. But when all taxes are added together, it is not that "appalling." The top quintile's effective rate is not even twice what the middle pays.

There's a good reason they exempted themselves from the health care bill too. Hmm, if it was such a great idea, why would they not want to be part of it?

I disagree that it is bad policy to let the cuts expire, but I do agree that if you are going to let them expire, it shouldn't be for select populations; it should be for everyone.

The biggest exception I take is here:

Quote:

---

Tax cuts do increase economic activity which does increase government revenue. History has shown this under President's Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and GW Bush. The bottom line is the tax cut debate is a perfect example of legislation that needs an exemption to ensure the effect is not felt is really just a sign of it being bad policy in general.

---

Tax cuts take time to take hold. During the time they are taking hold (generating economic activity), there is a period of less tax revenue (the large shot downward from 2000-2004). In order for the tax cuts to pay for themselves, they must have the economy come back so strong that tax revenues are higher than they were before the cuts. That barely happened (the lump from 2004-2008 just barely fills the hole created from 2000-2004). But the problem is that over the four years where the cuts took hold, we were running deficits, so the net is that we did get back what was lost, but we generated more debt that accumulated interest over that four years.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downc...r=c&local=s

While tax cuts do generate economic activity, when they are done without cuts in spending to offset less taxes, then it is at the expense of taking on more debt.

The short answer here, IMO, is that income taxes provide a more stable revenue stream, which makes it easier to plan budgets. Consumption taxes would be cyclical through "spending" seasons (higher around Christmas, lower in the dead of winter), as well as would be more exposed to things like high gas prices (which would increase the cost of goods, which would reduce consumption).

Consumption taxes do have a place, but I don't think they can stand alone as the major kind of tax in the country.

Wow.

That's really all I can say.

Just ... wow.

Quote:

---

"Rich" people buy all those same things, as well as cars, boats, atv's, they go out to eat, they go to movies, they go to shows, they travel, they stay in hotels, they invest (which employs people), they hire people to do their lawn, their snow, their painting, their siding, their roofing, they buy stuff that keeps the economy moving, tv's, air conditioners, mattresses, etc....and yet we want to tax them more, so they don't have more spendable income.................which in turn creates more poor people because the employees that work in the fields I mentioned (among hundreds of others) get laid off when the "rich" don't spend.

---

Another supporter of TRICKLE DOWN economics, I see...

If there is one lesson to be learned from the 8 years of RW economics (2000-2008), it is that the TRICKLE DOWN economic philosophy...FAILED...again.

Eight years of TRICKLE DOWN economics did not create a booming economy that spread across the land, lifting the entire country...DID IT?

...it created an economy that became more corrupt, year after year as RICH company managers took advantage of DEREGULATION, to stretch and bend every tax policy, rule and law they could get away with...the RICH pushed it to the max to give indications that their businesses were successful...

...BUT, the American people now know, many of those businesses based their success on "fuzzy" math and false assumptions with fake numbers to give the "impression" that TRICKLE DOWN economics worked.

The American people gave TRICKLE DOWN economics a fair shot at working...and it FAILED the American people.

The American economy collapsed in August 2008, leading to fears of another GREAT DEPRESSION...but America got lucky...we only had the WORSTE RECESSION IN AMERICA'S HISTORY...!!!!

The WORLD ECONOMY also suffered, due to the failure of TRICKLE DOWN economics.

Haven't enough people been hurt by TRICKLE DOWN economics?

I realize that TD economics did work for some...on a PERSONAL level. Some of the RICH have pocketed more money due to TD economic policies..IE, tax cuts. The fact that a few RICH folks did better is not evidence that the TRICKLE DOWN economic philosophy works.

The RICH did not buy enough cars, boats, atv's...to keep America's economy moving.

The RICH did not hire enough people to support their RICH life styles..mowing their lawns, moving their snow, painting or siding their homes...

The RICH did not buy enough STUFF, tv's, air conditioners, mattresses...to keep the economy moving.

WHY DIDN'T THE RICH DO ENOUGH TO MAKE TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS SUCCESSFUL DURING THE GW BUSH YEARS?

The answer if very simple...there are not enough RICH to move and sustain an economy as large as the United States of America's economy.

There is no way possible that TRICKLE DOWN economics can work for a nation as large as the USA.

WHY NOT..?...you ask?

There is no law that says the rich have to share their wealth. There is no requirement that forces the RICH to buy more or create more jobs.

TRICKLE DOWN economics is based on FALSE ASSUMPTIONs, that the RICH will share their wealth, create more jobs, buy more products, hire more people to mow their lawns and plow their snow.

What if the RICH decide to use their increased income to invest in moving their business to China or India, where they can hire people willing to work for slave wages? TRICKEL DOWN economics does not require America's RICH to show any PATRIOTISM to AMERICA...and create more jobs in America...DOES IT?

TRICKLE DOWN economics does not mandate any level of PATRIOTISM by America's RICH....DOES IT?

IMO, Americans have learned that when it comes to PATRIOTISM, there is less of "IT" among America's RICH than any class of Americans.

...Another way of saying it...the RICH are the least PATRIOTIC Americans in the USA.

I could go on and on...but I will close with this thought...

...When a country has to rely on the RICH and WEALTHIEST to allow enough of their wealth to TRICKLE DOWN to the lower classes, to create jobs and sustain it's economy ...THAT COUNTRY HAS BECOME A "KINGDOM"...

mac then why do some of the democrats want to create mini trickle down economies in their own districts and big cities by exempting their own rich people from having their taxes raised when the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire?

Trickle down doesn't work?

Care to show me how trickle up works??????????

Dragging everyone down to the lowest level doesn't work, but that's where we are headed (aside from congress - the laws don't apparently apply to them).

I'd rather work for a rich person "rich" being quite different than what you say rich is.........than work for a poor person.

But apparently you like the idea of everyone meeting at the bottom and being reliant on gov't. I like the idea of "hey, I had an idea, and I worked and made IT work, and now I am reaping the benefits".

Payroll taxes are payroll taxes. These taxes are based only on payroll/earned income and go to social security and medicare - where they are stolen by our spend-crazed politicians.

Income taxes are income taxes. These taxes are imposed on ALL types of income and are for general federal abuse...er...I mean are-stolen...uh...no...are spent. Usually many times over what is actually collected.

Statistics show that nearly half of Americans do not pay ANY federal income taxes...it is a fact. If you want to factor in payroll taxes, go right ahead. That would then be another mind-numbing number and would no longer be applicable in a discussion about ''Who pays federal income taxes?'

Apples are round and come from trees...as do oranges...but apples are not oranges.

(Note: I understand your point...however...I have never seen a stat or comment that tries to claim that nearly half of the country pays no taxes whatsoever to the federal government.)

J/C.

All I know is i pay too much in taxes. income tax, ss tax, medicare, gas tax, property tax, sales tax.........the list of taxes is endless. But it's not enough????????????

I guarantee I get to keep less than half of what I earn - due to taxes. Yes, less than half of what I make is MINE to do with as I want. I guarantee it. And let's face it - I know what I'm talking about.

But we really don't have a choice at this point ...

We can argue the merits and pitfalls of increased/lowered taxes all day ... personally, I find that there's validity to both sides of the coin.

However ... we're kind of screwed. When you slash taxes and spike spending, it's fairly easy to deduce what's going to happen sooner or later.

As I said during the election cycle ... it wasn't going to matter if we elected McCain or Obama ... taxes were going to have to go up.

Tax cuts in the midst of two wars and hefty social spending was a big Bush mistake...

...continuing on that path was a big Obama mistake. Even if Obama hadn't spent like a kook, and cut spending and pulled us out of the wars ... I think we'd still be stuck in a forced situation. It was bad before Barry got here ... and it's beyond dire now.

Quote:

---

But we really don't have a choice at this point ...

---

When you spend like Bush did and you print money like Obama has.. you are setting yourself up for inflation.. inflation is coming.. inflation means the dollar you have in your pocket is worth less than it was yesterday.. it has less buying power so whatever your income is, your standard of living is going down because your money isn't going to go as far....

So you say we have no choice and that taxes must be raised, you are saying that not only has the buying power of each dollar been reduced, now we have to raise taxes so people have fewer weak dollars to spend on goods and services that they need and that keep our economy rolling...

Seems to me we DO have a choice, we can not double penalize the people, which is also NOT going to help the economy and it's NOT going to help pay down the debt and its NOT going to create jobs. Raising taxes is STUPID and we do have a choice.