Tiberius Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 This whole discussion comes from a warped point of view. It's always all about the rich and what we can take from them. As France has proven, this isn't sustainable. Bottom line is that, if you want to fix the economy, you have to allow the private sector to create jobs. Having the highest corporate tax in the civilized world goes a long way in stunting our growth as a nation. So sure, tax investments. But only after lowering the corporate tax, payroll tax, etc. for companies that employ American workers. That's not France's problem. Their problem is they are in an un-unified economic union, a state's rights paradigm. Our corportations are rolling in the cash, they are not lacking in capital at all. And most of the net job loss here has been in the public sector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 What will raising taxes on the top 1% fix? Or will it just allow us all to have a warm fuzzy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 What will raising taxes on the top 1% fix? Or will it just allow us all to have a warm fuzzy? It could increase consumer spending, thus creating more jobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 It could increase consumer spending, thus creating more jobs Increased consumer spending could lead to job growth, but how does increasing taxes = more consumer spending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 It could increase consumer spending, thus creating more jobs So you're saying the top 1% are not consumers? And are you also saying that every one dollar taken from the top one percent will equal one dollar in consumer spending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Increased consumer spending could lead to job growth, but how does increasing taxes = more consumer spending? To take an extreme example, tax top and hand the money out to every Tom, Dick and Harry on the street and they will spend the money. On a large enough scale it would increase consumer spending So you're saying the top 1% are not consumers? And are you also saying that every one dollar taken from the top one percent will equal one dollar in consumer spending? How many cars does one person drive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 To take an extreme example, tax top and hand the money out to every Tom, Dick and Harry on the street and they will spend the money. On a large enough scale it would increase consumer spending How many cars does one person drive? A direct investment into Ford has a larger economic impact than purchasing a used Focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 How many cars does one person drive? So the only thing 1%ers spend their money on are cars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 A direct investment into Ford has a larger economic impact than purchasing a used Focus. I think that is a good argument for the global economy, but not a national basis. Ford is building factories all over China right now. So the only thing 1%ers spend their money on are cars? They don't spend all or anywhere near all their money. It would be more utilitarian to spread the wealth baby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 4, 2013 Author Share Posted November 4, 2013 This whole discussion comes from a warped point of view. It's always all about the rich and what we can take from them. As France has proven, this isn't sustainable. Bottom line is that, if you want to fix the economy, you have to allow the private sector to create jobs. Having the highest corporate tax in the civilized world goes a long way in stunting our growth as a nation. So sure, tax investments. But only after lowering the corporate tax, payroll tax, etc. for companies that employ American workers. I couldn't agree more, especially the payroll tax since it's a tax on hiring workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 They don't spend all or anywhere near all their money. It would be more utilitarian to spread the wealth baby So let me ask you. Where does all their money go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 So the only thing 1%ers spend their money on are cars? it's been demonstrated repeatedly and in multiple models that putting money in the hands of those that are likely to spend it immediately (low income individuals) provides more stimulative bang for the buck than putting it into the hands of those with less needs. it's also intuitive. but if you're proposing a luxury item tax in addition to investment income tax, i'm all for it. those items will still be bought in similar volumes but more gov't revenue will result. we all want to decrease the deficit, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 4, 2013 Author Share Posted November 4, 2013 I think that is a good argument for the global economy, but not a national basis. Ford is building factories all over China right now. Good point. If that direct investment happens to occur in Mexico, there isn't much of an impact in the US. Regarding your other argument, the rich spend about 53 cents out of each additional dollar earned, while the poor spend 95 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Good point. If that direct investment happens to occur in Mexico, there isn't much of an impact in the US. Regarding your other argument, the rich spend about 53 cents out of each additional dollar earned, while the poor spend 95 cents. So 95% of $20,000 income puts how much into the economy vs 53% of $1,000,000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 It could increase consumer spending, thus creating more jobs This time try answering the question. What will it fix? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 but if you're proposing a luxury item tax in addition to investment income tax, i'm all for it. those items will still be bought in similar volumes but more gov't revenue will result. we all want to decrease the deficit, no? when a luxury tax is imposed, the sales and production of those items that fall under the tax are markedly decreased, and there is history to back that up. New York Times, 1992: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/07/business/falling-tax-would-lift-all-yachts.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 4, 2013 Author Share Posted November 4, 2013 So 95% of $20,000 income puts how much into the economy vs 53% of $1,000,000? I gave the marginal rates, which shows the consumption for each additional dollar earned. If you want the most bang for the buck, who should get a tax cut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 I gave the marginal rates, which shows the consumption for each additional dollar earned. If you want the most bang for the buck, who should get a tax cut? Depends on if you're a knucklehead that believes focus and targeted spending and investment is less valuable that unfocused and untargeted spending. Put more simply, would you rather give 53% of your money to Warren Buffett for investing, or 95% to the guy in the paper hat who just handed you your french fries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 5, 2013 Author Share Posted November 5, 2013 Depends on if you're a knucklehead that believes focus and targeted spending and investment is less valuable that unfocused and untargeted spending. Put more simply, would you rather give 53% of your money to Warren Buffett for investing, or 95% to the guy in the paper hat who just handed you your french fries? WB himself would tell you that putting more money into the hands of the guy in the paper hat would be better for his companies than putting more money into his hands. One person will spend it, and one won't. Which one generates more sales revenues for firms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 WB himself would tell you that putting more money into the hands of the guy in the paper hat would be better for his companies than putting more money into his hands. One person will spend it, and one won't. Which one generates more sales revenues for firms? So how do you suggest getting all this spending money in to the hands of the guy in the paper hat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts