Why Taxing the Rich is Necessary

DeathMagus · Nov 30, 2011

stiggywiggy said:
...he can't because he would need to shell out eleven thousand dollars in labor, which is two thousand dollars short of what he needs (thanks to an additional two thousand dollars in taxes he just paid), he will PASS on the bid.

Could you reword the area around the bolded part so I can better respond to it? I'm not quite sure what you're meaning by an amount he pays being short of an amount he "needs". Needs to pay? Needs to earn?

oliverb · Nov 30, 2011

stiggywiggy said:
On the contrary, I implied that the rich are being targeted FOR A REASON: to achieve social equality.

I just need an explanation as to how taking away money from the people who have the most to spend helps economic growth.

I doesn't.

Taking money from someone else and giving it to me does nothing to stimulate econimic growth. Anyone who thinks it does can just send me the money, and we can bypass the inefficiency of government. $100,000 would be a good start. And he can feel good about himself, by considering it both a bailout and stimulus...two liberal priorities at once.

stiggywiggy · Nov 30, 2011

dlamberth said:
The Authorities know. But none of the banksters have gone to jail. We bailed them out, and we got sold out.

.

So bankers stole your money (not sure how), and as a consequence you'd like to see all rich people have even more of their money confiscated than they currently have, in order to bail out the very banks which you think stole your money?

stiggywiggy · Nov 30, 2011

Jase said:
If taxing the rich is so bad, why do so many non super greedy rich people agree they should be taxed more?

So they are "non-super greedy" because they think they should be taxed more? No one is stopping them from sending money to the federal government, so I'd say they (literally) need to put their money where their mouth is.

But why would a non-greedy person want to give his money to Caesar instead of the poor, particularly since Caesar is not ASKING that additional money be rendered unto him?

But we are a greedy, materialistic nation who frankly doesn't give a crap about the weak or less fortunate. Not a position Jesus would agree with.

And we would show that we were not so greedy if people richer than you had more of their money confiscated by the federal government? I don't see how that follows. Would that make you less greedy? Or does wealth equal greed in your book? I don't recall Jesus lecturing the rich young ruler about greed.

stiggywiggy · Nov 30, 2011

...he can't because he would need to shell out eleven thousand dollars in labor, which is two thousand dollars short of what he needs (thanks to an additional two thousand dollars in taxes he just paid), he will PASS on the bid.

DeathMagus said:
Could you reword the area around the bolded part so I can better respond to it? I'm not quite sure what you're meaning by an amount he pays being short of an amount he "needs". Needs to pay? Needs to earn?

Needs for the labor for the job bid on. I thought that was obvious.

RobinRobyn · Nov 30, 2011

stiggywiggy said:
You are quite wrong. Only those with money CAN create jobs.

True. And those with money aren't creating jobs these days, not in America at least.

stiggywiggy said:
Poor people do not create jobs. And the government CANNOT create jobs without confiscating the money of those who work. This the private sector does not do.

If the private sector isn't creating jobs, and it isn't, then the government must. Or no jobs will be created, which is where we are now.

stiggywiggy said:
If my household is in debt and I need members of my family to draw a greater income, I do not decrease the total household income by setting up household chores and paying within.

That's why governments and households are different: governments can and do create jobs and the people who do those jobs are paid real money that they go and spend.

stiggywiggy said:
The government simply cannot create jobs that will boost the GNP, i.e the tax base.

Yes, it can. Government workers are paid, and they pay taxes on their income just like everyone. People like congressional aides, secretaries even teachers cops and sewer workers.

RobinRobyn · Nov 30, 2011

stiggywiggy said:
Thanks for validating my point. 50 billion dollars toward a 16 trillion dollar debt will put a dent in it to the tune of less than 0.3%. A spit in the ocean, like I said.

That's 50 billion for one year, 680 billion by 2020. Compare that to extending the Bush Tax Cuts, which will increase the deficit even more. Check your math.

RobinRobyn · Nov 30, 2011

stiggywiggy said:
Why do you have a problem with the rich getting richer, if by doing so, no one else is economically hurt, and in fact (as you point out) the middle class is helped?

Look at the world around you, everyone else is being economically hurt by the rich getting richer. The middle class is not being helped, it's struggling to stay alive!

stiggywiggy said:
Is it envy?

No. Is it greed?

dlamberth · Dec 1, 2011

RobinRobyn said:
No. Is it greed?

Thats exactly what it is!!!

.

RobinRobyn · Dec 1, 2011

dlamberth said:
Thats exactly what it is!!!

I think so too.

oliverb · Dec 1, 2011

RobinRobyn said:
That's 50 billion for one year, 680 billion by 2020. Compare that to extending the Bush Tax Cuts, which will increase the deficit even more. Check your math.

Tax cuts don't increase deficits, spending does. But if you don't like them, at least remember that those are Obama's tax cuts. Bush's tax cuts expired in 2010.

DeathMagus · Dec 1, 2011

stiggywiggy said:
...he can't because he would need to shell out eleven thousand dollars in labor, which is two thousand dollars short of what he needs (thanks to an additional two thousand dollars in taxes he just paid), he will PASS on the bid.

Needs for the labor for the job bid on. I thought that was obvious.

Not really obvious what you meant - you first said he "needs" 11k, and then in the same sentence you said he "needs" 13k, without being all that clear about the distinction between the two. Regardless, all you're illustrating is that your particular business required a fair bit of upfront labor capital to pay wages in advance of earnings.

Mine did not, as people who worked for me got paid upon completion of the job. Adding a worker never resulted in me needing a massive amount of capital to float their pay, so clearly it is not necessary for someone to be rich to hire someone else.

DeathMagus · Dec 1, 2011

oliverb said:
Tax cuts don't increase deficits, spending does.

Uh...what?

oliverb · Dec 1, 2011

DeathMagus said:
Uh...what?

What do you not understand?

DeathMagus · Dec 1, 2011

oliverb said:
What do you not understand?

What definition of "deficit" are you using?

oliverb · Dec 1, 2011

DeathMagus said:
What definition of "deficit" are you using?

Annual expenditures exceeding annual revenues.

It's always possible to spend only what is collected. Spending more than that causes a deficit. Not having resources doesn't cause a deficit; spending money we don't have does.

lemur · Dec 1, 2011

oliverb said:
Annual expenditures exceeding annual revenues.

It's always possible to spend only what is collected. Spending more than that causes a deficit. Not having resources doesn't cause a deficit; spending money we don't have does.

Between interest on our debt, mandatory obligations, the military industrial complex, and social programs. Our expenses are nearly fixed as it's deviated by less than 30% over the last 3 decades and the most that it's ever changed from one year to the next is the 20% increase from 2008 to 2009. Over this time same 30 year time period, the largest decline seen was about 2% per year over 20 years.

oliverb · Dec 1, 2011

lemur said:
Between interest on our debt, mandatory obligations, the military industrial complex, and social programs. Our expenses are nearly fixed as it's deviated by less than 30% over the last 3 decades and the most that it's ever changed from one year to the next is the 20% increase from 2008 to 2009. Over this time same 30 year time period, the largest decline seen was about 2% per year over 20 years.

Yeh, I agree with the graph and your comment. Not entirely sure, however, where you are wanting to go with this. The fact that most of our budget is no longer discretionary doesn't, I think, change the fact that it's expenditures rather than revenue that determines deficits. True, in a strictly technical view, both sides of the equation effect the outcome, but expenditures can be increased at will, while revenues can not. There is a limit to revenues, but no limit to the demand that motivates spending.

DeathMagus · Dec 1, 2011

oliverb said:
Annual expenditures exceeding annual revenues.

Which allows either decreased revenues or increased expenditures to increase our deficit. As tax cuts result in decreased revenues, tax cuts certainly do increase our deficit.

stiggywiggy · Dec 1, 2011

RobinRobyn said:
True. And those with money aren't creating jobs these days, not in America at least.

Incorrect. Only those with money can create jobs. People will not work for bus tokens. They usually want money.

If the private sector isn't creating jobs, and it isn't,

And yet it is. I guess what you meant to say is that they are not creating as many jobs today as they did when they were better off financially. That of course is true.

That's why governments and households are different: governments can and do create jobs and the people who do those jobs are paid real money that they go and spend.

If my household has a negative balance in its account, and my 17 year-old son is unemployed, I would be a fool to think that by creating the job of "planting rosebushes," I would somehow increase my household bank balance. The government funds itself similarly from within, unlike the private sector.

Why Taxing the Rich is Necessary

Stater of the Obvious

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Stater of the Obvious

Stater of the Obvious

Newbie

Stater of the Obvious

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Stater of the Obvious

Well-Known Member

Similar threads