namelesstavern.net

Thanks Republican fuckheads. They are arguing over 1.3B worth of human services for the poor and elderly. The governor is proposing a 2% tax increase on the wealthiest MN residents to square up the budget and the Republicans seem willing to let the government shut down in order to protect their wealthy interests. Even with the increase, the tax rate will be lower than it was when Clinton was president. The rich were still rich in the 90's if I recall correctly.

Ahh the Robin Hood syndrome. Take from the rich and give to the poor. Sorry buddy, but continuing to give Americans freebies isn't going to put us on the right track. Higher taxes equals low job creation. Raising taxes is not and never has been the answer.

Markarado wrote:Ahh the Robin Hood syndrome. Take from the rich and give to the poor. Sorry buddy, but continuing to give Americans freebies isn't going to put us on the right track. Higher taxes equals low job creation. Raising taxes is not and never has been the answer.

Lowering taxes and caving to the rich got us where we are now. The rich pay lower taxes now han they ever have and it's done jack shit to create jobs. I work in human services. Many of the people we service are woring, they just don't make enough to live and rely on government programs for suvival. The $120 a week that someone making $6k a week might have to pay in certainly isn't going to do shit to create jobs but it will help subsidize grandmas medicine or feed a family.

God damn keyboard on my phone... misses keystrokes.

100% of the states population are getting fucked in order to protect the interests of 2% of the population. If we were in France, the place would be on fire by now with rioting in the streets.

There are definitely points to be made about not taxing the rich more. I can see it from both sides. Taxing the rich more will slow down potential job growth though. Also, taxing 2% of the population a bit more is not going to make a significant difference in our deficit spending.

Social programs account for a huge part of our spending. These programs are full of inefficiency. I'm not for abolishing these programs, but I am for completely overhauling them.

How does taxing the rich slow down Job creation

Tikker wrote:How does taxing the rich slow down Job creation

It doesn't. It's conservative scare tactics.

Tossica wrote:

Tikker wrote:How does taxing the rich slow down Job creation

It doesn't. It's conservative scare tactics.

I know this. I just want to hear Malaysia explain it

Conceivably huge new taxes on businesses could do so, by giving them less profit margin, and thus less potential money available to hire new people.

The thing is, with this recession we've seen a complete decoupling of profits from hiring anyway. Look at corporate balance sheets. Large numbers of them are incredibly profitable, many have even been getting record profit levels, and they are sitting on huge cash reserves, yet very few of them are engaged in any sort of large scale hiring. According to conservative thinking, we should ALREADY see massive levels of hiring, because of those profits, yet we are not. This tells us something is fundamentally flawed with their models, and the link between available profits and taxation that they rail about is simply untrue. Therefore, there must be another motive at work. Namely, the fattening of the pocketbooks of their donors....

-Arlos

Ahh the Robin Hood syndrome. Take from the rich and give to the poor. Sorry buddy, but continuing to give Americans freebies isn't going to put us on the right track. Higher taxes equals low job creation. Raising taxes is not and never has been the answer.

This statement if chuck full of fail.

First the rich are the only people you can take from since over the years they have goten a bigger and bigger piece of the pie.

Second your right lets throw old folks and poor folks out on the street cuz that really sounds like an America we can all get behind and cheer for.

High taxes does not equal low job creation... LOW DEMAND creates slow job creation. According to your logic with the rich paying less and making more than ever before the economy should be booming and these rich guys should be making jobs left and riot. While I know for a fact you want to believe what you say is true we both know it isnt.

Last point is it isnt raising taxes so much as it is taking them back to sane levels. This rich people shouldnt pay taxes and free trade one 2 punch is what has brought us to this point and yet dipshits like you still parrot this nonsense as if its good ideas.

They aren't talking about raising taxes on businesses. This is a personal income tax hike of 2%. The governor even agreed to only raise taxes on individual incomes over $1m a year and the fuck faces would not agree. That's less than 8000 people in a state with over 5m people.

One day maybe we can have a real class war. Remind the let them eat cakes/pull yourself up by your bootstraps crowd why they cant behave in that way.

the whole argument where taxing the rich will slow down job creation is built on the laughable idea that these rich folks in question, given the extra income, will use it to create new jobs instead of just keeping it (or spreading it around to their crew)

yeah maybe some of them might but it's too easy to just take the free money and keep it

Some may keep it. Those would be the spoiled ones who were born into it. None or almost none of the others would simply keep the cash. That's not how the got rich. They know how to use their cash to make more cash. That creates jobs. It's really very simple. Rich people like to get richer - not stagnate.

There is actually no proof whatsoever that rich individuals having more money will equate to more jobs.

Hell, look at 12 years ago. 1999 tax rates were higher than now, the economy was booming, and unemployment was vastly lower. Oh, and we had a budget surplus. Look at the numbers, during Clinton's terms, he created over 150 TIMES as many jobs as were created under Bush's. Yet guess which one presided over the higher tax rates....

So no, I do NOT for one minute buy the argument that cutting taxes on rich people has ANY effect on job creation. Well, or anything else for that matter, other than the size of rich people's bank accounts.

-Arlos

Markarado wrote:Some may keep it. Those would be the spoiled ones who were born into it. None or almost none of the others would simply keep the cash. That's not how the got rich. They know how to use their cash to make more cash. That creates jobs. It's really very simple. Rich people like to get richer - not stagnate.

facts please. how many jobs did the bush tax cuts create?

Markarado wrote:Some may keep it. Those would be the spoiled ones who were born into it. None or almost none of the others would simply keep the cash. That's not how the got rich. They know how to use their cash to make more cash. That creates jobs. It's really very simple. Rich people like to get richer - not stagnate.

Do you live on Earth? or what

The rich are rich because they keep their money, not because they give it to others



besides, personal tax has nothing to do with business tax

Mark is right, the rich are rich because they treat their money as capital, not stockpiled savings in the bank. Capital creates jobs.

Income tax is lame though, shouldn't even exist. It is a tax on labor. I can understand capital gains taxes, tariffs, and such, but a tax on your labor? Just seems wrong to me, but then again it has been around since the Federal Reserve was created, so no one these days really thinks of life without it.

At the very least, I don't think higher earners should be taxed at a higher rate than lower earners (on their labor). The argument that they have more than they need and that that somehow justifies taking a higher percentage from them than others feels extremely immoral. You already get a much larger amount from them due to their higher earnings. Just keep a flat percentage across all income levels, and you know what? The rich will stay be paying the vast majority of the taxes.

But, again, I emphasize that I limit this to income tax, that is, tax on labor. Most wealthy people make most of their money on capital gains. Tax that more for all I care.

KaiineTN wrote:Mark is right, the rich are rich because they treat their money as capital, not stockpiled savings in the bank. Capital creates jobs.

Does the government stockpile savings in the bank? Money given to the government doesn't disappear into socialist oblivion.

Do you believe the government knows how to spend your money better than you do? I don't. Consumer demand will lead to a far better economic foundation than politicians spending your money on what they think will help them get re-elected.

Besides, any money that goes to Washington is blown, and then they always come crawling back with open hands saying "More!"

All that anarchist hogwash doesn't really have anything to do with me pointing out that your argument was wrong.

The government’s role isn't to get reelected. You think that because you have an unnatural fear of "the man". I'm perfectly happy giving my government money to build streets, man the police force, provide me with health care, and the number of other things that they do to make my life better. It's what a strong and prosperous society does.

Government needs a certain amount of working funds to do what it needs to do


Defining what needs to be done is always the debate though

Infrastructure, military, law enforcement all come to mind, but there's a lot that's up for debate

Taxation is a reality, and I'm all for a single tax bracket, no exceptions

I'm certainly not advocating anything like anarchism, I'm just a minimalist, and I think that the government does far more than what is needed.

Government is a necessary evil--evil because all government action is accomplished by threat of violence. This is why I'm philosophically libertarian.

KaiineTN wrote:Government is a necessary evil--evil because all government action is accomplished by threat of violence. This is why I'm philosophically libertarian.

This is not true. Reasonable people can come to reasonable decisions that have nothing to do with violence. By your logic capitalism is an institution that is founded on violence since the only thing forcing people to actually pay for their goods and services is the "threat of violence".

More nonsense.