As spending by wealthy weakens, so does economy

[USFREEDOM911]

No it wouldn't. As compared to the items Mott mentioned, foreign aid is a drop in the ocean.

But then Mott's assertions aren't totally on par either.

 

[apple0154]

And what are you going to do, when those you want to tax decide enough's enough and leave for elsewhere??

A commonly asked question. I ask, "Where?"

People come here not just to make money. They come for the personal freedoms. For example, previously, in some Soviet Block countries one had to explain to local authorities why they wanted to drive to another part of the country. Imagine having to explain why you wanted to "get away for the weekend".

A more free society keeps people here.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

A commonly asked question. I ask, "Where?"

People come here not just to make money. They come for the personal freedoms. For example, previously, in some Soviet Block countries one had to explain to local authorities why they wanted to drive to another part of the country. Imagine having to explain why you wanted to "get away for the weekend".

A more free society keeps people here.

So your opinion is that if the rich retired to Spain, or England, or Sweden, or anywhere else, that they would lose more.

 

[apple0154]

Where would they go to? We have the lowest marginal tax rates for the wealthy in the industrialized world. You think they are going to some third world nation that doesn't have the infrastructure in which they can invest their capital? That doesn't have the security to protect their property? Not going to happen dude. That's an empty threat.

I repeated pretty much what you wrote before I had a chance to read your post.

 

[Bonestorm]

A commonly asked question. I ask, "Where?"

People come here not just to make money. They come for the personal freedoms. For example, previously, in some Soviet Block countries one had to explain to local authorities why they wanted to drive to another part of the country. Imagine having to explain why you wanted to "get away for the weekend".

A more free society keeps people here.

There's also the other problem that it's really, really, really, really hard for American citizens to not have to pay the federal government income tax, even if they live overseas. It's a lot easier for entities like corporations, LLCs and the like. For people, it's hard.

 

[apple0154]

So your opinion is that if the rich retired to Spain, or England, or Sweden, or anywhere else, that they would lose more.

Absolutely. Whether it's British taxes or terrorists in Spain (remember the bombing and the subsequent withdrawal of Spanish troops from the ME) which country would you prefer to live in?

One can not put a price on basic freedoms.

 

[Canceled2]

Taxes
How Will The Expiring Bush Tax Cuts Affect You?
Eric Fox, 07.22.10, 02:30 PM EDT


Find out which expiring tax cuts might cost you money if Congress doesn't extend them.

Most Americans have a fairly strong opinion of former President George W. Bush, either for or against his eight-year reign. One thing that all Americans can agree on, however, is that he was a serial tax cutter, with tax reduction as one of the cornerstones of his economic policy. Many of these tax cuts were enacted with sunset provisions, meaning they were embedded with predetermined expiration dates, many of which are coming up in 2011 and 2012. These sunset provisions were placed in the tax laws in some cases to garner enough legislative support to get the bills passed, or to get around rules that existed on cutting revenue without passing an offsetting spending cut.

Major Legislation
The two major tax-cutting bills from the Bush era were the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) of 2001, and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.

These two laws cut taxes across the board for earned income, long-term capital gains and dividends. The legislation also expanded the child tax credit and made dozens of other changes and adjustments to the tax code, involving exemptions, deductions and the marriage penalty.

Tax Brackets
EGTRRA created six tax rate brackets--10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%, based on income levels. If no extension is passed and signed into law, then the pre-2001 tax rates will go back into effect starting in tax year 2011. The 10% bracket would disappear, and those taxpayers would move up to the 15% bracket, which would apply to all incomes below $34,550. The other tax rates would increase to 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6% for the highest earners making more than $379,650.

Child Tax Credit
One major provision that will expire at the end of 2010 is the child tax credit, which EGTRRA doubled from $500 to $1,000 per child. Unless Congress votes to extend the child tax credit, the maximum amount will revert back to $500 for tax year 2011, and the number of families eligible for that amount will be much less as tougher eligibility standards that existed prior to EGTRRA will go back into effect.

Capital Gains/Qualified Dividends
The maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends were also reduced to 15%, with lower income filers facing a 0% tax rate. The sunset provisions would move the capital gains rate back to a maximum of 20%, and qualified dividends would resume being taxed at the regular tax rate of the filer, or as high as 39.6%.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Hey I'm all for letting the wealthy keeps as much of the jack they've earned, swindled and swiped. God bless them. Are you willing to cut millitary spending in half so that we can keep those tax cuts? Would you be willing to means test social security and or reduce benefits? Same with Medicare/Medicaid? Would the Republican party be willing to take responsibility for the public odium of making those decisions?

Cause if you're not. You're just blowing smoke.

Abso-fucking-lutely I would.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Absolutely. Whether it's British taxes or terrorists in Spain (remember the bombing and the subsequent withdrawal of Spanish troops from the ME) which country would you prefer to live in?

One can not put a price on basic freedoms.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Here you want to talk about "freedom" and yet you want to force a specific segment to pay more, just because it fits your agenda.

OH-YEAH, that's freedom; at least according to a liberal from Canada.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

As spending by wealthy weakens, so does economy

WASHINGTON – Wealthy Americans aren't spending so freely anymore. And the rest of us are feeling the squeeze.

The question is whether the rich will cut back so much as to tip the economy back into recession — or if they will spend at least enough to sustain the recovery.

The answer may not be clear for months. But their cutbacks help explain why the rebound could be stalling. The economy grew at just a 2.4 percent rate in the April-June quarter, the government said Friday, much slower than the 3.7 percent rate for the first quarter.

Economists say overall consumer spending has slowed mainly because the richest 5 percent of Americans — those earning at least $207,000 — are buying less. They account for about 14 percent of total spending. These shoppers have retrenched as their investment values have sunk and home values have languished.

In addition, the most sweeping tax cuts in a generation are due to expire in January, and lawmakers are divided over whether the government can afford to make any of them permanent as the federal budget deficit continues to balloon. President Barack Obama wants to allow the top rates to increase next year for individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000. The wealthy may be keeping some money on the sidelines due to uncertainty over whether or not they will soon face higher taxes.

The Standard & Poor's 500 stock index has tumbled 9.5 percent since its high-water mark in late April. Home values fell 3.2 percent in the first quarter, according to the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller 20-city home price index.

Think of the wealthy as the main engine of the economy: When they buy more, the economy hums. When they cut back, it sputters. The rest of us mainly go along for the ride.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100801/ap_on_bi_ge/us_wealthy_cut_back

explain to me again how taxing the wealthy more helps the economy....

I've never said that taxing the wealthy helps the economy. But I would say that Bush's tax cuts didn't really make much of a difference (I definitely wouldn't say they had a NEGATIVE impact on the economy, just to make things clear).

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Dude you could cut all of environmental spending, farm subsidies and foreign aid out of the discretionary budget spending all together and you're only talking about 3% of the Federal budget. That's chump change and doesn't even begin to address the problem. You need to get serious if you want balance our budget.

Most of the ideas I hear for cutting the budget hardly even dent the deficit, much less leave us in a position to comfortably cut taxes. And when we point that out they say "it's a start". I don't really want "a start", I want to hear your whole plan for cutting the budget beyond eliminating the deficit and how big the tax cuts you plan for are after that.

 

[Onceler]

The obvious ones are staring us in the face, and we're certainly at a point where truly drastic changes are needed, but the nature of our political system absolutely prevents action.

Wreck the defense budget - slash it in half, or more. The cold war is over, and we're still funding it that way. Privatize social security.

Done.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The obvious ones are staring us in the face, and we're certainly at a point where truly drastic changes are needed, but the nature of our political system absolutely prevents action.

Wreck the defense budget - slash it in half, or more. The cold war is over, and we're still funding it that way. Privatize social security.

Done.

Slashing the defense budget in half would almost eliminate the deficit, true. But if we abolished social security we'd have to abolish the taxes for it. If you add the something to one side of the equation and subtract it from the other you get nothing for the American people.

Of course, we can't slash the defense budget quickly either, because we've got wars going on. That's probably why it's so high as it is. However, when the recession is over, we can expect some tax windfall, and that may put us in the green. But I don't think you're going to get anyone to agree to cuts that dramatic even a post-war situation.

 

[Onceler]

Slashing the defense budget in half would almost eliminate the deficit, true. But if we abolished social security we'd have to abolish the taxes for it. If you add the something to one side of the equation and subtract it from the other you get nothing for the American people.

Of course, we can't slash the defense budget quickly either, because we've got wars going on. That's probably why it's so high as it is. However, when the recession is over, we can expect some tax windfall, and that may put us in the green. But I don't think you're going to get anyone to agree to cuts that dramatic even a post-war situation.

It's ironic, because bankrupting the U.S. was (imo) kind of the reason behind 9/11. By committing to the lengthy wars we're in, we're basically playing into their hands, since they don't have the resources to challenge us in any conventional way.

We really need to reinvent the kind of country we are. Just about everything we do screams "unsustainable". As for SS, I wouldn't suggest abolishing it - just privatizing. The returns would be incredible, both for seniors & the U.S. economy.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

...and you're showing why you're one of the worst. When presented with hard facts you try to change the subject and avoid answering the question(s) you've been asked.

Which of the golden rails of politics are you willing to cut spending on and are you and your party willing to take that political price? Please try to answer that question instead of running away from it like you usually do.

My guess is your not going to answer that question cause you're not going to want to take that political hit.

Well that's the boat were in. We either reduce spending on those three programs to within in our current means or we raise taxes to pay for them. The choice is yours. Which one do you pick?

maybe you shoudl stop spouting bullshit and people would take you seriously...i never changed the subject, i directly talked about the bullshit you talked about....so continue you fantasy world mott....

as i already said (so another false notion that i didn't address it)...it appears keeping taxes lower for the wealthy causes them to spend more which causes the economy to become stronger...people make more and the government takes in more revenue....so taxes are in essence raised vis a vis people making more money, no need to simply raise taxes to raise them...

get it

 

[apple0154]

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Here you want to talk about "freedom" and yet you want to force a specific segment to pay more, just because it fits your agenda.

OH-YEAH, that's freedom; at least according to a liberal from Canada.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

The agenda is the economy. I would think that's everyone's agenda.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Here's how. We can wait for the wealthy guy to hum and haw and finally purchase a new Jaguar with the majority of his money going overseas OR we can tax the guy and all his money will stay in the country and be spent by people requiring food, clothing, shelter, etc.

Which approach do you think will help the economy more?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Fraudian Slip?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The agenda is the economy. I would think that's everyone's agenda.

Which has nothing to do with those who have succeeded being FORCED to pay more, just because they've been successful.
Maybe the poor should be forced to work more, for the same paycheck; because they haven't been successful.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Fraudian Slip?

It may have been a slip; but it wasn't far from the truth.
The fucking lazy liberals would find nothing more pleasing, then to drag down anyone who has been more successful then they are.
Ever watched a bucket of crabs.
You don't have to put a lid on it; because all the other crabs will pull down any crab trying to get out.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It may have been a slip; but it wasn't far from the truth.
The fucking lazy liberals would find nothing more pleasing, then to drag down anyone who has been more successful then they are.
Ever watched a bucket of crabs.
You don't have to put a lid on it; because all the other crabs will pull down any crab trying to get out.

1% of your income in taxes does not mean nearly as much to a person who makes a million a year as it does to a single mother making 20k a year. If I'm designing a tax system and I have to choose between higher taxes for the middle class and adding in a bracket for high income earners, the decision is easy.