The Rich Are Destroying the Economy

You're still offering nothing to support your opinion, SF. It's more of the same, name calling and espousing of your opinions... and no evidence to support them. Every time, in modern history, we've raised the top marginal tax rates, the result is diminished revenue. I can go through each time, and show you the numbers if you like, they are available online. Regardless of Laffer, that is a fact of life, and something that can't be refuted. But even beyond taxation and Laffer, is the underlying problem of not stimulating the economy. When you drive wealthy investors into hiding with their wealth, you have no economic growth, because the economy depends on these rich people spending their wealth. By raising tax rates, you have discouraged wealthy people from using their money to earn incomes. It doesn't matter what Laffer says about revenues, the lack of economic activity is the real problem. Without economic growth, you can't generate more revenues, and it doesn't matter how high you raise tax rates.
 
Dixie said:
You're still offering nothing to support your opinion, SF. It's more of the same, name calling and espousing of your opinions... and no evidence to support them. Every time, in modern history, we've raised the top marginal tax rates, the result is diminished revenue. I can go through each time, and show you the numbers if you like, they are available online. Regardless of Laffer, that is a fact of life, and something that can't be refuted. But even beyond taxation and Laffer, is the underlying problem of not stimulating the economy. When you drive wealthy investors into hiding with their wealth, you have no economic growth, because the economy depends on these rich people spending their wealth. By raising tax rates, you have discouraged wealthy people from using their money to earn incomes. It doesn't matter what Laffer says about revenues, the lack of economic activity is the real problem. Without economic growth, you can't generate more revenues, and it doesn't matter how high you raise tax rates.
Click to expand...


Please show me the numbers. Start with 1993 and work backward in time.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Please show me the numbers. Start with 1993 and work backward in time.
Click to expand...

I believe you are the pinhead I did that for a while back. You became hung up on the fact that stats were presented in relation to GDP, and you just wanted to look at raw numbers. Revenue dollar amounts were higher after the 93 tax increase, but not in relation to the GDP, they were lower.
 
Dixie said:
I believe you are the pinhead I did that for a while back. You became hung up on the fact that stats were presented in relation to GDP, and you just wanted to look at raw numbers. Revenue dollar amounts were higher after the 93 tax increase, but not in relation to the GDP, they were lower.
Click to expand...


Show me the numbers, Dickfer.
 
Dixie said:
You're still offering nothing to support your opinion, SF. It's more of the same, name calling and espousing of your opinions... and no evidence to support them. Every time, in modern history, we've raised the top marginal tax rates, the result is diminished revenue. I can go through each time, and show you the numbers if you like, they are available online. Regardless of Laffer, that is a fact of life, and something that can't be refuted. But even beyond taxation and Laffer, is the underlying problem of not stimulating the economy. When you drive wealthy investors into hiding with their wealth, you have no economic growth, because the economy depends on these rich people spending their wealth. By raising tax rates, you have discouraged wealthy people from using their money to earn incomes. It doesn't matter what Laffer says about revenues, the lack of economic activity is the real problem. Without economic growth, you can't generate more revenues, and it doesn't matter how high you raise tax rates.
Click to expand...

So in other words you are saying 'I really don't understand the Laffer curve and was simply pretending that I did. But since you called me out on it, I will now pretend the Laffer Curve doesn't mean much'

Thanks...

Next time do us all a favor and state that you don't know from the start. It will save us a lot of time and effort.

As for 'every time we raised rates' tell us ditzie... when was the last time marginal rates were this low.... and what were they raised to?

What happened to revenue as a whole in the subsequent ten years and what happened to revenue as a percentage of GDP?
 
Superfreak said:
So in other words you are saying 'I really don't understand the Laffer curve and was simply pretending that I did. But since you called me out on it, I will now pretend the Laffer Curve doesn't mean much'

Thanks...

Next time do us all a favor and state that you don't know from the start. It will save us a lot of time and effort.
Click to expand...

The Laffer curve means a lot if we are talking about excessive tax increase or decrease, but no one is proposing that. Our debate is over small increases on top marginal wage earners, and what effect that might have on the economy. It doesn't matter with regard to this conversation, because we aren't talking about radical or extreme tax increases, or even tax revenues. You have articulated these views before, and you are still incorrect about Laffer, but just for the sake of this argument, let's say you are absolutely right... how does raising tax rates on top wage earners, effect the economy?

As for 'every time we raised rates' tell us ditzie... when was the last time marginal rates were this low.... and what were they raised to?

What happened to revenue as a whole in the subsequent ten years and what happened to revenue as a percentage of GDP?
Click to expand...

We're getting off into a debate about tax rates, and I have not advocated that we lower tax rates, just that we don't need to raise them. Especially not on the ones who have the wealth to create new jobs and economic prosperity. Apple even admitted this isn't about punishing the rich, it's about punishing those who are trying to become rich. While you two are hung up on increasing revenues by raising taxes, I am arguing that it won't help the economy, it won't create jobs or generate growth at the end of the day. Therefore, it does not matter how high you raise taxes, you can't tax your way to prosperity.....(I think someone other 'moron' said that once.)
 
Dixie said:
The Laffer curve means a lot if we are talking about excessive tax increase or decrease, but no one is proposing that. Our debate is over small increases on top marginal wage earners, and what effect that might have on the economy. It doesn't matter with regard to this conversation, because we aren't talking about radical or extreme tax increases, or even tax revenues. You have articulated these views before, and you are still incorrect about Laffer, but just for the sake of this argument, let's say you are absolutely right... how does raising tax rates on top wage earners, effect the economy?
Click to expand...

Really? Because thus far in the conversation you have been spouting off on 'the Rich don't care if you tax them 100%, so why not just raise them to 100%' and other nonsense like that.

So now that we aren't talking about 'radical' changes.... what exactly is your point? Because a small or modest increase here is not going to likely hurt us. As for Laffer, I am not incorrect. The very fact that you refused to answer my two VERY BASIC questions with regards to Laffer shows that you either KNOW you are wrong and are just too stubborn to admit it OR you truly are the idiot I pegged you for. Which is it ditzie?

We're getting off into a debate about tax rates, and I have not advocated that we lower tax rates, just that we don't need to raise them. Especially not on the ones who have the wealth to create new jobs and economic prosperity. Apple even admitted this isn't about punishing the rich, it's about punishing those who are trying to become rich. While you two are hung up on increasing revenues by raising taxes, I am arguing that it won't help the economy, it won't create jobs or generate growth at the end of the day. Therefore, it does not matter how high you raise taxes, you can't tax your way to prosperity.....(I think someone other 'moron' said that once.)
Click to expand...

No one has accused you of suggesting tax cuts ditzie.

As for the tax rates ditzie... we HAVE to start paying down our debt. The idiots in DC have sent it to levels that are unsustainable. Those idiots are in BOTH parties ditzie. You have NO clue whether it will help or hurt the economy. You didn't even know you were wrong with regards to the revenue as a percent of GDP under the Clinton increase. While I personally think spending cuts are a more favorable approach in most circumstances, unlike you I am not locked into one position so firmly that I cannot adapt to the current environment.

You again are stating a falsity... It DOES matter how high you raise taxes. Which AGAIN shows you have NO comprehension of what Laffer was referring to.
 
Superfreak said:
Really? Because thus far in the conversation you have been spouting off on 'the Rich don't care if you tax them 100%, so why not just raise them to 100%' and other nonsense like that.
Click to expand...

Indeed I have said that, because it is true. You are again confusing "the rich" with people who earn high incomes. Rich people sometimes earn high incomes, if it is advantageous to them to do so...but...they don't NEED to earn high incomes, they don't need to earn any income at all, they are wealthy. There are many ways for them to maintain their wealth and live their wealthy lifestyles, without earning very much taxable income. Now, I guess, in a larger sense, it is a bit rash to say "they don't care" ...perhaps I should say what Democrats have often said... they don't MIND if you do! That is just as true, they don't mind... they don't care.... they are rich! Whatever you do with income taxes, it doesn't effect a rich person much, they are still going to live their wealthy lifestyle, they are still going to maintain their wealth. You will simply discourage them from earning taxable income, thus, you will produce less of it to tax. Would they rather be investing in business ventures and making fortunes? Well, maybe so, but they aren't going to do that unless it means a financial advantage to them, and giving the government half of what they make, is not financially advantageous, they can increase their wealth much easier and with less risk.

So now that we aren't talking about 'radical' changes.... what exactly is your point? Because a small or modest increase here is not going to likely hurt us. As for Laffer, I am not incorrect. The very fact that you refused to answer my two VERY BASIC questions with regards to Laffer shows that you either KNOW you are wrong and are just too stubborn to admit it OR you truly are the idiot I pegged you for. Which is it ditzie?
Click to expand...

Laffer is dealing with efficiency of taxation, a point at which you maximize revenue by finding the apex between diminished returns. It has absolutely nothing to do with what we are currently talking about, other than to prove the point that excessive taxation is just as bad as no taxation. Laffer does not determine or claim to predict the optimal point for taxation, those are assumptions you are making and opinions you are expressing, and in doing so, you are missing the point I am making. The more you tax something, the more you discourage that behavior... this is clinical fact. You can't present any logical argument against that because it is a known truth. If that is understood, then it stands to reason, ANY increase in taxation, will necessarily discourage the behavior. In this particular case, we are discussing raising the tax rate on top marginal income earners, the people who are providing the majority of jobs and economic growth. The very people we need to invest and spend, and make money... you want to increase their tax burden and discourage the behavior.
 
Dixie said:
Interest and dividends, you fucking moron!
Click to expand...

Right Dix, because, somehow, neither interest nor dividends are income in your mind. Tell us Dixie, what are interest and dividends if they are not income? Are they expences? Or more magic, like the tax free $50 million?
 
Dixie said:
I didn't bother quoting all of what you wrote, because it is basically the same thing... Calling me an idiot, a moron, a dumbass, and reiterating that your opinion is right and my arguments are stupid, and you are correct and I am wrong....concluding with another helping of name-calling. This is really boring, you keep repeating the same stupid shit over and over, and calling me names in the process... what is up with that?

The FACTS ARE.... Rich people don't have to earn income, they are already WEALTHY! The more you attempt to tax incomes, the less incomes a rich person will make, because they don't like giving their money to the tax collector. Now it's true, they don't really care how much you raise income taxes, they don't need incomes, and there are plenty of ways to build wealth without earning a taxable income. They can keep their wealth secure, and earn enough interest and dividends to live off of, and they might even pay the highest tax rate on that money, but here's what they won't be doing... investing in business ventures, trying to make taxable income. You've discouraged that activity.

We've been over the Laffer curve as well, I explained it to you and even showed you where you had a convoluted perception of it, but you insist you are right and I am a moron. This is based on nothing but your personal opinion, apparently, because that is all you presented us. Even IF you are correct, and raising top marginal rates would result in increased revenues (it never has in history), there will still be less of the activity you are discouraging, income earning. It's really hard to calculate how much tax revenues were missed as a result, because they never existed. As a matter of basic logic, we know, the more you discourage an activity, the less of it you can expect to see.

Up to this point, you are doing a terrible job of refuting my points... AssClown has presented better arguments! I'm going to give you one more chance to have a reasoned conversation, because I think you have the potential, unlike some of the other pinheads here... But my patience is wearing thing, SF... you're going to have to come up with something besides your opinion and more cute names to call me.
Click to expand...

You are just completely out of your fucking mind.
 
Return of Dune said:
Right Dix, because, somehow, neither interest nor dividends are income in your mind. Tell us Dixie, what are interest and dividends if they are not income? Are they expences? Or more magic, like the tax free $50 million?
Click to expand...

I never said interest and dividends weren't income, idiot. Let me ask you something, moron... which would you expect to collect the most taxes on... A.) Interest and dividends of a wealthy person or B.) Multi-million-dollar return on business investments from a wealthy person? Can you grasp the fact that wealthy people living off interest and dividends is not going to yield more tax revenue than if they invested millions into some business and made millions in profits?

The amount of tax revenue you are going to get from interest and dividend income is MINUSCULE! Can you not comprehend that, pea-brain?
 
Dixie said:
I never said interest and dividends weren't income, idiot. Let me ask you something, moron... which would you expect to collect the most taxes on... A.) Interest and dividends of a wealthy person or B.) Multi-million-dollar return on business investments from a wealthy person? Can you grasp the fact that wealthy people living off interest and dividends is not going to yield more tax revenue than if they invested millions into some business and made millions in profits?

The amount of tax revenue you are going to get from interest and dividend income is MINUSCULE! Can you not comprehend that, pea-brain?
Click to expand...

Sure you didn't Dix. Keep telling yourself that, 'cause it must be true.
 
Dixie said:
Indeed I have said that, because it is true. You are again confusing "the rich" with people who earn high incomes.
Click to expand...

No moron, I am not the one that is confused. NO ONE and I do mean NO ONE says 'I don't care how much you tax me' NO ONE.
Rich people sometimes earn high incomes, if it is advantageous to them to do so...but...they don't NEED to earn high incomes, they don't need to earn any income at all, they are wealthy.
Click to expand...

and back to more of your stupidity we go..... Yes, they do not NEED to earn income. They can always eat into their principle. The point you fucking retard is that NONE of them WANT that scenario. They WANT to live off of INCOME and they WANT to continue to GROW their asset base.

There are many ways for them to maintain their wealth and live their wealthy lifestyles, without earning very much taxable income.
Click to expand...

Now we are getting closer to where your stupidity is derived from. Even with tax exempt bonds they still CARE what tax rates are.... do you know WHY?

Now, I guess, in a larger sense, it is a bit rash to say "they don't care" ...perhaps I should say what Democrats have often said... they don't MIND if you do! That is just as true, they don't mind... they don't care.... they are rich!
Click to expand...

just when you are beginning to see the stupidity in your comments, but they you went right back to 'they don't care'

Whatever you do with income taxes, it doesn't effect a rich person much, they are still going to live their wealthy lifestyle, they are still going to maintain their wealth. You will simply discourage them from earning taxable income, thus, you will produce less of it to tax. Would they rather be investing in business ventures and making fortunes? Well, maybe so, but they aren't going to do that unless it means a financial advantage to them, and giving the government half of what they make, is not financially advantageous, they can increase their wealth much easier and with less risk.
Click to expand...

Wrong again moron. IT DOES EFFECT THE RICH, even if they are in tax exempt vehicles. DO YOU KNOW WHY DITZIE?


Laffer is dealing with efficiency of taxation, a point at which you maximize revenue by finding the apex between diminished returns. It has absolutely nothing to do with what we are currently talking about, other than to prove the point that excessive taxation is just as bad as no taxation.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, you finally looked up the definition, then you kindly go on to demonstrate that you have no clue what that means. It has EVERYTHING to do with it you moron. Because again....

IF we are BELOW the optimal efficiency, what do we need to do to raise revenue?

It is a VERY SIMPLE BASIC QUESTION DITZIE.... answer it for once instead of continually ducking it.

Laffer does not determine or claim to predict the optimal point for taxation, those are assumptions you are making and opinions you are expressing, and in doing so, you are missing the point I am making.
Click to expand...

Wrong again moron. I never stated he knew exactly where the optimal point was. I stated quite clearly that the complexity of our tax code doesn't allow us to pinpoint it exactly, which again is why we should move to the flat tax with standard deduction. That said, it is my opinion that if we do not change the current tax code that the optimal efficiency is currently above where we are today (assuming the idiots in DC can't control spending any better than they have)

The more you tax something, the more you discourage that behavior... this is clinical fact. You can't present any logical argument against that because it is a known truth.
Click to expand...

YOU JUST STATED the definition of the Laffer curve. So now are you suggesting that Laffer is incorrect? Or are you stating that we somehow lucked out and Bush found the optimal taxation level?

You are once again taking the theory to the extreme by stating it in an absolute. THAT is where you continually go wrong you friggin moron.
 
Dixie said:
I never said interest and dividends weren't income, idiot. Let me ask you something, moron... which would you expect to collect the most taxes on... A.) Interest and dividends of a wealthy person or B.) Multi-million-dollar return on business investments from a wealthy person? Can you grasp the fact that wealthy people living off interest and dividends is not going to yield more tax revenue than if they invested millions into some business and made millions in profits?

The amount of tax revenue you are going to get from interest and dividend income is MINUSCULE! Can you not comprehend that, pea-brain?
Click to expand...

What if they invested a bajillion in dividend paying bonds and the business investments all went belly up? Again you are trying to make an example using an absolute. You have read a basic concept and due to a complete lack of comprehension have warped it in that tiny little mind into something that it is not.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Even though some finance experts want the US Treasury Secretary to declare China as a currency manipulator, equity markets across the world has made handsome gains whenever China has announced plans to make its currency, the yuan, more flexible against the dollar. As most of the Chinese manufacturing sector is working on thin margins, its clear that the Chinese government would not allow their currency to go down with the dollar ship. Although economists continue to be skeptical about the goodness of the Chinese currency moves, there is no doubt that China is ready to resume greater flexibility with its yuan.

For investors who want to invest in currency in the emerging Chinese market, a favorite investment vehicle continues to be the WisdomTree Dreyfus Chinese Yuan Fund (CYB). The ETF seeks to achieve total returns reflective of both money market rates in China available to foreign investors and changes in value of the Chinese Yuan relative to the U.S. dollar. The fund normally invests in a combination of U.S. money market securities with forward currency contracts and currency swaps that are designed to create a position economically similar to a money market security denominated in Chinese Yuan. The average portfolio maturity is 90 days or less. It does not purchase any money market securities with a remaining maturity of more than 397 calendar days. The fund is non-diversified.

A point to remember is that Chinese laws prevents the funds from directly investing in the renminbi, so they hold currency derivatives known as non deliverable forwards. These are similar to futures contracts, which reflect a market’s expectations. As a result the WisdomTree Dreyfus Chinese Yuan Fund (CYB) might not perfectly track the yuan.


Unlike other major currencies, the Yuan can’t be traded on the Forex market. WisdomTree’s CYB ETF is an actively managed ETF currently holding a compilation of futures contracts and swaps with different maturities that seeks to mirror the money market securities denominated in the Chinese Yuan. The fund has no current yield, so it is strictly an appreciation play versus the U.S. dollar.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In 2008 China, was the world’s second largest
merchandise exporter and third largest importer. Over half of China’s trade is conducted by
foreign-invested firms in China. In 2008, foreign direct investment (FDI) in China totaled $92
billion, making it the destination for FDI among developing economies. The combination of large
trade surpluses, FDI flows, and large-scale purchases of foreign currency (especially dollars) has
helped make China the world’s largest holder of foreign exchange reserves at $2.3 trillion.
Click to expand...

They're still a currency manipulator, whether or not equity markets do well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top