The Rich Are Destroying the Economy

[Based Chad]

Well okay, you are talking about something completely different now, you are talking about TRADE and not foreign investments. I agree with much of what Donald Trump has said about our trade policies, we're getting hosed. But the reality is, you have to negotiate trade policy, you can't dictate it. You or Trump might think it is that easy, to just call up the Chinese and say... FUCK YOU! It's really not that easy!

They're not totally different. Most investment is made in the facilitation of global trade, making stuff to sell etc. You will dry up investment if you strangle business too much, but we also place business considerations inside a framework of other considerations, such as human rights, and freedom, etc. Remember those aspects of america? We actually used to be more that what you globalized neocon fascists have reduced us to.

 

[Based Chad]

see how easy it is to defeat dixie. All he has is some lie about how government cant control trade policy.

 

[Rune]

You can defeat him but you can't stop him from posting how he is still right.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

What if they invest bajillions in security bonds, which earn very little interest, but are relatively secure and without risk? Or what if they make a bazillion dollars in China and have the money transferred to their bank account in Zurich? Will this help stimulate our economy? Yes or no???

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

What about rich people who don't report a lot of taxable income? Why would they give a flying fuck how much you raise income taxes? Aren't we constantly told by the Democrats that rich people WANT us to raise their taxes? I think the pinheads even had a petition of millionaires and billionaires calling for a tax increase.

http://ihearttaxes.org/post/1633326709/patriotic-millionaires-ask-for-tax-increase

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.

The point is, they don't need to grow their asset base, they have enough wealth to live comfortably the rest of their lives, and pass their fortune on to their children who can probably live comfortably for the rest of their lives as well. They do need to MAINTAIN their wealth, and they can do that through securities and trust funds, which are either tax-free or relatively low in terms of taxable income. As I said before, some rich people pay accountants really well, to tell them how to avoid reporting taxable income.

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?

No, and I wish you'd explain it to me... why does it matter how much income tax is, if you have tax-exempt bonds? It's like saying people who drive electric cars care about gas prices. It makes no rational or logical sense... but then, look who it's coming from?

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

I've not seen the stupidity in my comments, you've certainly not revealed it with your posts so far. You keep claiming it, you keep throwing out insults and names, and making totally irrational and illogical points, but this isn't doing much to show me how stupid I am. When are you going to do that?

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

No, and you aren't telling me why! You see, you have to actually type out your answers here, I can't read your mind! Oh, it certainly does "EFFECT" the rich, I never claimed otherwise. The "EFFECT" of higher taxes on high incomes is, rich people producing less high income to tax. The "EFFECT" of raising top marginal income tax rates, is to discourage rich people from investment in venture capital, and this certainly does "EFFECT" the economy.

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.

But we're not below the optimal efficiency, that is your wrongheaded opinion, of which you've offered NOTHING to base it on. IF what you are claiming were true, the Bush tax cuts would have resulted in LESS revenue and economic growth, but that's not what happened.

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... 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?

Whoa, hold on... you just got through lecturing me on this, now you want to claim you didn't claim it? WTF? You didn't state quite clearly that you didn't know where the optimal point was, you stated quite emphatically that we were below the optimal efficiency, and raising taxes would increase revenue. That's been your whole argument, and the reason you drug Laffer kicking and screaming into this conversation. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? Again, if we had reached the optimal Laffer point, then the Bush tax cuts would have resulted in less revenue as a percentage of GDP, and that simply didn't happen. Going back even further, the Reagan tax cuts would have generated less revenue as a percentage of GDP, and again, that is not what happened. In both cases, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP increased because of the tax decrease. Therefore, your opinion on Laffer has been completely proven incorrect.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What about rich people who don't report a lot of taxable income? Why would they give a flying fuck how much you raise income taxes? Aren't we constantly told by the Democrats that rich people WANT us to raise their taxes? I think the pinheads even had a petition of millionaires and billionaires calling for a tax increase.

Thank you. You once again demonstrate you have NO CLUE when it comes to economics.

The point is, they don't need to grow their asset base, they have enough wealth to live comfortably the rest of their lives, and pass their fortune on to their children who can probably live comfortably for the rest of their lives as well. They do need to MAINTAIN their wealth, and they can do that through securities and trust funds, which are either tax-free or relatively low in terms of taxable income. As I said before, some rich people pay accountants really well, to tell them how to avoid reporting taxable income.

AGAIN RETARD..... saying 'they don't NEED to' is correct.... but NONE OF THEM EVER SAY 'I DON'T WANT TO'

Again.... you demonstrate quite clearly that you have no comprehension.

No, and I wish you'd explain it to me... why does it matter how much income tax is, if you have tax-exempt bonds? It's like saying people who drive electric cars care about gas prices. It makes no rational or logical sense... but then, look who it's coming from?

See ditzie... this is ALL you had to do. Admit you don't understand. Ask for an explanation.

What you fail to grasp is that Tax-exempt bonds interest rates are SET as tax-equivalent yields. As you INCREASE taxes, the yields on tax exempt bonds will go down (all other things being equal in terms of maturity/credit quality etc...)

If you were to increase taxes to 100%, the municipalities would pay you ZERO in interest. The 'rich' would not be earning any money.

I've not seen the stupidity in my comments, you've certainly not revealed it with your posts so far. You keep claiming it, you keep throwing out insults and names, and making totally irrational and illogical points, but this isn't doing much to show me how stupid I am. When are you going to do that?

PAY ATTENTION MORON.... the STUPIDITY comes from YOU saying 'they don't care'.... that is 100% FALSE. It is a MORONIC comment. I have told you that quite clearly 100 friggin times now. For you to suggest that I haven't pointed it out is nothing short of absurd.

No, and you aren't telling me why! You see, you have to actually type out your answers here, I can't read your mind! Oh, it certainly does "EFFECT" the rich, I never claimed otherwise. The "EFFECT" of higher taxes on high incomes is, rich people producing less high income to tax. The "EFFECT" of raising top marginal income tax rates, is to discourage rich people from investment in venture capital, and this certainly does "EFFECT" the economy.

When I ask YOU a question ditzie, I am expecting YOU to answer it. I already knew the answer. I was seeing if YOU did given that you continually proclaim to comprehend the topic.

But we're not below the optimal efficiency, that is your wrongheaded opinion, of which you've offered NOTHING to base it on. IF what you are claiming were true, the Bush tax cuts would have resulted in LESS revenue and economic growth, but that's not what happened.

Really? So you know where the optimal efficiency level is. Do define that for us ditzie. I also cannot help but notice you failed to answer my question moron.

I ASKED you "IF we are BELOW the optimal efficiency level, WHAT do we need to do to raise revenue?"

WHY can you not answer this ditzie? Is it because the answer makes your 'we can never raise taxes' type comments indeed make you look foolish?

Whoa, hold on... you just got through lecturing me on this, now you want to claim you didn't claim it? WTF? You didn't state quite clearly that you didn't know where the optimal point was, you stated quite emphatically that we were below the optimal efficiency, and raising taxes would increase revenue. That's been your whole argument, and the reason you drug Laffer kicking and screaming into this conversation. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? Again, if we had reached the optimal Laffer point, then the Bush tax cuts would have resulted in less revenue as a percentage of GDP, and that simply didn't happen. Going back even further, the Reagan tax cuts would have generated less revenue as a percentage of GDP, and again, that is not what happened. In both cases, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP increased because of the tax decrease. Therefore, your opinion on Laffer has been completely proven incorrect.

Ditzie, if you are not going to be honest about what I have stated, then clearly you are desperate to spin this.

As for your 'tax analysis'... Tell us ditzie... WHAT HAPPENED WHEN CLINTON RAISED TAXES in 1993 with regards to revenue as a percent of GDP?

We have already provided you with the numbers ditzie. At which point you ran and hid.

Your simplistic analysis again shows you try to cling to ONE aspect and then project it onto the situation as a whole.

 

[Bonestorm]

SF:

Why bother? Dixie couldn't find his ass with both hands in his back pockets.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1980 2788.1 31.76 a
1981 3126.8 32.48 a
1982 3253.2 33.10 a
1983 3534.6 31.23 a
1984 3930.9 31.07 a
1985 4217.5 31.95 a
1986 4460.1 32.27 a
1987 4736.4 33.40 a
1988 5100.4 32.86 a
1989 5482.1 33.24 i
1990 5800.5 33.23 a
1991 5992.1 33.07 a
1992 6342.3 33.07 a
1993 6667.4 33.39 a
1994 7085.2 33.51 a
1995 7414.7 34.27 a
1996 7838.5 34.85 a
1997 8332.4 35.40 a
1998 8793.5 36.25 a
1999 9353.5 35.83 a
2000 9951.5 36.93 a
2001 10286.2 34.59 a
2002 10642.3 31.00 a
2003 11142.1 30.88 a
2004 11867.8 32.79 a
2005 12638.4 33.58 a
2006 13398.9 35.05 a
2007 14061.8 36.74 a
2008 14369.1 32.73 a
2009 14119 26.49 e
2010 14508.2 28.95

The above ditzie shows the amount of revenue as a percent of GDP....

 

[Topspin]

the rich ARE the economy, the poor and middle class muddle in the luxury that rich taxes provide.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

SF:

Why bother? Dixie couldn't find his ass with both hands in his back pockets.

That's likely because he is stuck in his Criss Cross phase....

 

[Bonestorm]

By the way, here's an interesting and relevant chart of average GDP growth by top marginal tax rate. In shirt, Dickfer's theories are horseshit, as we all knew to be the case:

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375951025762400.html

Why 70% Tax Rates Won't Work
Memo to Robert Reich: The income tax brought in less revenue when the highest rate was 70% to 91% than it did when the highest rate was 28%.

The intelligentsia of the Democratic Party is growing increasingly enthusiastic about raising the highest federal income tax rates to 70% or more. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich took the lead in February, proposing on his blog "a 70 percent marginal tax rate on the rich." After all, he noted, "between the late 1940s and 1980 America's highest marginal rate averaged above 70 percent. Under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Not until the 1980s did Ronald Reagan slash it to 28 percent."

That helped set the stage for Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.) and nine other House members to introduce the Fairness in Taxation Act in March. That bill would add five tax brackets between 45% and 49% on incomes above $1 million and tax capital gains and dividends at those same high rates. The academic left of the Democratic Party finds this much too timid, and would rather see income tax rates on the "rich" at Mr. Reich's suggested levels—or higher.

This new fascination with tax rates of 70% or more is ostensibly intended to raise gobs of new revenue, so federal spending could supposedly remain well above 24% of gross domestic product (GDP) rather than be scaled back toward the 19% average of 1997-2007.

All this nostalgia about the good old days of 70% tax rates makes it sound as though only the highest incomes would face higher tax rates. In reality, there were a dozen tax rates between 48% and 70% during the 1970s. Moreover—and this is what Mr. Reich and his friends always fail to mention—the individual income tax actually brought in less revenue when the highest tax rate was 70% to 91% than it did when the highest tax rate was 28%.

When the highest tax rate ranged from 91% to 92% (1951-63), even the lowest rate was quite high—20% or 22%. As the nearby chart shows, however, those super-high tax rates at all income levels brought in revenue of only 7.7% of GDP, according to U.S. budget historical data.

President John F. Kennedy's across-the-board tax cuts reduced the lowest and highest tax rates to 14% and 70% respectively after 1964, yet revenues (after excluding the 5%-10% surtaxes of 1969-70) rose to 8% of GDP. President Reagan's across-the-board tax cuts further reduced the lowest and highest tax rates to 11% and 50%, yet revenues rose again to 8.3% of GDP. The 1986 tax reform slashed the top tax rate to 28%, yet revenues dipped trivially to 8.1% of GDP.

What about those increases in top tax rates in 1990 and 1993? The top statutory rate was raised to 31% in 1991, but it was really closer to 35% because exemptions and deductions were phased-out as incomes increased. The economy quickly slipped into recession—as it did during the surtaxes of 1969-70 and the "bracket creep" of 1980-81, which pushed many middle-income families into higher tax brackets. Revenues fell to 7.8% of GDP.

The 1993 law added two higher tax brackets and, importantly, raised the taxable portion of Social Security benefits to 85% from 50%. At just 8% of GDP, however, individual income tax receipts were surprisingly low during President Bill Clinton's first term.

The Internet/telecom boom of 1998-2000 was the only time individual income tax revenues remained higher than 9% of GDP for more than one year without the economy slipping into recession (as it did when the tax topped 9% in 1969, 1981 and 2001).

But that was an unrepeatable windfall resulting from the quintupling of Nasdaq stocks—combined with (1) the proliferation of nonqualified stock options that have since been thwarted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, and (2) the 1997 cut in the capital gains tax to 20%. Realized capital gains rose to 4.6% of GDP from 1997 to 2002—up from 2.5% of GDP from 1987 to 1996 when the capital gains tax was 28%.

Suppose the Congress let all of the Bush tax cuts expire in 2013, which is the current trajectory. That would bring us back to the tax regime of 1993-96 when the individual income tax brought in no more revenue (8% of GDP) than it did in 2006-08 (8.1% of GDP).

It is true that President Obama proposes raising the capital gains tax to 23.8%, which could raise more revenue than the 28% rate of 1993-96. But a 23.8% tax on capital gains and dividends would nevertheless be high enough to depress stock prices and related tax revenues.
Still, pundits cling to the myth that lower tax rates mean lower revenues. "You do probably get a modest boost to GDP from tax cuts," concedes the Atlantic's Megan McCardle. "But you also get falling tax revenue. It can't be said too often—and there you are, I've said it again."

Yet the chart nearby clearly shows that reductions in U.S. marginal tax rates did not cause "falling tax revenue." It is not necessary to argue that tax rate reduction paid for itself by increasing economic growth. Lowering top marginal tax rates in stages from 91% to 28% paid for itself regardless of what happened to GDP.

It is particularly remarkable that individual tax revenues did not fall as a percentage of GDP because changes in tax law, most notably those of 1986 and 2003, greatly expanded refundable tax credits, personal exemptions and standard deductions. As a result, the Joint Committee on Taxation recently reported that 51% of Americans no longer pay federal income tax.

Since the era of 70% tax rates, the U.S. income tax system has become far more "progressive." Congressional Budget Office estimates show that from 1979 to 2007 average income tax rates fell by 110% to minus 0.4% from 4.1% for the second-poorest quintile of taxpayers. Average tax rates fell by 56% for the middle quintile and 39% for the fourth, but only 8% at the top. Despite these massive tax cuts for the bottom 80%, overall federal revenues were the same 18.5% share of GDP in 2007 as they were in 1979 and individual tax revenues were nearly the same—8.7% of GDP in 1979 versus 8.4% in 2007.

In short, reductions in top tax rates under Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, and reductions in capital gains tax rates under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, not only "paid for themselves" but also provided enough extra revenue to finance negative income taxes for the bottom 40% and record-low income taxes at middle incomes.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Thank you. You once again demonstrate you have NO CLUE when it comes to economics.

You argued that rich people care if you raise their tax rates, I showed you a fucking petition the pinheads started, of millionaires and billionaires CALLING FOR a tax increase.... you reply with an insult, and claim that I have NO CLUE when it comes to economics. Nothing I posted has anything to do with economics, I was addressing your claim that rich people care if you raise their tax rates. I then asked you a series of questions you simply IGNORED as you hurled another heaping of insults on. Why would people who are wealthy and earn very little taxable income, care one way or another, what you do with income tax rates? They may care about raising property taxes, inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes, but INCOME taxes, they don't care if they don't earn much taxable income, and a LOT of rich people don't. You see, they already earned their taxable incomes, they are now wealthy, they don't have the need to earn high taxable income anymore. So you can raise it to 100% for all they care, it doesn't effect them much.

AGAIN RETARD..... saying 'they don't NEED to' is correct.... but NONE OF THEM EVER SAY 'I DON'T WANT TO'

Again, many rich people pay accountants good money to find ways to report less taxable income. I never said rich people don't want to make money, most anyone who isn't retarded, wants to make more money, it would be stupid to claim otherwise. However, rich people are very smart with money, they will do things to protect their wealth before they take risk to make more money, especially if that money is going to be taxed excessively. Taxation diminishes the appeal of traditional income earning, particularly when the rich person has other less risky options to growing their wealth. If you can make 2-3% on your fortune invested in security trusts, with relatively no risk, and often with tax shelters, why would you opt to make 2-3% on your fortune by investing in new business with high risks and high taxation?

Again.... you demonstrate quite clearly that you have no comprehension.

Again, you proclaim me dumb and stupid without answering the damn questions or presenting an argument. Is this all you are going to do? If so, I will put you on ignore, because I really don't need to read post after post of the same nonsense. Get off your hate-filled rants about my supposed stupidity, and articulate a fucking thought! MORON!

What you fail to grasp is that Tax-exempt bonds interest rates are SET as tax-equivalent yields. As you INCREASE taxes, the yields on tax exempt bonds will go down (all other things being equal in terms of maturity/credit quality etc...)

If you were to increase taxes to 100%, the municipalities would pay you ZERO in interest. The 'rich' would not be earning any money.

Municipal funds are just one of many tax-exempt bonds, and rates of yield, while historically very low, are also very stable and secure and virtually never decline in value....which is why they call them "securities." When you jack up tax rates on income earning, the wealthy turn to secure methods to preserve their wealth and avoid heavy taxation of income. If they are inclined to remove tax-exempt wealth to invest in business, it is because rates of taxation are (or will be) low, and they can profit from the risk they take. When you raise income taxes, you effectively discourage this type of investment because the risk along with the taxation, doesn't make logical sense. Why not leave your money in tax-exempt security funds? This is the problem we are currently seeing, and in a sense, the title of this thread is correct, rich people are hurting the economy! They are choosing to leave their wealth in tax-exempt security trusts, instead of removing it and paying tax on it, to earn even more taxable income. Because the wealthy are socking away their wealth in securities, our economy is in the tank and continuing to downward spiral. The solution to this problem is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and reassure them they will not be hit with a major tax increase on earned income. Duh!

PAY ATTENTION MORON.... the STUPIDITY comes from YOU saying 'they don't care'.... that is 100% FALSE. It is a MORONIC comment. I have told you that quite clearly 100 friggin times now. For you to suggest that I haven't pointed it out is nothing short of absurd.

Again you post nothing but your opinion which is different than mine, as the basis to call me names. I don't get it. Who died and made you Empirical King of All Which is True? Wealthy people who mostly don't go to jobs and work for a living like you and I, don't need to earn an income, and thus, don't really care how much you raise income taxes. If you own an electric car, do you care how much gas prices go up? Oh, you may "care" in the sense that you have "compassion" for your fellow man, but really... it doesn't matter to you, since it doesn't really affect you. Rich people are currently not inclined to take their money out of securities and invest in new business ventures, so raising the tax isn't going to make them want to do that more, is it? Yeah, I guess the way I am saying it, seems a bit odd to you or something, but it really doesn't matter to a rich person, what you do with tax rates. They are rich, they are planning to remain rich, and they will live the lifestyle they choose to live as rich people, and anything you do with taxes is of little or no concern to them in that regard, you are going to do what you are going to do with taxes. Now, what you do will have an effect on what they do, so in that sense, I guess you see where they "care" if taxes are raised or lowered. If you raise income taxes, they will find ways to grow their wealth (or maintain their wealth) and earn very little (as little as possible) taxable income.

When I ask YOU a question ditzie, I am expecting YOU to answer it.

That's really funny since you've not answered any of mine!

Really? So you know where the optimal efficiency level is. Do define that for us ditzie. I also cannot help but notice you failed to answer my question moron.

I ASKED you "IF we are BELOW the optimal efficiency level, WHAT do we need to do to raise revenue?"

Well we're not below the optimal efficiency level, if we were, the tax cuts by Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, would have resulted in less revenue, and they didn't. To raise revenue, you should cut top marginal rates, because that has historically produced more revenue and economic prosperity. But no one is really calling for a cut, we are debating whether to do the direct OPPOSITE of that... an INCREASE! That won't raise revenue. It won't spark economic growth or prosperity. What it will do, is drive even more wealth into security trusts and foreign investment, and out of our economy as a whole.

WHY can you not answer this ditzie? Is it because the answer makes your 'we can never raise taxes' type comments indeed make you look foolish?

I've answered every question you've asked, you are the one who won't answer the questions here. I have never said "we can never raise taxes" ...if you find that quote by me, please post it! Indeed, we CAN raise taxes, if we are in a period of economic growth and prosperity, and times are good, and given the purpose for raising taxes is specific... like paying off the national debt... or energy independence... Then, yes... I think you could justify a modest tax increase, but I would argue that any tax increase should be made across the board, we should ALL pay the increase. Whenever you target the so-called "rich" you are mostly targeting the job producers, the investors, the economic entities who grow the economy and produce the revenues to tax. The truly wealthy will take their marbles and go home, they don't NEED to earn income, they have enough wealth already. Their priority is to secure and maintain their wealth, they won't risk that in order to pay most of their dividends back to the government in taxes.