Sen. Bernie Sanders - The War Against Working Families

Post Reply New Topic

This is about extending the current tax rates not adding a new tax cut. The Bush "tax cuts" have been in place since 2003 so they are the current tax code. If they are not extended it is the same thing as passing a tax increase.

Garbage semantics that only serve to evade the question. What evidence exists to support the idea that tax cuts for the rich (whether new or extended - because it does not matter) create jobs? I want to see some proof that trickle down economics works. All that we have seen is a dramatic increase in poverty, an evaporation of the middle class, and an obscene amount of money accumulated at the very top.

I wasn't aware this is 2003... The one using garbage semantics as you call it is you.



It is extending the current tax rates and not raising taxes... The current tax rates are the Bush Tax Cuts. Letting them expire is causing a tax increase. That is facts, not garbage semantics.



I would like to see how you can possibly claim raising taxes on small business owners will cause them to start hiring. This is on top of all the new taxes and regulation of Obamacare and all the other crud the Democrats passed.



A lot of wealthy people lost everything. Anyways are you next going to blame Bush for stubbing your toe? Seriously you have Bush Derangement Syndrome, which is similar to Palin Derangement Syndrome only seems to affect people whom are liberals.

Except the tax cuts/breaks were only meant to be temporary measures.

If they are increased, they are just brought back to levels under the Clinton administration - which is only a couple of percentage points higher. IIRC, it goes from like 36 to 39%

It isn't just that tax, it also is capital gains, the death tax, etc. Then on top of that you have the added expenses from Obamacare.

So... no evidence to support trickle down economics then?

Only poor people who have gotten capital (usually from richer people) can start businesses that hire other poor people. Mere labor does not make a viable business. Capital is required.

Tom Edison was a poor boy who became rich because richer people than he invested in his ideas and activities.

Poor people with no capital usually do not add much to the economy.

ruveyn

No. They aren't hiring because demand hasn't increased sufficiently to require it. Companies are making profits again because they cut costs by firing workers, therefore there is no incentive to hire.

You mean the inheritance tax. Stop calling it a "death tax" you tool.

Inuyasha is using the classic conservative ploy of reframing the issue and refusing to even discuss the subtance of any point without instead beating a biased reframing into everyone's heads.

Inuyasha, I find it amusing that conservatives, who so hate Keynesian economics, are actually using a very bad misunderstanding of Keynesian theory to justify their tax policy. You say "Lower taxes for the rich means they'll spend/invest the extra money, creating jobs." This is the basic principle behind the idea of Keynesian stimulus; however, the rich have the lowest marginal propensity to consume, meaning that extra money in a rich man's pockets isn't going to do a whole damn lot to help the economy. The poor, on the other hand, have a very high marginal propensity to consume, meaning that any extra money they have goes straight back into the economy, creating demand for goods and services that must then be produced. To produce those goods and services, companies will have to hire workers, who will then have an income to spend. Since the newly hired workers are presumably lower on the income scale, they also have a high marginal propensity to consume, and the cycle continues on.

This is intro-level econ stuff that I vaguely remember from about four years ago. You probably didn't follow any of it. Feel free to try and refute the substance. Or, go into a partisan diatribe as you always do.

Temporary Tax -- an oxymoron. Like Military Intelligence and Business Ethics.

ruveyn

Two issues.

1. No doubt that the uber rich benefit from tax cuts, but I say this until I'm blue in the face...the uber rich know how to legally avoid paying taxes. So, you don't get what you think from trying to tax them more.

2. However, most people who ARE affected by these higher taxes are the hard-working people who EARN their wealth (not the trust-fund babies like the Kennedy's, Rockefellers, etc.), and when you TAX THE RICH, people like this only gain an incentive to produce less or certainly not work harder than the reward justifies. Government does NOTHING to help these people build and grow their business, but the government feels it's okay to soak them in taxes (and business owners pay many different taxes before you get to income taxation), which is why we don't see job creation.

For a business owner to expand their operation and hire more people, they need to know that their hard work and risk taking will be rewarded. Higher taxes tells them it is better to sit on their acquired wealth and work only to the line were payoff is justifiable. This hurts the economy.

As far as I'm concerned, the "tax the rich" mentality sets the line way too low. Maybe if they wanted higher taxes on people making a take home pay of $1,000,000 or more, it would be more acceptable, but it's not hard for any hard working entrepreneur to get slammed with higher taxes for working harder with the current proposal.

Actually, I'm using basic common sense.



I am saying extend the current tax rates and not raise taxes on anyone. We don't have a revenue problem in government we have a spending problem. Trying to increase the revenue coming into government to pay off the debt will only just lead to more spending. Only reason Clinton got away with the taxes is the dot.com bubble from the internet. I don't see any new technology that can spark an economic boom cause green tech isn't as good as advertised.



Let's see, I think buying a new Private Jet made in the USA would produce jobs cause someone has to build it. Yes, there are a few companies that produce things almost entirely in the US. Furthermore, the reason countries collapse is because people think they can get everything from government at no cost to them. You keep squeezing the rich and they're just going to leave the United States and take their money with them. They aren't going to hire, because what's the point?



Let's see they have to buy food, clothing, rent and not much else. If they are spending money on all kinds of other stuff that is quite frankly abusing the system. A lot of the clothing anymore is made outside the US so I don't see many new jobs coming from that.



If that were true we wouldn't have seen such weak hiring numbers this past month. Yeah, what looks good on paper doesn't necessarily work in real life. Just like you Socialist Utopia works good on paper but simply implodes in real life.



I'd say you had a pretty bad econ teacher, because teaching class warfare makes the teacher sound like a typical radical leftist hack.



You completely discount the fact that Government created the problem that caused the housing bubble. You want me to trust government not to screw up the situation more than they already have.

Government picking winners and losers is crony capitalism (similar to Socialism and Communism).

@ zer0netgain

Thanks for making the points which sums up my argument.

No. You're using right-wing talking points.

So you believe in subsistence wages for the working poor? The poor shouldn't be able to do anything but put a roof over their head and feed themselves? Banana republic, here we come.


We have week hiring numbers because the middle class is still being squeezed by the recession and people are keeping their belts tight. Even when they do consume they are only buying cheap s**t manufactured in some other country. Why the hell would anyone hire in an economy where consumers don't have the money to pay for any additional products or services? It doesn't matter how much money employers are sitting on due to tax breaks. Hiring and expansion are a waste if there is no demand.


Basic economics is now "class warfare" and "socialist"? Ever consider the possibility that your sources are the real hacks? After all, they have the perfect motive to promote "trickle down" economics, and they have no lack of funds to stop them from promoting it through certain media outlets. Are you too dumb to see the massive conflict of interest going on there?

We are talking about a tax hike. Calling it a tax cut is a misrepresentation because it is the current tax rate.



So you telling me everyone should get the same pay regardless of the job they do? What's the point in going to college then?



You really have no idea what you are talking about.

The disappointing job report comes in the wake of a series of upbeat indicators, including signs that consumers were boosting spending in stores in the run-up to the holidays and a surging stock market.

Consumer sentiment—crucial in an economy where their spending accounts for 70% of demand—rose in November to its highest level since June. November auto sales jumped 17% from their year-earlier pace. In housing, an index of pending home sales surged more than 10% in October. Construction spending has increased for two months. Factory output and corporate profits continue to grow.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 08608.html

If business is picking up, why aren't people hiring?

Rep. John Boehner (R., Ohio), the incoming House Speaker, said the weak job growth was "clearly no match for the uncertainty families and small businesses are facing, which is why we must cut spending and stop all the looming tax hikes."

Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said terminating unemployment benefits or not extending middle-class tax cuts would "pull the rug out from under the nation's recovery."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 08608.html

Thing is the Republicans found a way to pay for the unemployment benefits, take money out of spendulus and use that for unemployment benefit extensions. Obama is against this.



Raising taxes on the people that hire in the middle of a recession and adding all kinds of new hoops for them to jump through isn't going to cause them to hire people. This is the most anti-business administration this country has seen in recent history.

Don't believe me, explain drilling moratorium while giving money to a Brazilian Oil Company to drill at a much deeper depth.

Frankly, the distinction is irrelevant. The issue is higher tax rates or lower tax rates. The effect is the same, regardless of what you want to call it.


Verbatim Republican talking point. You quite simply do not have proposals that would lower federal spending to below the current revenues, therefore your claim that the problem is only with spending is BS.


A sane fiscal policy would try to increase revenues while decreasing spending. We absolutely need to do both if we are to get out of debt.


You're implicitly using Keynesian thinking, but you are neglecting important details. A rich man who gets a sudden windfall of extra money is likely to just drop that money in a bank, rather than purchase new goods.


And go where? Sweden?

And we aren't "squeezing the rich." The rich are paying a lower percentage of their wealth in taxes than the middle class are under the current system.


America is one of the world's leading food producers. And if they buy a new car, that supports manufacturing jobs.


Get it through your thick skull: I am not a socialist.


What class warfare did you hallucinate from that? My book was more on the conservative side, actually. You truly are delusional if you think the modern synthesis and some discussion of basic Keynesian theory constitutes "class warfare" from a "radical leftist hack."

Try and dispute any of what I said on actual economic grounds. Not the made-up BS that right-wing politicians spout, but actually cite economic principles that back up your view.


Thank you for proving my point.