Republican Judgement

[Minor Axis]

Oh, okay. Repubs routinely try to limit free speech when it comes in the form of unions. It is wrong, unconstitutional, and should be fought at every turn. Fair enough?

I still don't see how what you posted affects what I posted in any way.

It's what you don't say unless it's pried out of you.

 

[Minor Axis]

The big lie: Lower taxes increases jobs.

The Darwin Economy by Robert Frank, N.Y. Times Columnist.

Paraphrased: "Inequality of tax rates (as in rich pay more) is no indicator of growth and incentive to start businesses." In deed, one of the most successful periods of growth and wealth distribution across the spectrum of the U.S. society was during the 1950's when the top tax rate was approximately 90% and that that rate started around $500k annual income.

 

[retro]

The big lie: Lower taxes increases jobs.

The Darwin Economy by Robert Frank, N.Y. Times Columnist.

Paraphrased: "Inequality of tax rates (as in rich pay more) is no indicator of growth and incentive to start businesses." In deed, one of the most successful periods of growth and wealth distribution across the spectrum of the U.S. society was during the 1950's when the top tax rate was approximately 90% and that that rate started around $500k annual income.

You, and the author, have seemed to conveniently forget that the cost of living was far less than it is today, comparatively speaking. There's also the part of the equation that in the 1950s, nearly everything was tax deductible... credit card interest, business investments, and there were more loopholes in the tax code than we have today. The top tax rate may have been 90%, but nobody actually paid that. That's not even mentioning the fact that the economy would have flourished in the 1950s regardless of the tax rate due to the fact that we had the strongest manufacturing infrastructure in world due to the overhauls made in the 1940s to handle the war effort... oh, and ours was actually still intact, unlike the rest of the western world. Relatively speaking, labor was inexpensive in comparison to today, energy was cheap, land was cheap, and capital was cheap as well. Those factors created a "perfect storm" for the rapid growth of our economy, not the top marginal tax rate.

 

[Tim]

You, and the author, have seemed to conveniently forget that the cost of living was far less than it is today, comparatively speaking. There's also the part of the equation that in the 1950s, nearly everything was tax deductible... credit card interest, business investments, and there were more loopholes in the tax code than we have today. The top tax rate may have been 90%, but nobody actually paid that. That's not even mentioning the fact that the economy would have flourished in the 1950s regardless of the tax rate due to the fact that we had the strongest manufacturing infrastructure in world due to the overhauls made in the 1940s to handle the war effort... oh, and ours was actually still intact, unlike the rest of the western world. Relatively speaking, labor was inexpensive in comparison to today, energy was cheap, land was cheap, and capital was cheap as well. Those factors created a "perfect storm" for the rapid growth of our economy, not the top marginal tax rate.

So if the top tax rate was raised 5%, do you think that would hurt job growth, help job growth or keep it the same...?

 

[retro]

My own personal opinion, without doing any research on the subject, is that it would either stay the same (negative or at least stagnant growth) or we will experience negative growth as a direct result.

 

[Tim]

My own personal opinion, without doing any research on the subject, is that it would either stay the same (negative or at least stagnant growth) or we will experience negative growth as a direct result.

I'm not looking to be confrontational with this post, I would much rather have an intellectual debate...

But I am curious how a slight tax increase on the top bracket would effect job growth. I understand neither of us are experts on the issue, but how do you think it would play out?

 

[retro]

That bracket contains a lot of small to medium sized business owners. Logic dictates that if they want to keep their own standard of living, and their business is stagnant already, then they would be looking to keep costs about the same. If their business is already struggling, then they may look to cut employees or not hire anyone new. I understand that 5% looks like an insignificant hike in the highest marginal rate, but at the same time it all adds up. I would need to look at the numbers further, but at best I think it would have a neutral effect on job growth, and at worst a negative effect. The same would go for a 5% tax decrease on that bracket... I don't think we'd see significant job growth from it, but we'd stand a better chance of it from that instead of a tax hike.

 

[Alien Allen]

I would not have as big a problem with that 5% if it was put only to the debt

But that never happens

And won't until we get a new breed of politician

It is laughable what both sides are doing with regard to debt. They are not reducing it all and are putting any cuts off for down the road. To let somebody else deal with it because the decisions would not be easy to make a big dent in it and they want to keep their jobs.


Even a 9th grader would have a better solution with just a freeze on all spending with all additional revenue being applied to debt.

 

[Minor Axis]

You, and the author, have seemed to conveniently forget that the cost of living was far less than it is today, comparatively speaking. There's also the part of the equation that in the 1950s, nearly everything was tax deductible... credit card interest, business investments, and there were more loopholes in the tax code than we have today. The top tax rate may have been 90%, but nobody actually paid that. That's not even mentioning the fact that the economy would have flourished in the 1950s regardless of the tax rate due to the fact that we had the strongest manufacturing infrastructure in world due to the overhauls made in the 1940s to handle the war effort... oh, and ours was actually still intact, unlike the rest of the western world. Relatively speaking, labor was inexpensive in comparison to today, energy was cheap, land was cheap, and capital was cheap as well. Those factors created a "perfect storm" for the rapid growth of our economy, not the top marginal tax rate.

Yes, everything was cheaper in the 50's, employees made less, corporations were not in rob-their-workers-blind-mode and to adjust for the rise in the cost of living, we can double or triple the income before the 90% tax bracket kicks in, how about that? Regarding U.S. manufacturing might in the 50's alas, U.S. corporations have waged their own war against the U.S. by decimating domestic manufacturing in the name of their profits.

Anybody that's in denial about the role of regulations and unions needs to explain to me how Germany, one of the most regulated and unionized places in the world, has an almost twofold higher percentage of industry production than the US, lower unemployment and poverty rates and produces some of the worlds most sought after products in many industry sectors. And by producing I mean, producing IN Germany, not designing and sending off to Chinese sweat shops for production, like Apple et al..

Oh, I know that, see the previous paragraph.

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=germanys_economic_engine

http://blog.gmfus.org/2011/07/german-lessons-for-american-manufacturing/

 

[Tim]

That bracket contains a lot of small to medium sized business owners. Logic dictates that if they want to keep their own standard of living, and their business is stagnant already, then they would be looking to keep costs about the same. If their business is already struggling, then they may look to cut employees or not hire anyone new. I understand that 5% looks like an insignificant hike in the highest marginal rate, but at the same time it all adds up. I would need to look at the numbers further, but at best I think it would have a neutral effect on job growth, and at worst a negative effect. The same would go for a 5% tax decrease on that bracket... I don't think we'd see significant job growth from it, but we'd stand a better chance of it from that instead of a tax hike.

I understand what you are saying here... but I don't see how that translates to the real world.

The tax only applies to profits. So yes, if the owner takes $500k/yr in compensation his tax would increase $6,042/yr. So instead of paying $152,314 in taxes (if he were filing single w/no exemptions) he would be paying $158,356 or 3.8% more...
So how does that effect how many employees he has? The money he pays his employees does not get hit by the federal tax. So the increase of 5% on the top bracket doesn't mean anything.
What I am trying to say is that the money he uses to run his business and pay his employees is not taxed by the federal government. His taxes are only paid on profits.

There is one motivator in business that effects how many employees you have and that is your customers. If your output is below what the market will bare, you add employees to match output. It doesn't matter what the tax rate is. I can't imagine any businessman turning down profits because he would need to pay more in taxes. It would be as idiotic as one of us turning down a raise because we don't want to pay more in taxes.

Do you see where I'm coming from in this argument

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm wondering if anyone here has some good data which shows changes in the ratio of corporate management/labor compensation today as compared to the last 60 years in the U.S.? I know it's huge, but I'm looking for numbers and links to validate. Thanks!

 

[Minor Axis]

Ok, for the local intellects, if there is a reason not to support the Republican Party, to pick just about any other group (other than anarchists), this LONG & DEPRESSING article hammers away at why you don't want to be represented by a political party who panders to the most well off in society. There are SO many good quotes I could have made this a really long post, but I figure anyone who is really interesting will slog through the article.

Democrats are inept in many ways but at least they are not hostile towards the working class. And don't take this as a blanket endorsement of the Dems. If there was another alternative, I'd serious consider it. Bottom line is that voters have to get smarter than they have been to date:

Atlantic Magazine: Can The Middle Class Be Saved?

In October 2005, three Citigroup analysts released a report describing the pattern of growth in the U.S. economy. To really understand the future of the economy and the stock market, they wrote, you first needed to recognize that there was “no such animal as the U.S. consumer,” and that concepts such as “average” consumer debt and “average” consumer spending were highly misleading.

In fact, they said, America was composed of two distinct groups: the rich and the rest. And for the purposes of investment decisions, the second group didn’t matter; tracking its spending habits or worrying over its savings rate was a waste of time. All the action in the American economy was at the top: the richest 1 percent of households earned as much each year as the bottom 60 percent put together; they possessed as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent; and with each passing year, a greater share of the nation’s treasure was flowing through their hands and into their pockets. It was this segment of the population, almost exclusively, that held the key to future growth and future returns. The analysts, Ajay Kapur, Niall Macleod, and Narendra Singh, had coined a term for this state of affairs: plutonomy.

plutonomy:

Economic growth that is powered and consumed by the wealthiest upper class of society. Plutonomy refers to a society where the majority of the wealth is controlled by an ever-shrinking minority; as such, the economic growth of that society becomes dependent on the fortunes of that same wealthy minority.

Interesting chart: CEO to Worker Pay Imbalance Grows

 

[Alien Allen]

Interesting chart

Compensation took a huge leap during...............

Gasp............

Hold on now...............

The Clinton Presidency :surrender


Holy shit batman how the hell did that ever happen

 

[Accountable]

Ok, for the local intellects, if there is a reason not to support the Republican Party, to pick just about any other group (other than anarchists), this LONG & DEPRESSING article hammers away at why you don't want to be represented by a political party who panders to the most well off in society.

I've always thought "pander" meant give lip service to, or say whatever they (the people you're pandering to) want to hear. If that's close enough to the definition you use, then I hope you agree that actions are far more important than words. Assuming you agree with that (and there's actually more evidence that you place more importance on words than action) then I beg you to try to look past the words and see that both parties have given trillions of our hard-earned tax dollars to big corporations, regardless of whether they pander to the rich or poor.

Democrats are inept in many ways but ...

I'll give half my tokens if you can find one of your posts where you write a negative criticism about the Democratic Party or Democrats in general without that big negating BUT in it.

 

[Alien Allen]

Yup both parties pander

Just a matter of who they pander to.

But as long as it is a democrat panderer then Minor has blind eyes to it.

Both parties have vested interests in control.

 

[Accountable]

Yup both parties pander

Just a matter of who they pander to.

But as long as it is a democrat panderer then Minor has blind eyes to it.

Both parties have vested interests in control.

You miss the point. Pandering is just noise, often to distract us from noticing what is happening. When we stop listening and start watching, we notice that both sides work to keep their corporate sponsors (most of whom sponsor both sides) happy, comfortable, and protected from harm.

I've raised this challenge before: what was the last major federal program that was eliminated and not replace with a similar one?

 

[Tim]

You miss the point. Pandering is just noise, often to distract us from noticing what is happening. When we stop listening and start watching, we notice that both sides work to keep their corporate sponsors (most of whom sponsor both sides) happy, comfortable, and protected from harm.

I've raised this challenge before: what was the last major federal program that was eliminated and not replace with a similar one?

I see the first part has truth in it... but I do not understand the second part. How does not eliminating a federal program correlate to politicians being bought and paid for by corporate america?


You and a small majority that are the ones that think the federal government should be all but eliminated...

 

[Alien Allen]

None of us said the federal govt should be all but eliminated.

It should however be limited to what it was intended to be originally with the rest being left up to the states. One can leave a state if they don't like its laws but kind of hard to leave the country don't ya think?

Did anybody catch the part in the show Prohibition where at one time one third of federal revenue came from taxes on booze? Pretty amazing statistic. Says a lot about how govt has expanded.

 

[Accountable]

I see the first part has truth in it... but I do not understand the second part. How does not eliminating a federal program correlate to politicians being bought and paid for by corporate america?

People keep saying that the Repubs and Dems are different. I'm pointing out that for all their bluster, they don't oppose each other in any real way. Once a big federal program gets put in place while one party is in the majority, it remains in place even after the program's sworn enemies take over.

Repubs swore they would dismantle the Dept of Education. They didn't.
Dems were up in arms about the "Patriot" Act ... until they were the benefactors of its long, unwarranted reach.
What's the Repub mantra about Obamacare? Not repeal. Repeal and replace!

You and a small majority that are the ones that think the federal government should be all but eliminated...

Nice of you to acknowledge that most of us feel this way.

 

[Accountable]

None of us said the federal govt should be all but eliminated.

It should however be limited to what it was intended to be originally with the rest being left up to the states.

Isn't it shocking that returning the federal gov't to it's constitutional coral would be all but eliminating it, in comparison to its current condition?