Job Creator Myth

[mudslinger47]

As long as the so-called rich are abiding by the laws of the land, why be angry at them....who says you can't have an off shore account? And hide a little money for retirement..... Maybe you don't like it but its legal. You got a corner store in your neighborhood? If you buy a loaf of bread in there, do you pay an extra buck cause there barely making it? I doubt it, do pay what is asked, no more no less....what makes you any different then a rich guy?

PS>>>>as a disclaimer, I assure you I'm about as far from rich as you can get and still survive in Santa Barbara County.

[Bubstr]

I'm all for circulation of money. Where we differ is that I don't want the government in charge of circulating it. It seems you do since you use the "pay their fair share" in taxes line.

How much was the "stimulus"? Wasn't it all about injecting (circulating) money into the economy? What did it do for the poor?



Forcibly taking from one and giving it to another has never worked and never will.

It seems to me that you and t.nie despise "the rich" for no other reason than...........they are rich. You could tax the rich 100% and it won't make the poor any richer until they decide to do something about their situation. Which, by the way, has NOTHING to do with the rich.

I don't want the government involved in circulating money either, but as we have a debt based currency, FED, we are stuck with income tax. It's part of the deal. They want their money for making money out of nothing. We also have services like defense, police, roads, education and the list goes on forever. Originally our government charged the users with exorcize tax or similar to pay for each service. This didn't work too well as the US Navy was paid for with a tax on imports and exports. These costs where adsorbed by everyone that bought a product that was exported or imported. I'd say that was fair, but the cotton growers looked at all the tax they where paying and forgetting they where collecting from all their consumers, said We are paying too much tax. It got changed into a tax on all people whether they bought cotton or not.

We have similar situation today. Business does not pay tax. They pass the tax to consumers, but complain they pay too much tax. They forget who really was paying that tax. If I am to be taxed $10,000.00, I know if I want to stay in business, I have to add a dollar to 10,000 widgets I sell. It might even be a good argument to remove all business taxes, if we could be assured the business would remove that dollar per widget, because our income tax would rise to cover the bill.

Bottom line is we are pretty much stuck with tax. As far as forced circulation, you have to look back in history. Back in the last half of the 1800s we had a severe recession that lasted almost 20 years. Clearly a lack of circulation. With the advent of income tax, they found they could spend our way out of recession, (roaring 20s). This was forced circulation. The problem has always been, people resist spending when times are bad and enjoy spending when times are good, which works against a stable growing economy with out crashes or recessions. They need competent help and that is where forced circulation comes in. The key word is competent. That brings us to your next point. Where and what did all the stimulus money go for. It's all about the incompetent way it was spent. When you spend near the top only the top gets stimulated. Sure there where a few jobs created, but it did not stimulate the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. As we know money trickles up, not down, it ends up in corporate coffers well before it circulates threw the entire economy, which is the black hole of stimulus money.

You are never going to change the fact that we will have rich and poor. It would be a fool to think, if we gave the poor 100% of the richest income that they wouldn't have it back in a short time. The thing to think of is, what this circulation does for the majority of the middle class. The ones that aren't as dumb as the poor and know, when money travels threw your hands, the smart thing is to hold on to some of it. This is why a good stimulus works. You give it to the guy that can't afford to keep it. Bush did it with his tax rebate and it worked better than Obama's shovel ready and cost less.

I have no problem with rich people. I do have a problem with paying their share of the tax bill especially when they benefit more from the services it buys. If they make 99% of the income, they should pay 99% of the tax. Don't tax me and give it to them.

[skids]

[QUOTE=kidrock;1761296]

Like I said only despise the rich who do to play by the same rules as the rest of us have to. It's some of the rich who pay off the politicians to pass bills to allow them to do this so, they are both at fault here. Do the politicians make them take their money and put it in offshore accounts to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. No
Like said I don't have any anger towards rich people just those that pay off politicians to get bills passed so, they don't have to play by the same rules. I would think anyone would be angry that we have to pay more because they can pay less. I'm not asking for them to pay anymore then their fair share. I would think if we all paid what 10 or 15% no matter what your income is would that not be a fair share.

My argument is like Mud says. If it's legal, why wouldn't they? Why hold a legal action against them? I have to assume jealousy has a part in it.

Is it illegal to put money in an offshore account?
Is it illegal to make campaign contributions?

Again, the magic question is.....what is "fair share"???

[Bubstr]

As long as the so-called rich are abiding by the laws of the land, why be angry at them....who says you can't have an off shore account? And hide a little money for retirement..... Maybe you don't like it but its legal. You got a corner store in your neighborhood? If you buy a loaf of bread in there, do you pay an extra buck cause there barely making it? I doubt it, do pay what is asked, no more no less....what makes you any different then a rich guy?

PS>>>>as a disclaimer, I assure you I'm about as far from rich as you can get and still survive in Santa Barbara County.

The trouble is, it wasn't legal to have that off shore account for more than $5,000 a year before legislation was implemented to protect profits from outsourcing. We lost the job, we lost the tax that that employee paid and we lost the tax on the income that went to the off shore account, but you gladly pay their share of these taxes because it's legal. You can put $5,000 a year into one of them accounts also, only you will pay tax on that money. It used to be called money laundering. Note, Romney didn't live long enough to put the amount of money in his Cayman account, at $5,000 a year. He made that money from outsourcing with a US corp, Baynes management and just dodged the taxes on it. Clearly, that law wasn't designed for you or I.

[skids]

I don't want the government involved in circulating money either, but as we have a debt based currency, FED, we are stuck with income tax. It's part of the deal. They want their money for making money out of nothing. We also have services like defense, police, roads, education and the list goes on forever. Originally our government charged the users with exorcize tax or similar to pay for each service. This didn't work too well as the US Navy was paid for with a tax on imports and exports. These costs where adsorbed by everyone that bought a product that was exported or imported. I'd say that was fair, but the cotton growers looked at all the tax they where paying and forgetting they where collecting from all their consumers, said We are paying too much tax. It got changed into a tax on all people whether they bought cotton or not.

We have similar situation today. Business does not pay tax. They pass the tax to consumers, but complain they pay too much tax. They forget who really was paying that tax. If I am to be taxed $10,000.00, I know if I want to stay in business, I have to add a dollar to 10,000 widgets I sell. It might even be a good argument to remove all business taxes, if we could be assured the business would remove that dollar per widget, because our income tax would rise to cover the bill.

Bottom line is we are pretty much stuck with tax. As far as forced circulation, you have to look back in history. Back in the last half of the 1800s we had a severe recession that lasted almost 20 years. Clearly a lack of circulation. With the advent of income tax, they found they could spend our way out of recession, (roaring 20s). This was forced circulation. The problem has always been, people resist spending when times are bad and enjoy spending when times are good, which works against a stable growing economy with out crashes or recessions. They need competent help and that is where forced circulation comes in. The key word is competent. That brings us to your next point. Where and what did all the stimulus money go for. It's all about the incompetent way it was spent. When you spend near the top only the top gets stimulated. Sure there where a few jobs created, but it did not stimulate the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. As we know money trickles up, not down, it ends up in corporate coffers well before it circulates threw the entire economy, which is the black hole of stimulus money.

You are never going to change the fact that we will have rich and poor. It would be a fool to think, if we gave the poor 100% of the richest income that they wouldn't have it back in a short time. The thing to think of is, what this circulation does for the majority of the middle class. The ones that aren't as dumb as the poor and know, when money travels threw your hands, the smart thing is to hold on to some of it. This is why a good stimulus works. You give it to the guy that can't afford to keep it. Bush did it with his tax rebate and it worked better than Obama's shovel ready and cost less.

I have no problem with rich people. I do have a problem with paying their share of the tax bill especially when they benefit more from the services it buys. If they make 99% of the income, they should pay 99% of the tax. Don't tax me and give it to them.

The "rich" already pay more than their share compared to income.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...d-share-taxes/

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

[kidrock]

[QUOTE=skids;1761339]

My argument is like Mud says. If it's legal, why wouldn't they? Why hold a legal action against them? I have to assume jealousy has a part in it.

Is it illegal to put money in an offshore account?
Is it illegal to make campaign contributions?

Again, the magic question is.....what is "fair share"???

Well your assumption is wrong. I have never and I mean never been jealous of what others have no matter what or how they have gotten it. What I despise and I will say it for the last time is they have the money to pay off the politicians to get bills passed so they don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us and they also some how have a different set of rules if and when they do get arrested. I don't know what the magic answer is to your magic question but, I would think we could come to some kind of conclusion that would be fair to all of us but, I would think 15 to 29%

[Bubstr]

The "rich" already pay more than their share compared to income.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...d-share-taxes/

http://www.american.com/archive/2007...pays-the-taxes

Yes, we have seen these skewed graphs before. Show us how much of their income was actually taxed. The bottom line is how much difference there is between a guy that pays 38% and has no deductions, he can;t depreciate his house and lawn mower, and the guy that has his rate at 38% for a small part of income and only 15%for a good share of his income and gets deductions that other can't. How about the guy that pays himself minimum wage then receives dividends taxed at 15%. Or the guy that trades for a living and only pays 15%. It's more common than you think. It's not illegal, but don't you get tired of paying his part of the bill.

[skids]

Well your assumption is wrong. I have never and I mean never been jealous of what others have no matter what or how they have gotten it. What I despise and I will say it for the last time is they have the money to pay off the politicians to get bills passed so they don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us and they also some how have a different set of rules if and when they do get arrested. I don't know what the magic answer is to your magic question but, I would think we could come to some kind of conclusion that would be fair to all of us but, I would think 15 to 29%

The top two tax brackets pay 35% and 39.6% now. So, according to you that should be more than fair. What am I missing?

[skids]

Yes, we have seen these skewed graphs before. Show us how much of their income was actually taxed. The bottom line is how much difference there is between a guy that pays 38% and has no deductions, he can;t depreciate his house and lawn mower, and the guy that has his rate at 38% for a small part of income and only 15%for a good share of his income and gets deductions that other can't. How about the guy that pays himself minimum wage then receives dividends taxed at 15%. Or the guy that trades for a living and only pays 15%. It's more common than you think. It's not illegal, but don't you get tired of paying his part of the bill.

Again, WHY are you and Kid angry with the "rich" who aren't doing anything illegal?

It seems to me, you and Kid should have issues with the law, not those being smart about making and retaining THEIR money. Why bash the guy who is (by your own admission) obeying the laws on the books?

[kidrock]

Again, WHY are you and Kid angry with the "rich" who aren't doing anything illegal?

It seems to me, you and Kid should have issues with the law, not those being smart about making and retaining THEIR money. Why bash the guy who is (by your own admission) obeying the laws on the books?

I guess you are not able to understand what I'm saying. I'm not angry for people being rich but, I see now you don't believe me which is fine I didn't expect you to anyway. No need to try and explain anymore because its a waste of mine and your time thanks for at least debating without the childish name calling some resort to.

[kidrock]

The top two tax brackets pay 35% and 39.6% now. So, according to you that should be more than fair. What am I missing?

Are you sure with all their breaks they get they are paying almost 40% in taxes on their income.

[kidrock]

http://www.wweek.com/portland/mobile/articles/articleView/id:17350

[kidrock]

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/guess-rich-people-dont-pay-taxes-pay-taxes-video/#axzz2pqCzAARu

According to this article only the rich people pay taxes well if that's the case where the heck is my money my employer is taking outof my check and giving to the state and federal government

[Clayton_Wetter]

You will not make the rich man poor by making him pay his fair share of taxes. What it does do, is change the way or route that money circulates or even if it circulates at all. Circulation of money is the key to a growing economy. It will not make the poor man rich either as all business tax is passed on to the consumer. What it does do is turn the poor man into a consumer if the money is directed there.

Example, After ww2 the US gave boat loads of money to fight the war rebuild Europe and Japan. We also sold them the materials to rebuild. The results was the most prosperous time the US ever had. All because of money circulating. We had that great growth, not because there was more money, it was because more money circulated. There is more dollars in existence now that ever before, it's just not circulating. The question really is, did it cost us anything to give them boat loads of money away? The answer is, It made us the richest country in the world.

Now you could say, by taxing the rich and giving it to the poor, it would make everyone better off, especially the rich, and the only possible way to tax the poor. You can't tax anyone that has nothing.

Are you ever going to realize that this taxing the rich to give to the poor is a Marxist smokescreen intended just to destroy the middle class, narrow the number of rich, dole out entitlements to the poor just to keep a solid voting base, actually miss use the tax money in whatever partisan directions they want while the deficits keeps going up, and what do you call this "fair share"? I call it fake narrative by the Progressive party to misdirect blame from themselves to the so called rich.

And today is the fiftieth anniversary of the LBJ started war on poverty in which is State of the Union Speech has been nearly word for word repeated by Obummer. The lies and the causes of the Democrat party continue on with massive media aid, while people like you show concern about fair shares, Stegal, etc. fabricated and useful distractions of the far left. Wake up, or stay asleep, that's your choice, but please quit typing in your sleep!

[Clayton_Wetter]

I guess you are not able to understand what I'm saying. I'm not angry for people being rich but, I see now you don't believe me which is fine I didn't expect you to anyway. No need to try and explain anymore because its a waste of mine and your time thanks for at least debating without the childish name calling some resort to.

Why do you keep attacking the rich. If you are rich and a Democrat you get a total pass, while all of the state run agencies target those that oppose them. You seem to want fairness in a total partisan way.

Why only cry about Koch brothers when you have Soros, Bloomberg, Bilderburg group, Buffet, Gates, Hollywood, and other anti American individuals and groups get a complete pass from the left and the media.

I mean what have they actually done that is so bad other than contribute to Republicans. You actually should be glad that someone opposes the fundamental transformation of this country.