something I've been harping on for years....

[callmeslick]

....nice to see that Business Insider sees the point.
http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-peo ... bs-2013-11

[Tunnelcat]

There's also the fact that American corporations are sitting on trillions in cash, and not investing even a smidgen of that cash to create any new jobs either. And they say they're "fearful" of investing when the economy is growing so slowly. Well, if they'd put people back to work with good wages, maybe people would have something to spend in the first place and GROW the economy. It's the chicken and egg dilemma.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/hoarding ... d=10250559

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ny/260006/

Then there's that pesky corporate tax rate thing. Poor babies. It's mostly a myth and by paying taxes here, they're investing in OUR country, our people and making our economy stronger, not that of some foreign country.

[Will Robinson]

Ok, so if billionaires gave away millions to hundreds of lower class citizens the economy would grow faster and further than if the billionaires got to keep the extra millions out of which they would only spend a fraction.

But no where is it proven that if billionaires are instead taxed the millions that politicians will hand the money over to the lower class in amounts that grow the economy!
You harp on the problem and use it to justify a political non-economic solution!

Politicians on the left take in the extra millions and use it to trickle out a mere pittance for poverty sustaining welfare in as a means to perpetuate a poverty class and then demagogue sustained poverty as reason to vote for them!!!

Politicians on the right want to spend it by trading it back to big donors for contributions and future board positions and lobbying jobs when they retire from office!

[Tunnelcat]

You're missing the point of the article Will. It's not about poor people and liberal welfare and billionares giving away their money to poor people. It's about that tired old Republican BIG LIE they keep mouthing to everyone, that "rich people are the ones that create jobs, so they need more tax breaks". The thing is, IF that statement was actually true, that they would create more jobs when they got those nice tax breaks, it would be already happening. Instead, they're flush with cash and hoarding it. Sad thing is, there would be be no reason for all those liberal welfare programs in the first place if tax breaks actually did create jobs. Far more people would be gainfully employed, making an actual living and contributing to the economy, instead of leeching off of the taxpayer's dole.

[callmeslick]

I got about $20K per year in tax breaks under Bush. Didn't do much but stash the cash.

[Spidey]

Well Hell, I think everyone already knew it’s movers and shakers like me that create jobs…not the rich…

But seriously, I think it’s a misnomer to say the “rich” create "all" the jobs, but they sure as hell have something to do with it…if fortune smiles on you and you actually produce something that people want…more power to ya…what I’m trying to say is…there is definitely a connection between being rich and creating jobs along the way…unless you stole your land from the native Americans…beat people into servitude…and sold poison for generations…well I guess that also created a few jobs…

[callmeslick]

well, Spidey, a huge percentage of 'the rich' are descendants of folks who did just what you describe(I kind of figured that was a 'targetted' remark).
Further, we are the major beneficiaries of the breaks for 'job creators', as the entrepreneureal rich and the like are a VERY small percentage of the total population of the top tier.


oh, and one minor quibble. We did not merely 'sell poison for generation', we traded our poison(tobacco) for other poisons(rum and opium). Read a history of the mid-Atlantic region in the period 1680-1780 for more details.

[Foil]

It comes down to a question of efficiency (i.e. jobs per dollar), in my mind.

Given an amount of government spending, is it more efficient to:

A. Create tax breaks for the rich (including job-creating entrepreneurs as well as money-stagnating hoarders)
B. Spend on low income classes (who do not directly create jobs, but who spend virtually everything they get)
------

IMHO, I think B. is more efficient in creating jobs, since a higher percentage of the spending actually gets out into the economy. On the other hand, the quality of jobs created that way tends to drop. So in that sense, it becomes a question of "more jobs, lower-quality" vs. "less jobs, higher quality".

[Krom]

I think also the point of taxing the wealthy is that you can use the taxes to fund stuff like infrastructure builds and the social programs republicans are always trying to get rid of. Basically you can use the taxes to do the things that the wealthy aren't doing, like creating jobs which lead to a stronger economy. Like for instance, it was estimated that in order to build google fiber to every address in the entire united states would cost approximately 140 billion dollars, a reasonable tax on the top 1% could very easily jump start a project like that which would generate a lot of jobs, which would in turn generate more tax revenue and would probably pay for itself. The only reason we haven't started a project like that is because the landscape in American politics and industry is extremely anti-competitive and a nationwide fiber build would make too much sense for Washington to ever implement. If they got the economy going strongly enough with infrastructure builds and maintenance, the added tax revenue could be put to other good uses like say paying down some of the debt...

Or to put it another way, the middle class has historically paid the most taxes, the reason why is because historically they were the class that made and spent the most money by a large margin. Today the top 1% are making most of the money, so it only makes sense for the taxes to follow the money around. It is really simple logic; whatever or whoever generates the most income in the economy should also by extension pay the most taxes.

[Spidey]

Well, Foil there is always the problem of the consumer creating jobs in China instead of here, due to their buying habits…due of course to their lack of education on the subject…IMHO.

And Krom, one of the main reasons the government doesn’t do these major projects anymore like the Hoover Dam for example is the huge public debt. The government used to be able to sell bonds to do big projects, but the bond market in not infinite, and a huge percentage is allocated to debt, leaving little room for big projects.

Sure raising taxes would solve some of this problem, but that is really another debate, and I’m still not convinced the government should be given any more money from the rich or anybody else, while they continue to prove they don’t know how to behave, like responsible adults.

Anyway, look into who is footing most of the bill for that bridge rebuild out in Cali...

[callmeslick]

It comes down to a question of efficiency (i.e. jobs per dollar), in my mind.

Given an amount of government spending, is it more efficient to:

A. Create tax breaks for the rich (including job-creating entrepreneurs as well as money-stagnating hoarders)
B. Spend on low income classes (who do not directly create jobs, but who spend virtually everything they get)
------

IMHO, I think B. is more efficient in creating jobs, since a higher percentage of the spending actually gets out into the economy. On the other hand, the quality of jobs created that way tends to drop. So in that sense, it becomes a question of "more jobs, lower-quality" vs. "less jobs, higher quality".

I would disagree, Foil, with your conclusion, in this respect: as you note,lower income classes will spend all the benefits, but they will spend it on items that require manufacture by skilled workers in many cases. I think you could forsee a scenario where these type of jobs would come back into the domestic economy, and, akin to Henry Ford's thinking, drive the industrial economy.

[Will Robinson]

Slick, why would having the lower class increase their widget buying cause them to stop buying cheap Chinese widgets and buy more expensive American made widgets? That would result in devaluing their new found additional income....

I think you are just trying to attribute a benefit to redistributing wealth that has no bearing in fact.

[callmeslick]

Slick, why would having the lower class increase their widget buying cause them to stop buying cheap Chinese widgets and buy more expensive American made widgets?

because, as noted by another above, part of the shift of money would be used for infrastructure modernization, and that, coupled with demand increases, would push manufacturers to base more production in the US to save delivery costs. Note how many luxury vehicles are built in the US now, for the same reasons.

That would result in devaluing their new found additional income....

as was pointed out, no one is talking about simply giving money away, merely re-arranging the tax code away from burdens on the working poor toward those with substantial non-wage income.

I think you are just trying to attribute a benefit to redistributing wealth that has no bearing in fact.

the very term 'wealth redistribution' is bogus, IMHO.....overall, the wealthy will still have most of the wealth. What 'redistribution' occurs would be rather small in terms of overall percentages.

[Will Robinson]

The whole premise that tax burden increased on one group would result in more cash in the hands of another group is redistribution.
You think by running it through the filter of some government that it loses the characteristic of redistribution. It doesn't.
I think running it through that filter/government doesn't change the character of the filter either...so the filter traps a lot of the revenue for its own purposes instead of increasing the income of the lower class.
My theory is proven out in real life. Look at the end result of all the stimulus money that never reached the shovel ready workers but managed to get in the pockets of campaign donors right away!

You can't tweak the tax ratios and expect the rest of the machine to suddenly stop working the way it does!

[callmeslick]

The whole premise that tax revenue increased on one group would result in more cash in the hands of another group is redistribution.

maybe indirectly, but hardly a direct transfer as many would paint it.

[Will Robinson]

The whole premise that tax revenue increased on one group would result in more cash in the hands of another group is redistribution.

maybe indirectly, but hardly a direct transfer as many would paint it.

True enough but in the context of your original point a direct transfer of large sums (relative to the recipients usual cash reserves) is a much better way to spur the economy than feeding that glutenous government 'filter' and expecting any good results to slip out the other end for the target recipient.

As I showed you in the other thread, hundreds of millions of supposedly desperately needed stimulus money to save the economy is going nowhere!
Well, not really nowhere...it is sliding into the General Fund where politicians won't build needed infrastructure or create other jobs with it because they use it as a slush fund to buy votes by bailing out crony organizations that donate to their campaigns or secure fellow Congresspersons votes by letting them build bridges to nowhere...

[callmeslick]

Still, Will, your example with the stimulus dollars only amounted to 2% of the total funds. Try building a major structure out of private funds and NOT having a 2% accounting loss.

[Will Robinson]

Your 2% figure is bogus. The examples I gave may add up to 2% of some portion of the billions taken for stimulus but they aren't the only examples of money that didn't go to stimulating the economy! How many millions went to bail out union retirement accounts but none went to other auto parts suppliers who also went under with the fall of the industry? Union= political contributors=crony.....non union=enemy=too bad for them....

And it goes on and on. A lot more than 2%. And those distinctions are in no way analogous to good faith management of a large company as you tried to imply! They were calculated payoffs and calculated non support based on criteria other than economic good of the companies considered for aid! Not some accounting mistake!
Solyndra after admitting they were headed for bankruptcy took nearly a billion in a guaranteed loan...3/4's of which went into the pockets of a few rich Obama contributors!

The whole green energy stimulus was NOT just a good faith investment on the part of government that had a few losers as you like to portray it. Lose those talking points, they are bogus. It was more a scam and a political payoff than it ever was a stimulus/job creator. link. You don't guarantee a loan with pressure from the whitehouse in the face of announced bankruptcy of the borrower and claim you were creating jobs. Other than a 'snowjob' and only then with the help of a complicit media! Guaranteeing a loan to someone to run a business he has already told you he is closing down is not a loan...its a gift. In this case it was Obama taking money from us and gifting it to his cronies. Spin that all you like it still comes out the same.

[callmeslick]

sorry, Will, but your Obama-hate skirt is showing. The total of Stimulus funds was around 780 Billion dollars. I used the 2% figure because I purposely wished to inflate your handful of examples. I defy you to find $15 billion that went to programs that did not help anyone outside government. The nonsense about solar/green projects is especially annoying, as I have a great personal interest in this. For several years, I have wanted to develop a small solar farm on 5 acres I own in VA that has perfect southerly exposure, but is too detached from other family farms for our renters to till/harvest it efficiently. I have tried to get solar technology from American manufacturers, but all were either on shaky financial ground or WAY more expensive than the Chinese sources. That, is, however, SLOWLY changing, to the point where I might well be able to move forward with the project by 2015. Yes, the technology will cost a bit more, still, than Chinese sourcing. I will gladly pay the premium to support what HAS to be this nation's economic future(if we aren't in the forefront of green tech, we WILL be a second rate nation by 2050). So, those 'wasted' 'political' dollars did, in the end, help shore up solar industries, even if there was a shakeout along the way. Solyndra always gets trotted out, by way of example, but what they were attempting was both bold and potentially very useful. Sadly, they couldn't get their costing competetive in any realistic timeframe. Beyond that, the other inferences you make have utterly no truth behind them, just inherent hatred/distrust of the Obama administration.

[Will Robinson]

sorry, Will, but your Obama-hate skirt is showing. The total of Stimulus funds was around 780 Billion dollars. I used the 2% figure because I purposely wished to inflate your handful of examples. I defy you to find $15 billion that went to programs that did not help anyone outside government. ...

Lol! Typical slick qualifier you hide behind! 'Show me the money didn't help anyone outside of Government'!?!
Hell even the worst bridge to nowhere pork project is bound to have trickled something onto someone "outside of government"!
The question there is can we expect government to take these taxes and do better than wash hundreds of millions into the pockets of their cronies while trickling a little down to the dumbmasses that vote for them to keep them placated?!?!

Can we expect a better return on our tax revenue than creating more than one job per $6,000,000 spent?!? That's the great rate of return from the billions of dollars for Green Jobs has delivered for us! But it did put hundreds of millions into each of Obama's donors pockets at Solyndra. Nice retirement package! Oh...that's right....it was just a good faith effort to make you a better solar panel that almost worked....

You seem to be accepting of those facts and even making excuses for them. Of course the D's are largely responsible/benefitting from these tactics so it is no wonder you are in full spin mode.
I imagine if it was Bush and Cheney and some 'Big Oil' outfits getting hundreds of millions you would be singing a totally different tune though!

Yea, I imagine you have the lyrics of that other song just as well remembered as the one you sing today....

[callmeslick]

so, you admit that people got money from the vast bulk of the stimulus money, and THAT IS WHAT A MONETARY STIMULUS IS SUPPOSED TO DO.
Whether Congress and/or the President could have drawn up a more perfect list over god knows how much time is irrelevant. The decisions had to be made pretty quickly, and damned if there wasn't a positive overall effect, according to most every reputable economist. Most of those same economists seem to feel that at least 3 times as much money should have gone to stimulus funds, and virtually none should have gone to tax relief(as one party in Congress insisted to pass the bill), but at least we didn't have the length nor the severity of the downturn most every other Western nation endured.

[Spidey]

Hell, if you want to build a solar farm on 5 acres, just build a steam tower…that tech is already proven & mostly perfected…because it is basically low tech.

And you could build it yourself…well maybe not you…but I could.

[CUDA]

sorry, Will, but your Obama-hate skirt is showing. .

you really need to try a different tact. it just makes you look stupid

[callmeslick]

Hell, if you want to build a solar farm on 5 acres, just build a steam tower…that tech is already proven & mostly perfected…because it is basically low tech.

And you could build it yourself…well maybe not you…but I could.

I'm listening, but this should likely be a thread to itself, or a PM, as we're veering WAY off topic. My goal was merely to sell some electricity back to the coop, and use a piece of land that is simply costing a few tax bucks.

[callmeslick]

sorry, Will, but your Obama-hate skirt is showing. .

you really need to try a different tact. it just makes you look stupid

sorry, when the shoe fits, I'll give it to you, or anyone else. There is too much blind hate driving people's 'perception' of reality. And, once again, I don't see where Debbie Wasserman Shultz or the DNC come into my personal thinking. I don't exactly correspond with them......talk about an old line that is making one look stupid, you could stand to take your own advice, CUDA.

[Will Robinson]

so, you admit that people got money from the vast bulk of the stimulus money, ..."

Lol!
Yea I admit it...I stated it pretty clearly as the main thrust of my point!!

The thing you are trying to build a semantic laden bridge over is the distinction of WHO some of those people were! And HOW MUCH they got...and HOW LITTLE they used it to stimulate the economy!! (Other than their own bank balance)

Here, read about the billionaires getting tax breaks from the bankruptcy.
Excerpt:

The potential tax breaks of as much as $341 million could be used by Argonaut, the investment arm of billionaire and Obama fundraiser George Kaiser’s charitable organization, and Madrone.

And let's be clear, we are talking about a company that had already been discovered by the Obama Whitehouse to be a few months away from firing all 1100 employees, selling its assets and the few rich guys at the top about to pay themselves multi-millions of dollars and then walk away! After knowing that the Whitehouse pressured the department of Energy to go ahead and make a GUARANTEED LOAN (as in, they don't have to pay it back loan) of over $500,000,000!!!!

....and THAT IS WHAT A MONETARY STIMULUS IS SUPPOSED TO DO.

Lol! Riiggghhhtttttt!

Whether Congress and/or the President could have drawn up a more perfect list over god knows how much time is irrelevant. ....

Irrelevant?!? Only to an Obama lackey!
To the rest of us that's a half BILLION DOLLAR+ relevant bit of money laundering!!


PS: screw you about this "blind hate" bullfeces!
The substance of my complaint more than justifies pointing this out! And for you to try and attack the messenger is just exposing how weak your defense of the indefensible is.

Your hypocrisy is huge! If this had happened in the 70's under Reagan you would still be screaming about 40 years later citing it as a typical example of corruption!

[callmeslick]

speaking of Reagan, howcome he increased the annual deficit spending threefold over his term and got every one of 17 requested debt ceiling increases approved without a bit of controversy, while Obama cuts the deficit spending in half and gets compared to Hitler when he wants to raise the ceiling? Hypocrisy abounds, and it isn't out of the Democrat side on this sort of stuff. Sure, the Solyndra thing was a waste of money, but in the whole scheme of things, yes, a half billion was peanuts.......in fact less than 0.1% of the stimulus dollars. Try whining about something real, like the $85 billion that the House GOP Caucus just cost us in October.

[Tunnelcat]

Along the lines of your original thread Slick. The rich not only don't create jobs, they're skinflints when they DO relent and hire people.

http://finance.yahoo.com/video/wealthy- ... 00480.html

[callmeslick]

even worse, TC, in the current economic climate(short-term profit focused), what usually gets done is that jobs are created for just long enough to package the entire enterprise and sell it to a larger corporation, whose first act is usually to slash jobs. Now, nothing in my original point would address that part. To address that would require a major overhaul of other aspects of the tax code to refocus on long-term profits(there is a blueprint to do so, just see the tax code in the 1954-1972 period).

[callmeslick]

another good analysis, with the view that Greenspan went along with the Bush cuts because the trajectory at the end of Clinton's term would have completely paid off the national debt by 2014 or so, making it difficult to set worldwide interest rates, since we wouldn't be in the bond selling game.
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/10/17/th ... aganomics/

[Spidey]

I didn’t read the link, but “Reaganomics” never had a chance to fail…because “Reaganomics” was never even given a chance…no three part plan will ever work with only 2 parts implemented.

[callmeslick]

I didn’t read the link, but “Reaganomics” never had a chance to fail…because “Reaganomics” was never even given a chance…no three part plan will ever work with only 2 parts implemented.

what part of his plan wasn't implemented, in your opinion? I guess what I'm asking is what you see as his 'three part plan' and what was actually done?

[Spidey]

No it's not "my opinion" it's a historical fact, and if you even have to ask...your credibility is all but lost "in my opinion".

[callmeslick]

I merely asked the question. What was the plan, and what wasn't implemented? Snarky remarks are all well and good, but don't exactly bolster your debating position. But, of course, such remarks are good, clean internet fun at times.

[Spidey]

Well your “just a question” was loaded to imply that any response by me would only be opinion.

But anyway….

Reagan’s plan:

1. Increase Military Spending
2. Lower Taxes
3. Cut Entitlements

Well of course everyone knows which part wasn’t implemented.

All this is in response only to the deficit issue, nothing else.

[callmeslick]

so, you think it would have been a rip-roaring success to increase military spending(which, long-term, we didn't need), feed money to the rich, and cut entitlements for the poor? Do you realize that would be the ticket for a wholesale revolt by the populace, had it been enacted? Any wonder why it wasn't?

[Tunnelcat]

Well your “just a question” was loaded to imply that any response by me would only be opinion.

But anyway….

Reagan’s plan:

1. Increase Military Spending
2. Lower Taxes
3. Cut Entitlements

Well of course everyone knows which part wasn’t implemented.

All this is in response only to the deficit issue, nothing else.

Gee, how charitable of Reagan. Feed the military industrial complex that doesn't need feeding and screw the seniors and poor who DO need food. What a guy.

[callmeslick]

hey, TC, let's not leave out the charitable tax breaks to the wealthy who would no doubt use that money to 'create jobs'......bwahahahahahaha!!

[Spidey]

I knew you two couldn’t help revive an argument that was over decades ago…

The point was the deficit, not the politics.

[callmeslick]

I knew you two couldn’t help revive an argument that was over decades ago…

The point was the deficit, not the politics.

and, unless he slashed food to poor people, and healthcare to old people, there is no way the deficit would have come CLOSE to balancing. As his eventual running mate called it, the whole scheme was 'voodoo economics'.....AND bad public policy.