• Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!

Tax Hikes Coming in 2011

Hot Mega

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Like it or not, believe it or not, deny it as much as you want, but it worked during the 80's. :D

What happened in the '80s was Reagan spent as yet unprecedented amounts of money on the MIC (military-industrial complex). That fueled the recovery..tax cuts didn't hurt (besides explode the debt and deficit) but they were largely an irrelevant anecdote to make conservatives feel good IMO.
 

stanleykup

I'm touching myself right now!
The notion of fixed, flat rates is not new. It sounds logical until the question of what should happen in the event revenues from taxes drop or government expenditures need to increase. The natural response is raise tax rates equally on everyone....Increase after increase occurs until there's time to cut. This is where the fun begins. You have 3 groups; One group believes the decrease ought extend to those who earn the most under the belief that if they have more money, they'll use it to create more jobs. The other group believes you extend cuts to those who do the most consuming under the belief they will have more money to spend on goods and services. The last group are those who don't know or care.

In my honest opinion, those who think the wealthy or business owners take tax breaks and create new jobs are pretty naive or have never operated a business. Business owners hire workers in most cases for one reason, to help them meet a demand. Not because they have more cash. And more often than not, more cash is just reflected as a bigger bottom line (profits)..not jobs. Especially in cases of publicly traded cooperations where earnings can mean more investments.

It is reasonable to assume that if you cut taxes on the largest block of consumers it will have a greater impact on growth. If consumers have more income their consumption creates more demand on goods and services. That increased demand on goods and services usually spurs business to meet it and in order to do so they usually hire...creating more consumers.

Now if the effect of the model where consumer have more disposable income in the above example works that way...It certainly works in the reverse...which is why we're in the recession we find ourselves. Most average consumers instead spreading their disposable income around to various business sectors they normally would...were funneled to one business sector..the oil industry over the past 5 yrs.

Not surprising, the oil industry enjoyed record profits...while other industries suffered and many businesses within those industries now no longer operate.

You have made some very valid points.
 
Well, at least The Big Ones can rely on TARP and the printing press ...we mere mortals just finance their Finances...Thanks Benny!!! :conehead:


:mad:
 

titsrock

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
you are so right. What the government spends on the military each day surpasses it's spending on social services for the entire year, yet these so called conservatives shit a brick when the idea ever comes up of slashing that budget. Which it really never does, not even under fascist Obama who barely touched it.

we'd rather spend money to kill kids in the middle east then spend it to take care of our own, and crucify anyone as a parasite and a commie who dares to ask for it. God bless America.


I'm resetting this post and wondering if any of our Conservative-minded friends would like to enlighten us about it....:hatsoff:
 

feller469

Moving to a trailer in Fife, AL.
don't forget the democracy we fought to preserve in Kuwait is actually a kingdom. And Bush I's life was threatened when he went to collect a nice little token of appreciation from the Kuwaiti's.
 

D-rock

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
What happened in the '80s was Reagan spent as yet unprecedented amounts of money on the MIC (military-industrial complex). That fueled the recovery..tax cuts didn't hurt (besides explode the debt and deficit) but they were largely an irrelevant anecdote to make conservatives feel good IMO.

I could also mention that Regan dipped very heavily into the money set for social security to offset a lot of the tax breaks he gave to the rich among other things. Like much of what Ragan did economically, we are paying a heavy burden for it now. The effects just weren't felt right away. He didn’t do anything more with the budget than barrow against the future to make it look good then. Because of his stupid economic ideology, his trickle down principles also ended up speeding the economic problems for anybody that wasn't already well off. It was almost like a two prong assault to future economic disaster for vast numbers of ordinary Americans and a lot of it is yet to come.
 
Top