1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Lib Challenge - How does raising taxes help?

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by chestnut, Oct 23, 2008.

  1. chestnut

    chestnut New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have run my own business in the past. I have a pretty good handle on supply and demand and how much taxes and regulations hurt a business. I understand what it takes to keep quality employees or my business gets hurt. I stayed self employed for 14 yrs. I did it. Not a 501c not a govermnent handout, not any help from anyone but me.

    With that being said, I challenge any Obama supporter to show proof positiive that raising taxes does anything for creating jobs.

    Jobs get created by supply and demand. Jobs get created by people who have freedoms to pursue them. Taxes do not create any jobs for anyone.

    Put a levy too great on business owners and they will close up and simply do something else, regardless of people they employ.

    That's just the facts and you Obam supporters have not yet or will not in the future be able to win that argument.


    McCain/Palin 08
     
  2. Sihouette

    Sihouette Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The real question is: how does not raising taxes for the very wealthy ($250K +/year) help a strapped nation whose poor/working classes can no longer support it?

    Where's the revenue going to come from if not the extravagant profits of the very wealthy?

    Although, the incentive argument does hold water. I say that luxury taxes are more appropriate. Tap the trust-fund babies who aren't carrying their weight. I think work should be rewarded as incentive for busniesses to stay. I think the very wealthy should have prove actual earning of their income. Those who are very wealthy from family trust funds and dividends without lifting a finger should pay the highest taxes of all. Wealth with proven sweat behind it should not be penalized.
     
  3. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Understand that tax revenues increased under the Bush and Reagan tax cuts.
     
  4. chestnut

    chestnut New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Over 250k is a very broad range. And, in todays standards, not a whole lot of money. Besides, it still doesn't answer the original question. If Obama said he was only taxing people making over a million, that may make your case a little more valid but I still would not agree.



    Taxing any group of individuals at this moment is not the right thing to do. No exceptions.

    As stated by BigRob Revenues went up when taxes were cut. It's just it was managed poorly. The government has no business in managing money. They have proven time and time again they suck at it!!!
     
  5. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Yea, a working couple in New York City making 250,000 a year is by no means "rich."
     
  6. chestnut

    chestnut New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well BigRob. No takers.. That's just what I thought would happen. When faced with coming up with substantial facts and realistic concepts... it's too hard.
     
  7. Sihouette

    Sihouette Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Understand that the economy as a whole was the strongest ever under Clinton. :cool:


    OK, so cost of living in the area can be taken into account, as with NY NY. It will have to be a complex solution as the issues of the economy are complex themselves. Trickle down doesn't work in a pure capitalistic society where fallible and greedy humans are in charge of poking holes in their bottom to let $$ down to the lower levels. They tend to plug them up and reroute them back to themselves. Hence where we're at right now.

    Reinvestment in the community is necessary. And since voluntary reinvestment has not been enough, we need to make it hurt $$ if it isn't done.
     
  8. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Where are people going to get jobs, when the wealthy, to avoid taxes, take stock options and corporate benefits instead of cash, or worse, leave?

    Maybe you forget what happened when they enacted a massive luxury tax on Yachts. Far from making the rich "pay their fair share", instead the industry went dead. Orders for Yachts were non-existant, while the rich ended up ordering Yachts from other nations.

    The very opposite of resulted. Instead of penalizing the rich, the middle and lower class were hammered by the tax because since the rich were not buying Yachts, hundreds of thousands lost their jobs in the Yachting industry as dozens of Yacht companies declared bankruptcy, and were left unemployed by the Luxury tax on the rich.

    Why do you think things like Enron happen? It's because the rich, not wanting to pay unfair taxes on them, take stock options instead of income. Then when they find out the company is going badly, they do whatever they can't to preserve their stocks because they see it as their rightful income.

    Why do you think when Reagan reduced the income tax on the highest bracket, it brought in more taxes? Because more rich people were willing to pay the lower rate. If you increase the taxes on the rich, they will move more of their income into tax sheltered options, reducing the amount they pay.

    I read where a CEO raised his salary every time his taxes went up. The result was his workers pay rates remained stagnate so he could keep earning the same NET income he always had. The result of increasing taxes on the rich, always effects the poor.

    You can bend it, twist it all you want. Numbers don't lie. Taxes always effect the middle and lower class, more than they do the rich.
     
  9. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You understand the economy was in recession in his final year? Doesn't sound so strong to me.

    Explain to me how 'trickle down' doesn't work? Name one, anyone who has a good high paying job from a poor person? All jobs, and thus all money, trickles down from Rich people.

    Ford got his start from rich people investing in his ideas (trickle down), which led him to become CEO of first mass production car company, which employed dozens, and now hundreds of thousands of workers (trickle down), which required parts from other companies run by rich people (trickle down), who then needed to hire dozens of workers to make those parts (trickle down).

    Nothing trickles up. Name one homeless beggar on the street who employs people for $50K a year? Or even a $1 a day? Or anything? Of course not. The idea is insane. Trickle down economics is how the planet works, whether you like or agree with it.

    Yeah we've seen the success of community reinvestment by government in the form of sub-prime loans, and how incredibly well that worked, thank you Clinton.
     
  10. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    What does that have to do with revenue from tax rates? Even in a booming economy, (thank you tech boom) Clinton maintained higher rates, which generated less revenue. Imagine the boom we could have seen if only he would have cut some of those rates.

    Reinvestment is critical sure, but is printing more money to do that investment the solution? I think not. The best way to get reinvestment in the economy that will not tank the economy through inflation is to cut taxes and let people do it themselves.
     
  11. chestnut

    chestnut New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We can all argue or points on how we got here, that will go nowhere quick. We have to find a way to improve the situation.

    Reagan's solution is a good example. There was over 18 million jobs created
    and interest rates went from dobule digit down to single digit. He cut taxes on the highest income and cut corp taxes. Look it up. I'm right!

    Cut Taxes on those that have the ability to create jobs.
    Stop the union crap that causes factories to close.
    Keep the government from controlling to much.

    Not to mention those folks that are loaded buy tons more goods and services then the average folk. A lot of industry will suffer when they stop. Who does that help.

    Remember part of Obama's plan is not only to raise taxes on the only people who have the ability to help, he also wants to make creating Unions easier and do away with secret ballots. There goes more jobs. Kiss em goodbye!

    If it was my business that I saved money to start and I alone made it successful by working 60, 70 hours a week. I took the risks, I sure wouldn't want some Union to tell me what I needed to do. I would tell him to hug my left nut. And that's what will happen if Obama gets in office.

    This idea of $3000.00 to hire someone. That is a joke. I won't hire someone unless I need them and the 3k is a bonus, but, no one will hire someone just because they get 3k. Really now, come on. That sounds insane to me.

    Regardless of what peoples opinions are, the facts, and the logic do not lie.

    Raising taxes solves nothing. Look at it this way. If the more of the big businesses close, and the wealthy (who can afford to leave) move somewhere else, who will be left to tax? Where will the money come from to support 1 trillion worth of social programs? That's right. It won't.

    THINK ABOUT IT!! Raising taxes solves nothing. Nothing at all.
     
  12. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    it helps because if you tax a company enough they will have to cut back on people they can hire, thus letting more people be able to get public assistance, and that would make the government bigger and we all know a big government is a good one
     
  13. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah.....that made a reeeaaallly big difference. :rolleyes:
     
  14. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    .....And, there are "very wealthy" (i.e. Good Americans) that Support That Message.
     
  15. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    After the Reagan/Bush Debt.....and, the Bush/Cheney Debt....you'd expect Americans (who have been paying-attention) to keep spreading-the-word.

     
Loading...

Share This Page