Right-Wing Media Have Been Beating The Drums Of "Class Warfare" For Years
Despite a long history of scapegoating lower-income families and those in need, media conservatives continuously attack President Obama's proposals by shouting "class warfare." In fact, the majority of Americans support reforms that would address systematic inequality.
Right-Wing Media Drum Beat: Obama Engages In "Class Warfare"
Limbaugh: "Fairness" Is "A Code Word For Class Warfare." Reacting to President Obama's State of the Union address, Rush Limbaugh criticized Obama for discussing "fairness" during the State of the Union address, saying: "That's a code word for class warfare." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/26/2012]
Fox Blasted Obama's Speech On Inequality By Accusing Him Of "Class Warfare." Fox News figures responded to Obama's December 6, 2011, speech on inequality in American by accusing him of engaging in class warfare. [Media Matters, 12/6/11]
Click here for more examples of right-wing media claiming that Obama engages in class warfare
But It's Media Conservatives Who Regularly Attack Lower-Income Americans And Those In Need
Fox & Friends Called For Tax Hike On The Poor. During the January 25 edition of Fox & Friends, co-hosts Gretchen Carlson, Brian Kilmeade, and Steve Doocy advocated for raising income taxes on the poor:
CARLSON: I think, so when the president says "fair share" there's a couple points here, and earlier last hour I said maybe there should be a disclaimer underneath, which is the reason that we're putting up this graphic for you. Because if in fact you're paying tax on ordinary income, and you're in the highest tax bracket, then you're paying 30-some percent. But then if you take that money that you've already paid taxes on, and you go and invest and you make a profit, a long-term profit, more than a year of investment, then you pay another 15% on top of that. And by the way, with the "fair share" argument, 47% of Americans don't pay federal income tax.
KILMEADE: That didn't get into the State of the Union.
CARLSON: But that didn't get into it, but that is also part of the fair share. So if we are going to be fair to everyone, should those people then starting paying at least something?
DOOCY: Kick in a buck, kick in something!
KILMEADE: And in many cases some are getting refunds on money they haven't earned, They go beyond the money they earned for the year come April, so that's where a lot of that tax money's going. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/25/12]
Fox Business Pitted The "Takers" Of "Government Handouts" Against The "Makers." After a National Bureau of Economic Research study concluded that social safety net programs, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, were highly effective at keeping people out of poverty, Fox Business launched a week-long series pitting the "takers" of "government handouts" against the "makers" in the economy. [Media Matters,5/24/11]
Fox Business Scolded Poor People For Not Being Ashamed Of Their Poverty. During the May 19 edition of Fox Business' Varney & Co., host Stuart Varney attacked anti-poverty programs as evidence that the U.S. now has an "entitlement mentality." Fox commentator Charles Payne then scolded people in poverty for not being "embarrassed" about needing public assistance:
PAYNE: Krystal [Ball], there's no doubt that these are good programs. I think the real narrative here, though, is that people aren't embarrassed by it. People aren't ashamed by it. In other words, the there was a time when people were embarrassed to be on food stamps; there was a time when people were embarrassed to be on unemployment for six months, let alone demanding to be on it for more than two years.
I think that's what Stu is trying to say, is that, when the president says Wall Street is at fault, so, you are entitled to get anything that you want from the government, because it's not really your fault. No longer is the man being told to look in the mirror and cast down a judgment on himself; it's someone else's fault. So food stamps, unemployment, all of this stuff, is something that they probably earned in some indirect way. [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 5/19/11, via Media Matters]
Fox's Stuart Varney On Low-Income Americans: "Many Of Them Have Things -- What They Lack Is The Richness Of Spirit." During the August 25 edition of Fox Business' Varney & Co. at Night, host Stuart Varney hyped a Heritage Foundation study showing that many Americans in poverty own appliances, saying: "The image we have of poor people as starving and living in squalor really is not accurate. Many of them have things -- what they lack is the richness of spirit. That's my opinion." [Fox Business, Varney & Co. at Night, 8/25/11, via Media Matters]
Right-Wing Media Routinely Attack Low-Income Americans As "Lazy" Or "Having Poor Work Habits." In a July 2010 post at The American Spectator, conservative pundit and frequent Fox News guest Ben Stein wrote: "The people who have been laid off and cannot find work are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities." A month later, Stein repeated his attack, writing:
[A]s I noted before, in my small circle of friends, anyone who has good work skills and a decent personality can get a job. I am not talking about the national scene. Just my little world. The chronic complainers and the malcontents and the unrealistic are the ones who cannot find work they want. The people who really want to work can get work. It might not be great work, but it's work. [The American Spectator, 7/19/10, 8/27/10, via Media Matters]
Fox Nation And Wash. Times On Occupy Wall Street And Its Demands: "Don't Feed The Lazy." A November 18, 2011, op-ed in The Washington Times, titled, "Don't feed the lazy," which was hyped by Fox Nation, claimed that "Occupy Wall Street's demands undermine real compassion." The op-ed stated:
It is interesting to note that according to the Bible, one of the criteria for receiving aid was a willingness to work. Entitlement was not an option. The Apostle Paul wrote, "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat."
Paul is not being cruel or heartless in this passage. He is expressing a truth that those who are able but unwilling to work should be disqualified from receiving charitable help, thereby allowing their natural need for food to drive their effort to work. This is a profound and often overlooked financial principle.
[...]
Attitudes toward poverty, debt and entitlement make reaching common ground with those in the Occupy Wall Street movement difficult. Compared to many around the world, they live in relative comfort, with access to food, shelter and liberty. But rather than embracing equal opportunity, they seem to clamor for equal outcomes.
[...]
Perhaps it is time for the Occupy Wall Street movement to reflect on the words of Paul: "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." [The Washington Times, 11/18/11; Fox Nation, 11/21/11]
Moreover, Warren Buffett Has Admitted That It's "The Rich Class That's Making War"
Warren Buffett On CNN: "There Has Been Class Warfare For The Last 20 Years, And My Class Has Won." From CNN Correspondent Alison Kosik's September 30, 2011, interview with investor Warren Buffett:
KOSIK: Mr. Buffett, let's talk taxes for a moment. You know, you have been very outspoken about millionaires, about the uber-rich paying their fair share of taxes. But since, you know, since the portion of their taxes really isn't going to make a huge dent in the deficit, are you happy seeing your suggestion, this new Buffet rule, becoming more of a basis of a political battle that really -- that really has turned into class warfare?
BUFFETT: Well, no, actually, there has been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We are the ones that got our tax rates reduced dramatically. [CNN, 9/30/11]
Buffett: "There Has Been Class Warfare Waged, And My Class Has Won." In a November 2011 interview with Business Wire CEO Cathy Baron Tamraz, Buffett again said, "Through the tax code, there has been class warfare waged, and my class has won," adding, "It's been a rout." Huffington Post reported:
The billionaire investor, cited as the third-richest person in the world by Forbes, said in an interview with the CEO of BusinessWire -- a unit of Buffett's own conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway that publishes press releases -- that while there have been improvements in some areas of the economy, many others haven't fared so well.
Winners, Buffett says, include corporations, who have seen good equity returns, as well as the wealthiest American citizens. The losers? The housing market and average American worker.
"Through the tax code, there has been class warfare waged, and my class has won," Buffett told Business Wire CEO Cathy Baron Tamraz at a luncheon in honor of the company's 50th anniversary. "It's been a rout." [Huffington Post, 11/15/11]
Gates: "People Like Myself" Aren't "Paying As Much As They Should." In a January 25 interview with the BBC, Bill Gates said, "Right now, I don't feel like people like myself are paying as much as they should":
GATES: Well the United States has a huge budget deficit, so taxes are going to have to go up. And I certainly agree that they should go up more on the rich than everyone else. That's just justice.
BBC HOST: Is that a message you think that works with other people as wealthy as yourself, or is it just a small circle of friends -- yourself, Warren Buffet, a few others.
GATES: Well, I hope we can solve that deficit problem with a sense of shared sacrifice -- where everybody would feel like they're doing their part. And right now, I don't feel like people like myself are paying as much as we should. [Think Progress, 1/25/12]
And Most Americans Support Policies That Would Increase Taxes On Millionaires
Study: Millionaires Support Raising Taxes On The Rich. The Wall Street Journal reported on a Spectrem Group survey which found that 68 percent of millionaires support raising taxes on those who earn $1 million or more per year:
Warren Buffett isn't the only rich guy who wants to higher taxes on the rich.
A new survey from Spectrem Group found that 68% of millionaires (those with investments of $1 million or more) support raising taxes on those with $1 million or more in income. Fully 61% of those with net worths of $5 million or more support the tax on million-plus earners. [The Wall Street Journal, 10/27/11]
CBS/NY Times Poll: Most Americans Say Investment Income Should Be Taxed At Same Rate As Earned Income. A CBS/New York Times poll found that a majority of Americans support taxing capital gains and dividends at the same rate as work income. From the article headlined: "Most Americans agree with 'Buffett rule' Concept":
The government taxes income earned through investments at a lower tax rate income earned from working, but half of Americans think that should change, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.
[...]
[Fifty-two] percent of Americans say that capital gains and dividends should be taxed at the same rate as income earned from work because the current policy increases the federal deficit and is unfair to people who don't have money to invest, according to the poll. Thirty-six percent approve of the current policy of taxing capital gains at a lower rate because it encourages investment and helps the economy.
[CBS News, 1/24/12]
National Journal Poll: Most Americans Supported Democratic Surtax Proposal. In its October 2011 poll, National Journal found that "a whopping 68 percent of adults support the Democratic surtax" on those earning more than $1 million annually:
Those surveyed were asked about a possible 5 percent surtax on those earning more than $1 million annually. The idea got considerable discussion earlier this fall when Congress considered President Obama's jobs package. Senate Republicans united against the bill and were joined by some Democrats, making it impossible for the measure to pass in a chamber where 60-vote majorities have become the norm because of filibustering. Still, a whopping 68 percent of adults support the Democratic surtax to pay for the cost of their jobs plan. [National Journal, 10/19/11]
SEIU Poll: Nearly Three Quarters Of Americans Support Tax Increases On Wealthy. In September, 2011, Talking Points Memo reported on a Daily Kos/SEIU poll which found that an overwhelming majority of respondents support the "Buffett Rule":
In the first public polling available on the so-called "Buffett Rule" specifically -- the proposal to raise taxes on millionaires advocated by billionaire investor Warren Buffett -- Daily Kos/SEIU's weekly "State of the Nation" survey asked the following: Do you support or oppose ensuring that people who make over a million dollars a year pay the same percentage of taxes or more on their total income as those who make less than a million dollars a year?
The answer wasn't close. 73 percent supported the idea, versus 16 percent who did not, and 11 percent who were unsure. The poll was of 1,000 registered voters. [Talking Points Memo, 9/27/11]
"Would 0% be fine, or should the IRS offer an additional 'Job Creator' credit because those Capital Gains have (*sob* *sob* *sob*) already been taxed ([i*]whaaaaaaaa*[/i])."
Here's a bet; if the Republicans take over the whole government next Fall, "Tax Reform" will replace Deficit Reduction as the Hot-Button issue... after repealing "ObamaCare", of course.
Interest is taxed as ordinary income.
So? Money is subject to taxation when it changes hands. It's not as if the money has a smart chip in it that records every time it's been taxed. The money I get in my paycheck has been taxed numerous times as it passes through the economy. It's irrelevant.
Then I remember, statements like that aren't aimed at people who think of obvious follow-up questions. They're fed to people who are completely flummoxed by taxes and the economy and investments, people who can't seem to grasp that transactions, not the physical pieces of paper with dead presidents on them, are taxed.
They're custom-made for people who like to repeat things that don't mean anything, but sound knowledgeable and profound to other confused people.
But, we know that Republicans love Sales Tax above all other taxes, because it affects rich people the least, and spreads the tax burden downward.
In other words, their talking points are totally bogus.
It's what makes the "redistribution of wealth" whining so funny. Without redistribution, money has absolutely no purpose or meaning, except to an insane person who wants to sit on his pile, comparing it to some other guy's pile.
I heard one businessman complaining that Wall Street has drained off much of the country's brain power. Many of those smart guys pushing numbers around at Wall Street firms would have been inventing things and actually creating jobs thirty years ago. Now they're just making themselves and a few rich people even richer... and creating nothing.
I really don't understand the modern sociopaths pulling the GOP strings. You get to a point where you drive what you want, live where you want( several places, even), your kids are set up, you could retire and travel on your interest alone, do anything you want.
And you're still getting up every day, to nickel and dime other people out of their money, trying to increase that all-important "net worth". Every time I hear Romney talk about "envy", I wish he could read my mind, and see how far off he is.
Sales taxes are levied on the purchase of goods (and in some cases services). It is not an additional tax on your income.
Those dividends aren't wages, first off, but it certainly is income to the person receiving them, and that person has not been taxed once already on those dividends. They're taxed once only, when that lucky recipient receives them.
HUH??? That is the very definition of a dividend: a distribution of corporate profits. It goes directly to shareholders.
Where in the world did you get the notion that it is illegal for a corporation to share its profits directly with shareholders???
Then individuals get dividends, and their income is taxed. The money that was the corporation's profits weren't income to the individuals.
Just like the income that I get that I later use to pay to have a place to live was taxed before I received it, and whoever I pay it to then has to pay taxes on whatever profit they make off that payment I made to them!
Just a few weeks ago I got blasted here for saying my total tax burden was over 40%. Now that buffet has come out and said his secretary pays 38% now they have changed their tune. They wont believe anything unless someone on the uber left tells them to.
I've also explain at length and included links on how some people get 7k+ back more than they paid in federal taxes, and they just refuse to believe it.
Oh we DO understand. You on the other hand are a brainwashed MORON who will NEVER understand because you are too stupid to understand ANYTHING. You just regurgitate whatever you were told to think and understanding is just something you sometimes dream about and will never accomplish
Utterly ridiculous. The stockholder is NOT the corporation. So the CORPORATION pays taxes as part of its operating expenses. When the profit is then distributed to the stockholder THAT is the first time HE gets that money as income. It is then TAXED as income but at a LOWER rate than labor is taxed. It is NOT double taxation.
I get money from my boss, I pay my mechanic, he pays his gardener, that gardener uses his pay to buy a stock and it is taxed when it gains value. Only to a MORON is JUST that last transaction double taxation
That last transaction is a capital gain, not a dividend. I didn't say capital gains were double taxation, dividends are.
OK then only a MORON like you would think that when he got a dividend from that investment THAT was the only double taxation
You really are pitiful and not very good at this. So when its SALES tax it is the transaction we are talking about but when it is capital gains the MONEY has already been taxed? I know YOU are stupid enough to fall for this idiocy but you dont really think WE are do you?
"you dont really think WE are (stupid) you?"
I will let your posts speak for themselves in answer to that question, though it wouldn't be fair to lump some on here in with the "WE".
Yes please let my posts speak for themselves as you keep failing to understand the obvious and repeat over and over the Randinista talking point you were brainwashed with even as you have to deny reality itself to pretend it makes sense. You have to pretend it is the physical money that is taxed on the one hand and the transaction on the other and that while the money is STILL corporations money that it is really YOUR money. Why dont you go TAKE some of that corporate money they havent given you as a dividend yet? See how that works out for ya. I mean since it IS your money when it is taxed at the corporate level RIGHT
You are STUPID Bond and it is tiresome having you insult OUR intelligence as IF we were as stupid as you
Dividend money is shareholders money before it is distributed the same way interest accrued is savings account holders money before it is deposited into the savings accounts.
Dividends are not tax-deductible to a corporation, so they are taxed as profit and paid by the corporation; then they are distributed to shareholders where they are taxed again on the shareholders personal income tax returns.
The double taxation of dividends is analogous to paying taxes on the interest gained from your savings account and then being taxed on the interest again as income when you withdrawal it from your savings account.
When the corporation pays taxes before paying you dividends, it is not yet your money.
Look we all know what you are trying to do: look for excuses to lower taxes for the rich.
No it is NOT. My GOD that is sheer stupidity. Could you SPEND it when it is corporate money? Is it in YOUR possession? It isnt in ANY sense YOURS until it becomes YOURS. That is sheer insanity
My GOD but you are stupid. Ok, go GET that money and spend it since it is already YOURS. See how that works out for ya.
Dividend money is shareholders money before it is distributed the same way interest accrued is savings account holders money before it is deposited into the savings accounts.
You're illustrating a point perfectly, just not the one you're trying to.
That took a while, but you finally seem to have caught up.
A company makes money, using money you invested. That's income to them, the return on their investment, and they're taxed on that.
For letting them use your money, you get a return from that company. a separate, brand new transaction ( you should have read above, where I asked if you thought the company distributed all of their profits to shareholders) You're taxed on this transaction.
But even if you want to pretend that that's the same as depositing money at a guaranteed,fixed interest rate, you went even further off the rails, thinking that physically moving your own money from inside the ATM to your wallet is the same thing as playing the market.
If you're still confused, there are a lot of good books on this subject. People here may be bored of helping you by now.
You keep referring to the corporation as if it's another person or separate from its shareholders.
Exactly the point I was abuot to make!
The Randinistas brainwash you morons well. If it is already YOUR money then go get it. Spend some. I want to see how that works out. PROVE it is your money and TAKE some
No its not. When YOU get the money is the point it becomes YOUR income and is taxed. When it is still the corporations money it is not YOUR money. When it is CORPORATE profit the CORPORATION is taxed on it. When it transfers to YOUR pocket it becomes YOUR income and you are taxed on your income
Better be careful there, Kabniel. Your fellow liberals on this site will not take kindly to the fact that you essentially agree with the central argument in the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision.
Sophistry, the rightwing staple
I was just responding to the comment dhertzfe made above stating that dividends have not been taxed.
And we tax it again when it's income for a new person or entity! That's why dividends should be taxed.
But oh, yeah, this is dishonest sockpuppet user "jamesB/JamesBond/tommy/right ON" saying this. He deserves no credibility.
I'm not arguing that dividends shouldn't be taxed. Only that they should be taxed just once.
Corporations were MADE so that owners could be divorced from the LIABILITIES the corporations might expose them to. When FORD made a corporate decision to KILL many of its customers by marketing the Pinto it KNEW would kill people how many stockholders went to prison for negligent homocide?
You want to SAY that the money is already YOURS while it is corporate money as IF that wall didnt exist and you WERE the corporation at the same time you DODGE the repsonsibilities for actions taken BY the corporation. The shareholders are NOT the corporation and the corporate money is NOT YOURS until it is transferred to you BY the corporation
Your salary (paycheck) is tax deductible to the company you work for. It has not already been taxed once. Dividends are not taxed deductible, which is why they are taxed twice.
If you have an issue with the corporate form of business, that's an entirely different discussion.
Reading taranto in the WSJ much?
You know, he has a staff of ghost writers that write 100's of paragraphs for each of his columns, that is why he has so many names at the bottom. They just cherry pick the most scary and stupid things they can say. his column reads like 1000 monkeys in a room. Disjointed, different styles, but he keeps taking credit for it, even using the royal "we" alot. You really want to pay attention to him? Keep spouting his talking points! He wants to make sure you stay as poor as possible so his piece of the pie gets bigger!
....talking points awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Dividends have already been taxed at the corporate level. Are you suggesting otherwise?
Keep up the good work, you are making this country not work for many, many people.
Oh my GOD. You are so stupid. Not that ignorant Randinista talking point about double taxation. Look MORON money isnt taxed. INCOME is taxed. Transactions are taxed. That you are ignorant and gullible enough to fall for these ignorant talking points is bad enough. Dont insult our intelligence with them
your response above is nonsense.
No it isnt you are just so completely brainwashed you are incapable of rational thought
Curiously enough we can see how things began to slip in 1981 when that rate was reduced to 20%.
Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
He went on to say that the meltdown of 2008 was a direct result of this change in philosophy.
A business which no longer provides a service to its customers will soon no longer generate a profit.
Are you familiar with a gentleman by the name of Mitt Romney?
Insurance companies come to mind.
Wonder where I heard that situation before?
Nope, nope, nope. All of those people who warned about the long term consequences of "voodoo economics" were absolutely wrong!
This is another one of those stupid arguments that just makes no sense from an economic or psychological. The corollary is always, "Well if we tax rich people on capital gains, they might just hide their money under the mattress and then what?" This is the argument that was made in 1931, and lying wingnuts haven't seen fit to update it since.
Here's the truth, if rich people can make more money from investing than from hiding their cash, that's what they're going to do. Even if we tax them at 30% or 35% on capital gains, they're still taking home a profit of 65-70%. That's money that they wouldn't have if they hadn't invested, also known as pure profit. So stow the BS, tommy. Taxing capital gains has never discouraged investing, and it never will.
They've accepted that Bizarro idea as gospel, that's their 'Point A'. Everything they do from that point on is based on that mistake.
It's a public service, really.
By "not productive", I only meant that he is not going to make any progress, given his flawed starting point. The entertainment produced is hilarious.
It's a public service, and it's fun.
Speaking of comedy, I came across this thread recently, and it is hilarious.
Once our little friend got the idea he was going to imagine that "Kock sucker" was a homophobic slur, and that he was pretend-offended, he wasn't going to let go.
I think those are some of my favorites, where he hitches his wagon to some lame mule like that, and gets more and more committed to it the more its lameness is pointed out.
n'est-ce pas, tommy's liberal nemesis, was a homophobe who'd just revealed his true color, and they weren't rainbow. Good times.
I regret my choice of screen name since it is apparently too close to the infamous jamesB screen name, but I did not know of jamesB when I started posting here or I would have chosen something different.
tommy denied being "right ON" for a while, but then finally admitted it. Then "right ON" denied being "southernlady" while 'she' was stalking me (I figured it out with 'his' first posting), until he accidentally outed himself. Then he denied being "CenterRight", until he accidentally outed himself. He's been outed as many, many, many other screen names too, including "southerngirl" and "Pongotwhistleton" and "westla" and "right ON2" and so many more I can't be bothered to type them all. Sometimes it's done by looking into comment history where one screen name disappears and is replaced by another screen name using the same email address. That helps that one human being avoid having to pass the moderation phase again here at Media Matters with the new screen name.
And this has happened with your screen name "JamesBond". There's one person who posts using many screen names. "JamesBond" is one of the screen names that one human being uses. No, we don't believe that it's a coincidence that there's a "jamesB" and a "JamesBond" both posting at the same time. How many different, yet similar names has that one person use? Well, almost every name that includes "RxxxxRxxxxx", for example. Two names, one "southernlady" and the other "southerngal". You create new screen names when one loses its mojo, and then forget exactly what they are, and so you enter what you think it was. That's why there's a "jamesB" screen name and a "JamesBond" screen name.
Signing in and out and in again must get on one's nerves as well as lead to headache-inducing confusion. Probably why, though we see it often, we usually don't see it constantly during one thread or even during one day.
The rest stands.
Aside from this post, in which I am admittedly tweaking you for my own enjoyment, I have always posted here with the intention of having a substantive discussion. I am able to do that with some, but those few are far outnumbered by those who are just on here to insult anyone who dares express an alternate point of view.
And that's what you've done here. That's what you always do. That's what "tommy" aka "right ON" aka "jamesB" used to try to claim they did too.
But you want to try to claim that it's simply coincidence that you behave just the same as "jamesB/tommy/right ON", but that you're not him.
We don't believe you. Especially after you dishonestly claim that you're behaving well when it comes to interacting with us on an honest basis.
I've noticed that a favorite tactic of liberals on this site is to scream "talking point!", as if that debunks the point being made.
Many times.
And no one here is screaming "talking points," they're calmly pointing out that you are posting nothing but talking points. The fact that you see it as "screaming" is merely projection, as you scream the talking points every chance you get, and get all butthurt when it is pointed out that you have no clue what you are posting about.
Where did you come up with that??
You just don't recognize your bullsh*t when it's put into plain English.
What does that even mean??
what is amazing is your stupidity and astonishing capacity for self delusion
I'm also an investor. The tax rates I pay on capital gains have ALMOST NOTHING to do my hiring practices or how I manage my business. Here's where I'm going with this. There is a split in my income between business income and what my portfolio shows. If my portfolio accumulates faster due to a lack of taxation, the net affect will be for me to focus LESS on my business, meaning less emphasis on business expansion and business strategy. I won't need it!! If my portfolio is taxed at a higher rate, more of my focus will remain on my business, as a means to achieve my financial goals. Clearly, there needs to be balance, but it is my opinion that the trend over the last three decades has swung way too far to favor those at the top. Ultimately, this hurts those trying to get there, not to mention those struggling to get by, who may spend a few bucks in my shops, just to do something nice for themselves for a day. It's in my self-interest for more folks being able to do that.
I've run a small business myself, and everything you've written is so logical that it's tough to believe there are a good number of Americans who think it's completely backward.
Supply side is only promoted by the tiny minority who actually benefit from it, and a bigger group ( represented by the VooDoo Trolls here) who get screwed by it, but are simple enough to fall for it.
"If my portfolio is taxed at a higher rate, more of my focus will remain on my business, as a means to achieve my financial goals."
EXACTLY!! The capital gains tax rate affects your investment decisions. (n'est-ce pas, if you are reading this, take note.) A lesser capital gains tax rate increases your incentive to invest, whereas a greater capital gains tax rate decreases your incentive to invest. Decreased investment on a macro level leads to less available capital for other businesses to use to start or to expand, leading to less job creation.
As for your second paragraph, aren't you again conventiently leaving out something obvious? For the Romney's of the world, or to a much lesser extent myself, stockpiles of wealth in only a few hands DOES NOT REQUIRE those who have the wealth to make further investment. Simple reality goes against your assertion. Our tax rates are at 60 year lows. We don't have "expansion" or "job creation" at levels to sustain a healthy middle class, let alone for people to magically be incentivised to invest money they don't have.
That leads to a discussion about where demand comes from. Demand consists of three components: the desire to purchase, the willingness to purchase at a given price, and the ability to purcase. Anybody can have the desire and willingness to purchase. It is the ability to purchase that is the key component of demand. So where does that ability come from? It comes from the production of goods and services. By producing a good or service (e.g.: labor), demand is created to the extent of its value. For example, when you hire a worker to start or expand your business, you have created demand for that worker to the extent of what you pay them. That worker can then purchase goods and services from others. On a macro level, this results in more opportunities for business start-ups and expansion of existing businesses -- which, of course, requires the capital which comes from investment.
Those with the means to invest are certainly not required to make further investment. I never asserted that they were required to do so. But rare is the individual who stuffs their money in their mattress and doesn't at least stick it in a bank, where it is loaned out to businesses or individuals. Debt is also a form of capital.
I can only offer my personal experience as a business owner. Our "expansion" in this ecomony has actually been contraction. We closed one shop and down-sized in another. Our product hovers between being impulse buy and needed commodity...specialty clothing. Our clientele runs the economic gamut, but our outlets are in economically challenged locales. Our best decade for expansion was the 90's, again indicating to me that the tax rates we have now have hindered the climate for small business people, such as myself. My origonal post was relating the meme of "class warfare" to personal experience as a business owner. We are asking those who have very little puchasing power to sacrifice more, and foolishly thinking this helps our business economy??? Come on!! We tried helping the wealthy believing it would trickle down. It didn't. I down-sized my business and laid off a handful of staff. I'm OK, but most aren't. Incremental changes designed to level the field a little seem reasonable to me.
Correlation is not causation. Are you suggesting that higher tax rates are responsible for a strong economy? I think you are intelligent enough to realize that is an absurd suggestion.
I did not mention anything about class warfare. My original post to which you responded was simply pointing out how there are many valid economic reasons for taxing capital gains and dividends at a lower rate than wages, including that a lower rate encourages investment -- something you, yourself, helpfully pointed out in a previous post.
This thread was about the Right's silly "class warfare" meme, in case you missed it, and was why I shared my personal experience. You once again are drawing a false conclusion from my post. I have wealth because my business allowed me to build a portfolio. The funds didn't magically appear, and were built primarily in the 90's. The rules as they are today favor my portfolio over my business. My business has down-sized, and I've cut jobs, while my portfolio has performed decently the past 2-3 years. You pulled a dishonest tactic, pulling a sentence from my post to paint a false picture. You conventially ignored full context, and my call for balanced tax policy that allows my business to thrive, allowing me to focus on my business as a means to grow my portfolio. Balance!
"I'm suggesting that slightly higher taxes on the wealthy is far preferable to putting even more financial pressure on the middle class and below.
What you are suggesting is a false choice. Raising capital gains taxes will not lessen the financial pressure on the middle class and below. In fact, if raising capital gains taxes reduces the capital available, it will ultimately hurt the middle class and below as fewer businesses will start or expand, leading to fewer employment opportunities.
You were initially responding to my post about investment and capital, not class warfare.
The only thing I pulled from your post was your admission that taxes affect your investment decisions. That is the very point I've been trying to make. Regardless of whether you also call for "balance" or any other caveats, you clearly understand that taxes affect investment decisions.
Having been a business owner since 1987, I related my personal experience to the "CLASS WARFARE" chant from the Right that was THE ACTUAL TOPIC OF THIS THREAD. No false choice!! In case you haven't been paying attention, the argument in Washington is who sacrifices in order to address our budget issues. I, like most, am suggesting and advocating a balanced approach that asks a little more from those who are fortunate, like myself, rather than placing the entire burden on the middle class and lower. The rules have been rigged "your way." It hasn't worked. Wealth has not trickled down. Income for the top 1% has sky-rocketed, while the rest have been stagnant at best. My belief is that this isn't healthy for our economy long-term. You won't change my opinion about that. Clearly, I won't change yours.
Now you are getting into federal budget issues which is something entirely different. My point in this entire thread has been that there are valid reasons for taxing capital gains and dividends differently from wages. Given that investment taxes alter investment behavior, raising them would create a disincentive to invest; thus depriving businesses of needed capital and slowing economic growth. You, yourself, have admitted that raising the capital gains tax rate would cause you to invest less.
Even the Obama administration recognizes the role capital plays in growing the economy. Obama Wants to Give Startups Tax Breaks and Easier IPOs From the article: "The proposal, which will become part of Obama’s 2013 budget plan, would make providing startup capital more appealing by eliminating tax rates on capital gains for investments in small businesses." (emphasis mine)
I know your point. It's been proven deeply flawed. Tax policy has catered to what you are advocating for the last decade. the result has been unprecedented income disparity, and struggle for small business like my clothing shops. Tax rates that favor the largest corps, who then dictate subsistence type existences for all but the very few is not prosperity to me. Your way has wages shrinking for all but a few. My origonal post was to share my experience as a business owner related to to who foots the bill regarding budget issues which are unpleasant reality. That was the topic of the thread...the Right's use of "Class Warfare" as an argument to have the middle class and lower be the ones who shoulder the burden of reducing our debt.
I'm in no way advocating extremism in the other direction. I'm saying that returning to capital gains rates (and income rates) from the 90's is a fair approach that doesn't further cripple those who have suffered for a decade, while a few have experienced bonanza. My business is not publicly traded. Expansion (or contraction) happens as the result of it's profitability. A beaten down consumer class asked to give more, that they do not have, won't be purchasing hats and t-shirts in my shops. The result is what I've experienced firsthand, one closed shop and another down-sized. Six jobs lost. I don't think these folks "will be incentivised to invest" anytime soon, as is the same reality for the vast majority. No JB, your corporatist ideal fails. I don't want a select few dictating what has become a declining prosperity on the vast majority.
My way also happens to be the way of the Obama administration. As I pointed out above, Obama recognizes the role investment taxes play in the formation of capital. Rather than return to the capital gains rates of the 90s, he has proposed eliminating capital gains taxes for investments made in small businesses so as to encourage such investments to spark economic growth.
Who bares the burden of paying off our debt? If it's anyone other than those already under the most pressure, it's somehow "class warfare." As someone whose small business relies on middle to lower income clientele, my biggest concern looking ahead is public policy that doesn't consider the historic level of income disparity that has crushed purchasing power/demand for goods and services. The few Mitt Romney's of the world won't keep my shops afloat. Eliminating capital gains rates for those who have little hope of investing accomplishes nothing besides padding the wallets of those who have already experienced historic increases in their wealth. It's not prosperity for a few to become super-wealthy, while the rest gradually slide toward 3rd world subsistence.
It's always the constantly bewildered telling others that.
Can we get some better trolls on here?
I have a tough time believing any of the resident "contrarians" here are actually being serious. MMFA provides a fantastic, much needed service, but it surprises me that at least a few Righties aren't here making some attempt at substantive debate? Of course, I may have just answered my own question. I suspect most here, like myself, are less flaming lib, and more totally fed up with what the Right has devolved into.
While I agree with your most. I for one am a flaming lib.
How does that make my argument "not hold water"? Small businesses require capital to start and expand. Without that capital small businesses cannot get started or expand. And without new businesses or expanding existing businesses, jobs will not be created.
Economic growth is a function of businesses providing goods and services that meet the needs and wants of consumers. In order for that to happen businesses require capital to start and expand. Capital comes from investment. So investment is required for ecnoomic growth.
Taxing investment reduces the incentive to invest relative to other uses of those same resources.
CAL just perfectly illustrated that point above. Thanks, CAL!
A portion of my end-of-year business profit goes into my investment portfolio. If tax rates/rules are tweeked to help the middle class, my business will do better, meaning I can shove more toward my portfolio, regardless of whether capital gains tax is higher, which it should be by 5%, IMO.
You've mis-interpreted my statement. I've made mine. Some Repubs are suggesting a capital gains rate of 0%. If that were reality, I could close all my shops, lay off 50-60 people, and use the accumulated losses from the decision to eliminate any tax burden till I bite the dust. Point being.....I'd be OK, but 50-60 FAMILIES earning low-end salaries would be put under stress. That scenario doesn't sound like reasonably balanced prosperity to me??
No argument there. But for those that have the funds to invest, tax rates influence their investing behavior -- again, as you, yourself, have personally attested to in a previous post.
"If tax rates/rules are tweeked to help the middle class, my business will do better" That brings up the obvious question: how will taxing capital gains and dividends more help the middle class?
If you were not taxed on capital gains you would seriously close up your shops?? Even stipulating that you would, that just means you would be investing more, providing more capital for other business owners to use to start up new businesses or expand existing businesses. Ultimately, that will lead to more prosperity and jobs.
True, but again, without consumption, this investment would NOT occur. Just investing doesn't make it a profitable business. You have to have people who are interested in whatever product you're making. Let's say, Widget A. You need a physical plant to produce Widget A, which is where investment comes in. Before investment though, those who would invest would want to make fairly certain that what they're investing in, has a market, and will be consumed.
And hence, consumer society.
We have almost historical lows for interest rates and taxes right now. Where is all of this "investment" that you speak of? Companies, and people are NOT doing it, because consumers are, well, consuming less. Tightening the belts, and have been since about 2008 due to the recession, and the slow recovery.
Ask companies why they're not expanding or hiring people, and it won't be because of lack of investment, or opportunities for investment, it is because of lack of demand of whatever product they're making.
I think you've pointed out an interesting phenomenom, flirting with the 13k barrier, the DJI is brimming with investment money. That money hasn't translated into any lasting growth...yet. I think there are several reasons why the DJI is looking a little bloated these days, and one of them is the Feds obvious devaluation of the dollar. Rather than watch there cash burnt in the incinerator of inflation, that cash is being dropped into a dubious market.
Unlike most conservatives, I think the market is ripe for government stimulus. Rather than increasing the size of government though, I think directly helping consumers deleverage would benefit the economy the most in the mid-term. If consumers were burderned with less debt, they'd be much more willing to risk larger expenditures, increasing demand, it would have both a psychological and economical effect on consumers. One thing is for sure, demand needs to catch up to the cash bubble of stock investments before it pops.
On a second note, one of the biggest reasons I hesitate to raise taxes on capital gains is the retirement community who rely on investments for income. The one group of middle-class americans who have money to spend is the one group of people who would be hardest hit by an increased tax rate. I don't really thing wealthy people who benefit from low capital gains tax rates is the problem, I think the inability of lower income individuals to take advantage of those rates is the real issue.
So demand comes before investment.
By the way, whoever cares (joni? where'd you go?) I wasn't quite sure this was also jamesb. until I read the one jamesb. post on another thread. The writing is identical, the thinking as well.It's how james sometimes starts out on a thread, before surrendering to the brutish tone. Bond, whom we see far less often than james, is the super-ego to the other's id. More formal, more grammatical, more polite, seemingly more scholarly, resisting the urge to switch to the dark side.. This schizoid guy is more comfortable with the childish section of his brain than his adult one, thus the preponderance of james.
He needs to stop all usage of all sockpuppets. And he needs to argue honestly.
Or else he's a troll, and he needs to be treated like a troll. He did stop using a lot of the sockpuppets, but he can't resist using some of them. He's a troll. He's not interested in a fair debate on the topic. He posts impertinent, rude, provocative statements with the intent to draw attention to himself and away from the actual topic.
As if nobody ever started a business with their savings, from wages earned.
Demand, like labor, is a must. These had to exist for the first business on earth, thousands of years before the first venture capitalist crawled out of the ooze and put on a suit.
The capital of an outside investor, one who made their money by not producing anything, may be part of a business, but it's certainly not essential.
I know, it's sort of a separate topic that Jimmy wanted to side-track to, but it's fun to handicap him sometimes, watch him lose even when you let him choose the field.
Demand is a must. I never suggested otherwise. Capital is also a must.
You certainly like to create your own mischaracterizations and then rail against them.
I never suggested otherwise. But you're stuck on the idea that it all comes from rich people investing in the stock market.
And before you start crying that I'm "mischaracterizing" what you're saying, maybe re-read the entire thread, look at what you're arguing.
Again, I don't think you're deliberately dishonest, I just know enough Reaganomics cultists that it's burned into your subconscious.
Investment is also not limited to the stock market. I don't believe I ever implied such a thing, but if you think that I had, I just set the record straight.
I see, so you were full of sh!t when you posted this above
No argument there. Until a business actually produces a good or service there is no actual demand, only potential demand.
As I said, there is a world of difference between potential demand and actual demand. Investment comes first before there can ever be any actual demand -- as you, yourself, stated when you said "But really, until a business actually gets going, all demand is potential." It takes investment to get a business going. Until that happens, there can be no actual demand, only potential. So, again, investment comes first.
He writes: "If my portfolio is taxed at a higher rate, more of my focus will remain on my business, as a means to achieve my financial goals."
I'm a savvy businessman sitting on a few bazillion dollars, and I know there's an approaching or existing demand for widgets. I have two options;
A) Open a widget factory, cashing in on the widget market, or
B) Invest all of my money, wait a few years for a small percentage return on it ( maybe smaller than the profits I would have made with the factory), then take that small dividend out,along with any principal necessary, and if it's not taxed too high, open that widget factory, hoping the demand is still there and the market isn't saturated.
Is that right?
Actual work, producing goods or providing services, is just sort of a necessary evil to support the real business of America- shuffling money around to turn it into more money.
If you review any comment threads here on the subject, you'll see it. It's as if concentrating on a business is a distraction from what's really useful, investing and sitting back waiting for dividend checks.
For people who are constantly stating the obvious, that money doesn't just come out of nowhere,right wingers sure do all seem to dream of living off of some imaginary money-machine.
That's your own mischaracterization. Would you like to respond to what I actually say, or just rail against your own mischaracterizations?
I'm not calling you a liar, you've just been trained to have certain priorities, to understand the economy in a certain way, and no amount of facts are going to affect you.
At some point, it gets more interesting to talk about you than to you.
I suspect that point comes right when you realize you are in over your head and don't have an answer.
Like I said, go to the library, or online. If your parents or their friends have any experience in the world of investment, talk to them..
Even the Obama administration recognizes the role capital plays in growing the economy and the role capital gains taxes play in creating that capital. Obama Wants to Give Startups Tax Breaks and Easier IPOs From the article: "The proposal, which will become part of Obama’s 2013 budget plan, would make providing startup capital more appealing by eliminating tax rates on capital gains for investments in small businesses." (emphasis mine)
Oh my GOD. You dont seriously believe you have EVER in your entire posting history even challenged anyone with your stale repititions of Randinista talking points do you? Much less stumped anyone? Of all the ignorant delusions you have ever spewed, and they are legion, that is the most divorced from reality
Yes it does. Andy ate you alive and you are so brainwashed and stupid you dont even know it
My interaction with Andy speaks for itself. I don't need to say anymore about it. It's there for all to read.
How does taxing capital gains and dividends at a higher rate benefit the middle class and lower? How would that make your business more likely to thrive?
I original post was to relate my personal experience as a business owner to the whining the Right does about "class warfare." I can tell you emphatically my average customer cannot relate at all to the "plight" of those fortunate enough to be able to invest b1tching about having to cough up an extra 5-10% interest on their capital gains, while the alternative for most are things like losing health care coverage, or quality of their children's educations, etc etc. I'm not advocating something extreme to balance the rules, but rather something that addresses THE PROBLEM that most have struggled while the income inequity has soared to record levels for those most fortunate.
Without labor, that is workers, there IS NO BUSINESS.
Did you have a point with that post or (as someone likes to frequently say on this site) are you just spewing ignorant talking points that you were brainwashed with??
The point would be obvious to anyone not as stupid as you and not as BRAINWASHED as you. You are saying BOTH that labor is as necessary as capital AND that capital deserves to be treated better than labor. You dont even know how stupid you are do you?
I can see how buying shares in a company when they are first issed is investing in a company but when you are buying them on theopen market how is that investing in the company? I invest in companies everyday buy buying thier products, SO i am a job creater, where's my tax deduction?
Money does not create successful business, JamesBond. Ooh, wait, what IS it that makes business happen? Hmmm.. That answer bypasses investment-creates-jobs BS too. Darn.
Luckily, n'est-ce pas came to your rescue.
What makes business happen is DEMAND. That's where it starts. People BUY things when they have a need. Then business can happen, and without an IPO for every business. One can start business with hardly any capital, start small, out of your barn or your garage, like most of America has for its entire history, with funding for growth by the small income one initially generates, family, friends, etc. The big-time capital that you mention is only one of the many options.
What you mistakenly assume is just what so many have unlearned for the last 30 years, that supply creates demand, completely backwards. Supply-side economics has proved bogus, but you hang onto the fairy tale. All you address is one way for an already-established business to grow, not how business fundamentally happens. You can't address it, because you lack the fundamentals. Read Paul Samuelson--somebody--just anyone from the real world.
Sure, businesses can start small in a garage, but to grow it will have to acquire capital. Personal savings, money from family and friends, is all capital. Equity financing would be "big-time capital", but debt financing can be as simple as a signature loan. Debt financing doesn't have to mean issuing bonds.
Absolutely, demand is needed to make business happen. But where does demand come from? As I posted previously: Demand consists of three components: the desire to purchase, the willingness to purchase at a given price, and the ability to purchase. Anybody can have the desire and willingness to purchase. It is the ABILITY to purchase that is the key component of demand. So where does that ability come from? It comes from the production of goods and services. By producing a good or service (e.g.: labor), demand is created to the extent of its value. For example, when a business hires a worker, demand is created for that worker to the extent of what they are paid. That worker can then purchase goods and services from others.
"By producing a good or service (e.g.: labor), demand is created.."--JamesBond
Outstanding: make it and they will come. Supply creates demand. Exactly backwards as before.
Ability to purchase comes from a job. Demand creates supply. No job, no demand, business is stingy, reduces supply. Less demand, less supply. Which points to why the Great Recession just happened, and I bet you have the backwards answer for why that happened too.
To give a very basic example: let's say you have a garden and produce enough food to feed yourself and your family. You have no other income. Now let's say you expand your garden and produce enough food to feed your family and your neighbor's family. Your neighbor is willing to pay you to produce food for his family. What you have now done is you have created demand for yourself to the extent of the value your food has to your neighbor. The payment you receive from your neighbor allows you to purchase other goods or services -- it has given you demand. Without your production of food for your neighbor you cannot have demand. You may desire other goods and services, but until you produce something of value for someone else, you do not have the ability to purchase other goods or services. (Remember, demand consists of three components: the desire to purchase, the willingness to purchase, and the ABILITY to purchase.)
That is but one basic example. Where most people get their demand from is from the value of their labor.
"Ability to purchase comes from a job."
What is a job? It is one person producing labor for another. The extent of the value of that labor creates demand. Which is to say, the supply of labor creates demand (to the extent of the value of that labor).
You instead start at the supply step, the garden: you just have extra food. NO WAY do you grow extra food with hope that demand magically appears. That would be high-risk spec market, not fundamental economics.
Without production of food for your neighbor, you absolutely can have demand. Your neighbor still wants food. You don't have supply, neighbor seeks elsewhere.
When you get paid by your neighbor, your supply, produced by your labor, is converted to an asset by currency. That asset (ability to pay, or the substitute for a head of lettuce) is now on the demand side of the equation, where you search for something of value that someone else supplies, someone else who figured out that people want that thing of value. You search with the the desire/willingness to purchase (the demand relationship) and your ability to pay (the money-lettuce).
Like you say, demand's three components include the head of lettuce; but the head of lettuce is not the demand alone. Your labor produced the head of lettuce in response to demand, and the head of lettuce completes your desire for whatever product. To shortcut it, your labor, targeted by your neighbor's demand, got you that other person's product you wanted.
Okay, I'll grow my garden, sell extra, feed the family, and just save the money, don't need anything else. Never mind how I acquired the garden with the babbling brook. I'm just sittin' here enjoying my numbers. Created a product due to demand, but no demand in turn on my part. Say's Law short-circuited.
Supply-siders want production costs and taxes minimized on the theory that more revenue is generated to make up for the lower tax rates. Never worked out. CBO even tried forecast models favored by supply-siders, and those didn't work out. Not even the fake world works with supply-side.
"supply of labor creates demand (to the extent of the value of that labor)"--JamesBond
Say's Law again. Desperately used to have business hold the power, even to undervalue labor. Profit is maximized, and income is maximized for the owner, labor expense is below minimized. For example, the "right to work" BS. Minimize labor expense to less than living wage, and your dream of maximized riches is realized for a while, until the labor can't buy anything, and the whole system crashes. Again.
You grow extra food with the expectation that the desire and willingness of someone to purchase it exists. That someone must also have the ability to pay to fulfill demand.
When you say, "Without production of food for your neighbor, you absolutely can have demand. Your neighbor still wants food. You don't have supply, neighbor seeks elsewhere." you are speaking of your neighbor having demand, not yourself. You can only have demand once you have produced something of value for someone else -- in this example, food. (Remember the three components of demand.) When you don't have supply, you can't have demand because it is the value of your supply that allows you to meet the 'ability to pay' component of demand. Similarily, your neighbor only has demand to the extent that he has produced something of value.
This is exactly right: "Like you say, demand's three components include the head of lettuce; but the head of lettuce is not the demand alone. Your labor produced the head of lettuce in response to demand, and the head of lettuce completes your desire for whatever product. To shortcut it, your labor, targeted by your neighbor's demand, got you that other person's product you wanted." (emphasis mine) What you have described is exactly supply creating demand.
"Okay, I'll grow my garden, sell extra, feed the family, and just save the money, don't need anything else. Never mind how I acquired the garden with the babbling brook. I'm just sittin' here enjoying my numbers. Created a product due to demand, but no demand in turn on my part. Say's Law short-circuited.
What that describes is the formation of capital for other's use in creating or expanding businesses. Of course I am assuming that you invest your extra money or at the very least put it in a bank where it can be loaned out. If you literally stuff cash in your mattress, then, yes, you will have successfully stifled economic growth.
"Supply-siders want production costs and taxes minimized on the theory that more revenue is generated to make up for the lower tax rates.
That's another mischaracterization. I know some argue that increased economic activity will make up for any revenue lost to tax cuts, but that's not a supply side argument. Supply side economics is simply an economic philosophy which states that incentives to produce will better generate sustained economic growth over incentives to consume.
Oh, really? Keep it vague, JamesBond, that's the only way you have a chance.
Okay, everybody, this has become chicken/egg. Instead of reading this stuff (where I point out JamesBond's unstated assumptions, and JamesBond replies with the same stated assumptions) just reference any decent source on supply-side and find out how the philosophy breaks down, especially showing its stripes during economic downturns. Wiki it.
JamesBond, compare your fantasy supply-side model to reality, such as what Krugman has to say in either article, this or the one above.
Show me any example of sustained economic growth at any time in any place on earth, based on your philosophy. We have Keynesian examples to counter, you got nuthin'. Supply-side has some merit; it's just incomplete--it's UNsustainable due to reality popping up.
Krugman also mischaracterizes supply-side economics as stating that tax cuts pay for themselves. To take but one source of what supply side economics is: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics
The article goes on to state: "contrary to what many people think, neither Reagan nor his economic advisers believed that cuts in marginal tax rates would increase tax revenue."
Especially beyond supply-is-demand-is-supply, I've been trying to get you to answer how investment (private, I assume) and labor work in your favored economic model. Apply it, somewhere, please. Give us a road map. But alas..
Okay, apply Say's Law in any permutation to anything going on today on the planet. Or yesterday. Give any example of supply/production incentive and it's consequences. Give any example of anything in your economic belief system that actually happened so we can chew on it.
Gwartney? Liberty Fund? Really? If Gwartney said "In Utopia, where all people behave the same, in the long run, our income levels reflect our ability to produce goods and services that people demand," I'd go for it. I'll stick with Paul Samuelson and Paul Krugman.
In the head of lettuce example, if Party A has the lettuce and Party B is hungry and desires it, Party B could not obtain it until they have produced say, an animal skin to trade for it. Party B must have something of value (supply) in order to have demand for something in return. (Party A could always just give the lettuce to Party B since Party B is hungry, but then that becomes not an economic transaction, but a charitable one.)
You, yourself, have pointed out in your post above that supply is what creates demand: "your labor, targeted by your neighbor's demand, got you that other person's product you wanted"
Your labor (supply), targeted by your neighbor's demand (desire, willingness, and ABILITY to purchase -- remember the components of demand), got you that other person's product you wanted (your demand -- desire, willingness, and ABILITY to purchase). Simply put, your supply got you your demand.
How does investment and labor work? in simple terms investment provides the capital necessary for the formation and expansion of businesses. As businesses are formed and expand, labor is hired.
Say's Law applies to every economic transaction going on today. Examples are at the top of this post. You, yourself, gave an example in a previous post.
I didn't say it was, I am pointing out the dufference between the company selling stock and what happens to if after that. When you buy directly from a share issue you give your money to THE COMPANY, therefore investing in the company buying shares second hand only enriches the dealers not the company.
And just to clarify, the people who buy a company's products are not investing, they are consuming; hence the term "consumer", as opposed to "investor".
Okay, JamesBond, what financial instruments are the best things to invest in right now with your million dollars? This is NOT a trick question. What will get you the most bang for your investment buck?
Next, what will you do, rich-business-owner-who-creates-jobs, when your income is taxed at Nixon rates instead of Bush rates? What will you to with that money when faced with really high taxes that arena? Again, this is NOT a trick question.
Sift among the the many valid economic reasons that you declare to know and get back to us. Go ahead, use da google, look up Greenspan, whatever you wish. The door is open.
I would go with " Completely clueless and missing the point alert".
I have a feeling that I can read further and lay out why you and JamesBond are un-American.
Odd. Entrepreneurs of that era didn't seem to have any problem getting by. Were they smarter than you, or just more efficient?
Yeah, why start a business in the 70's? Just wait until the income tax gets Reaganized, according to highlighter. Instead, they were doing what highlighter wasn't: contributing to America.
You are a LIAR. We went through this before. You just lie constantly
Do you think at all before you post, seriously?
They never learn to keep the bullsh*t short and sweet. The details kill them.
Truly inspiring.
Are you implying that I've ever said you make too much money ? I don't care how much money people make, even real people who actually have money. Believe me, if that's none of my business, your pretend money sure doesn't concern me.
And didn't you already have marginal tax rates explained to you here recently ? Jeebus, get out and get your first job, then come back when you've learned a few things.
I wouldnt put it anywhere I would just stop expanding. The incentive would be gone. If I can't get rich doing it because the government is going to take 90% after state and local id just stop.
America wants you to reinvest in America, not just yourself.
O ya, tell me you haven't worked your a$$ of already, businessman. You did what to get where you are? And now you don't want to do that to expand. Got it.
Bull. Your business blowing crackheads for pocketchange would be unaffected by any tax changes.
"Okay, JamesBond, what financial instruments are the best things to invest in right now with your million dollars? This is NOT a trick question. What will get you the most bang for your investment buck?"
I'm not sure where you are going with this question. There are a lot of different things to invest in. If I had the answer as to what the best thing to invest in would be, I would be one of those 1%ers.
"Next, what will you do, rich-business-owner-who-creates-jobs, when your income is taxed at Nixon rates instead of Bush rates? What will you to with that money when faced with really high taxes that arena? Again, this is NOT a trick question."
I would use whatever (legal) tax avoidance means were available to me. (That would have the aggregate effect of distorting markets and economic activity.)
Now to the income tax question. You would avoid taxation as best you could. Cayman Islands, Swiss Bank maybe? You didn't even think to reduce your income and do something else with the money. Now what would that be? What would you do with the extra money you don't pay yourself?
I am leading you by the hand to the answer, and you don't get it, because what you care about is acquiring and maintaining wealth. We're one step away from the American answer of what to do with profit, but you can't come up with it. You don't give half a care about creating jobs--jobs are a fortunate byproduct in your world. And your ilk are the ones who crow about being job creators while your highest priority is making money for yourself. That's not American. That's fraud.
If you want to know how investment creates jobs, investment creates jobs by providing the capital necessary to start or expand businesses. Capital is one of the factors of production.
Businesses do not exist to create jobs. Businesses exist to create wealth for its owners. Jobs are, in fact, a byproduct of a growing business, not the cause of it.
When you say that, I know you don't understand the point I am trying to make, even though I slowly lay it out, leading with questions. I even go at it from different angles. I'm being repetitive about getting you to define the purpose of jobs and taxes and investment, because you're understandably reluctant. Either you don't know what good they perform, or you want to take advantage of them for selfish reasons. Thus the reluctance.
And look, you finally answer with this vignette into your philosophy, this recent twisted perspective: businesses exist to create wealth for the stakeholders. That is because you represent greed. You support the effort of the past 30 years to turn America into lord and serf, to return to the days of exploiting labor and enriching only the rich.
The more American perspective, especially previous to Bush, is to care about the customer, to satisfy demand in the best way. Now you come along with the new priority of maximizing profit for the next quarter. THAT is what distorts the market, losing touch with the value of good business, and by "good business," I mean business that make everybody prosper, employer and employee and stakeholder alike, and for the long term.
At this point, I understand that you want to get rich, and to get rich, you want to grow business, and to grow business, you infuse capital, and to start business, you also infuse capital, and with your (growing) business, you create jobs to create supply, and with your supply, you create demand, and with your supply-created (or job-created) demand, the unicorns and fairies come in to buy the supply that they didn't know they demanded with the money earned from their own didn't-know-they-demanded-it jobs. AND to maximize your wealth, make the jobs less-than-living-wage, and ride the wave until you bail or someone buys the company and squeezes out what's left of it's capital.
The purpose of a job is to provide labor in the production of a good or service.
The purpose of taxes is to fund the government.
The purpose of investment is to provide capital for new or expanding businesses.
"The more American perspective, especially previous to Bush, is to care about the customer, to satisfy demand in the best way." A successful business does exactly that: cares about the customer and satisfies a demand in the best way, while generating a profit. A business which fails to do that will soon no longer be successful.
Watch Bill Moyers' show, where he interviewed John Reed and Byron Dorgan.
The rich get richer, the rest of us, eh.
Demand consists of three components: the desire to purchase, the willingness to purchase at a given price, and the ability to purchase. Anybody can have the desire and willingness to purchase. It is the ABILITY to purchase that is the key component of demand. So where does that ability come from? It comes from the production of goods and services. By producing a good or service (e.g.: labor), demand is created to the extent of its value. For example, when a business hires a worker, demand is created for that worker to the extent of what they are paid. That worker can then purchase goods and services from others.
Nothing to say about supply fueling economic growth?
NO there are not as Lincoln said
Why should investment be incentivized OVER labor? No wealth is created by buying and selling. That is plain FACT. No economist disputes this. ALL wealth is created by working. Without labor there IS no capital without capital there is still labor. The Incas HAD no money. Nothing analogous to it and they did labor and had a very effective and organized society. Labor deserves the HIGHER consideration not lower
Secondly (and also speaking to the first point), it might help if you were to read Lincoln in full context. State of the Union Address -- Dec. 3, 1861 (The relevant portion is at the end of the speech.)
Lincoln was speaking at a time when the majority of citizens were, economically-speaking, on their own. He stated: "A large majority [of citizens] belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. ... Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other."
Clearly the economy of today does not function in the same way. Today a large majority work for others. The days of building your own house, growing your own food, and making your own clothes are gone. A majority of people now labor for another so that they may purchase shelter, food, and clothing from others. And those things are only able to be provided thanks to the capital that was used to start and expand those businesses.
All of that is not to say that labor is not important. As one of the factors of production, labor is a necessity. In the same address Lincoln stated: "Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits."
As to why investment should be incentivized over labor, the simple answer is without capital an economy will stagnate. Simple population growth necessitates an ever-increasing supply of capital just to keep pace with demand, nevermind actual, real economic growth. Nobody has to provide capital. One's resources can always just be used for consumption. And if the rewards for consumption are greater than that for investment, then that is what will happen. Ergo, that is the reason -- at the most basic level -- capital is incentivized over labor.
What I would say is the basic tenets of capitalism have not changed appreciably since Adam Smith much less Abraham Lincoln
And those businesses only EXIST because of the labor that defines the business. You keep trying to say in effect that MONEY is more important than the people the very concept was created to SERVE
Yes, mutual benfits and YOU are claiming that the capital deserves to be treated differently and BETTER. You are saying that the money you make off of MONEY should be taxed LESS than the money made off of labor.
And without Labor there will be NO economy so that isnt a valid reason why MONEY should be incentivized over labor.
We have CHOSEN this system. One in which capital is necessary. That is not the ONLY way to do it. There have been and can be systems in which capital doesnt exist at ALL. Where society makes the investments instead of wealthy individuals. Since we CHOSE to do it that way and it isnt necessary then Labor has the more important position since there is NO system where labor is not necessary. It is the ESSENTIAL and irreplaceable component.
Since those who make their income FROM investment if they chose to NOT invest, the Ayn Rand fantasy, they could be replaced with societal investment and they would just STOP getting income. They do not need to be incentivized to do what is in their best interest since their only option for getting more INCOME would be to GET A JOB AND WORK. Which they are free to do.
You are making EXCUSES why money is more important than the people the very concept of money was created to serve. You have been brainwashed quite well to believe this beyond all reason.
I would be willing to wager that kabniel favors a well-regulated capitalist system with progressive taxation.
As to what you favor, we'll probably never know, because I'm just a-guessin' that you don't want to take a position and just remain vague. If you're asked to specify to the point of a concrete example, you'll hit a dead end and bail.
I think I've made it pretty clear as to what I favor, but if you want me to spell it out for you: I favor incentives to produce over incentives to consume. I favor capital gains tax rates lower than marginal tax rates. (Unless marginal tax rates are lowered.) Dividends I have no problem being taxed at marginal rates; however, they should then be tax deductible to the corporation so as to avoid double taxation. Alternately, dividends could be taxed at the corporate level and not taxed at the individual level.
Jesus was engaged in class warfare.
I wonder why they don't find this passage nearly as 'interesting'.
Of course, I mean this all in the 'supposedly' context I approach everythingin the Bible with. Years of Catholic education taught the Catholicism right out of me.
It's not difficult to imagine how much the stories were distorted and embellished in that period of time.
Just look at how we embellish the lives of our own Founders and military heroes... and we're supposed to know better.
Jesus was a Marxist, too.
I'm an athiest and am a better Christian than most practicing Christians.
Then I started reading the Bible closer, and found the same inconsistencies that you probably found, and then some.
Speaking of contradictions, someone sent me this link a couple of years ago. It's quite interesting.
Project Reason
As Thomas Paine wrote (and i'm paraphrasing): Which is more likely, that Nature would leave her course, or that a man would tell a lie?
The story of Job ran a close second on the "what??" scale.
Let that one sink in... it's the 21st century, and if we had a presidential race between a rapist and somebody who didn't believe in the supernatural, it would be neck and neck... but even a Muslim or Gay person could come in as a third party and win the election.
Even the right's most hated people are 'more trusted' among them than us non-religious folks.
Which is funny, because I don't hate or distrust someone who is religious, JUST BECAUSE they're religious. I base how I feel about someone on how they've interacted with me. How they treat me, or ones that I love, and or how they are as a person.
Religion has NOTHING to do with it.
I have been given this backhanded 'compliment' myself. I live a good and moral life according to what I feel is innately right and wrong. The Christian idea that it isn't possible to do that without Big Sky Daddy breathing down your neck says more about them than they care to admit. How would they live their lives differently and what would they do if they thought no one was watching?
Creepy.
Maybe those who have a strong internal moral compass have less need of a supernatural enforcer. Many, if not most, religious people believe it because they're taught to believe it as children. It is as much a cultural phenomenon as anything inherently wonderful in the religion itself.
And I can't recall who it was, but I heard somebody a while back making a pretty convincing argument from the other side. How can there be 'morality' when your decisions are based on your own eternal reward or punishment? It seems entirely more moral to do the right thing simply because it's the right thing, with no selfish motives.
I used to have that conversation with one of my more right wing republican friends. Their contention was that all morals come from the bible, my contention was that morals are decided by society as a whole and will change over time.
In a lot of ways I think it is a conundrum for them that someone can be a good moral person and not believe in the flying spaghetti monster. It just doesn't make sense to them that someone would be "good" without some kind of threat hanging over them.
It's like they're unaware of civilization before Christ, like before Jesus came along, rape, murder and stealing were perfectly socially acceptable.
We've just evolved in the way that happens now and days. Used to be the Vikings that did all the raping and pillaging. Now we just have to worry about organizations like Bain Capital raping and pillaging our pension plans and the companies we work for. :-/
The first quote you use above is very interesting. How could we apply that today?
Now, the second quote is rather applicable. If you don't see how, I don't know how to help you. Maybe Hooked on Phonics? It openly says that (if you believe in this stuff) one should assist those in need if they want to inherit the kingdom of heaven. I have yet to hear of a Christian who fully wants to go to hell. Wait, are Robert AIles and Rupert Murdoch Christian?
"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share, such tax loopholes, sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy." Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driveror less?"
Guess what the crowd said?
I'm pretty sure they'd be calling him a RINO, and he wouldn't have made it past NH.
That statement alone would be enough for Blimpy to yank Reagan's Membership Card. It's absolute heresy in today's Republican Party.
That’s exactly what that GOV Daniels said in the Republican response.
"
Daniels would like to "pause" the piling on of expensive new regulations, maybe not the unpiled, inexpensive ones? Then, after a while, we'll hit "play" and mindlessly pile on more of the expensive ones, maybe. That's terrible English in your quote, sweeping and emotive and meaningless, but you lap it up. Deregulate whatever he won't tell you that he wants deregulated. Check.
Daniels insists that maximizing energy technologies that improve our economy are good. Again, he says nothing of value, but you like to hear it. Vaguely emotional truisms. Check.
Daniels wants to preserve Medicare and SS for the current voters in or near retirement, but wants to gut them afterward such that "future Americans" (are you a future American?) are not protected so well. Who knows what will happen to current Americans. Definitely NOT Reaganesque. Saint Reagan raised taxes to save SS. Do the opposite of Reagan. Noted.
I don't get the last statement, where he says he doesn't want to pay the rich. But he wants to lower their taxes. Just after saying "we" need to weaken the safety net for the not-rich, dollars need to go "to those who need them most." Contradict yourself. Done.
Nice catch, highliter. Most of the points were on target with the real Reagan: tear down progressive taxation; surreptitiously deregulate to benefit a few and many suffer later; practice demagoguery; and say anything that get votes, even if it counters what was previously said.
Only the safety net policy has changed, where the R's now want to get their candy-grabbers on that $2 trillion SS fund, and make people fend for themselves when it comes to their own medical future.
What? There is really no trust fund only IOUs (Bonds) from ourselves promising to pay us back with money we have to borrow or print.
Instead of listening to and reading misinformation, try learning about the Trust Fund from the SSA itself. Number 7 is for you!
The U.S. has the money, and they keep paying because they say they will. Flimsy? Well, then highliter, tell me anything more trustworthy than the Fed's special-issue securities, or regular bonds (which are always paid, with interest, every time since their beginning). You trust your mattress instead? Baer Stearns? Greece? Silverado S&L? The U.S. always pays its debts, otherwise the economy takes a big hit or collapses, like the R's tried to make happen by trying to not increase the debt ceiling. Classy, that was.
No its borrowed or printed.
You are a LIAR. Bonds are NOT IOUs. They are assets. You are stupid and pathetic, brainwashed and ignorant but mostly you are a LIAR.
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/01/broncos-win-shocker-over-steelers-in-ot-on-tebow-to-thomas-80-yarder-71180.html
[b]Mathew 22:36-38
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.[/b]
Jesus wasn't commenting on wealth, he was commenting on devotion. Wealth is a hinderance only is as much occupies a persons heart, mind, and soul.
If it's as you say, then why the general comment? The clear implication is that money makes it incredibly difficult for anyone to behave as Jesus says one must. That goes beyond the individual and into class, obviously.
Yes, and there was a time when people were embarrassed to be racists, bigots and chauvinists.
There was also a time when CEOs would have been embarrassed to take home eight-figure bonuses while laying off employees and closing factories.
There was a time when a Political Party would be embarrassed if one of its members shouted "You lie!" during the President's State of the Union Address.
I guess those days are gone.
I note the careful use of the words "households" and "have". Quite clever use of language.
1) Poor "people" may contain the homeless, and any number of unfortunate members of society who have slipped through the cracks. All "households" consist of people, but not all people are part of a "household".
But that's just a minor quibble...
2) Redefining "have". In this instance they mean have in the sense that they have access to a refrigerator. I rent an apartment, and I "have" a refrigerator, but I certainly don't "own" one. The fact of the matter is that in America 2012, a refrigerator is almost a given as part of a rental agreement. My apartment is "unfurnished", but I still have a refrigerator and stove in here that don't belong to me. I'd even go so far as to say having a refrigerator included is a deal-maker or deal-breaker for most renters.
If 13% of people take public transportation, would you say they "have" a bus or subway?
3) So now we are going to be the possession police? If someone used to have a decent job and bought a nice home stereo system or major appliance and then they were laid off or their situation changes, do we go in and confiscate any nice stuff they've accumulated over the course of their lives? Do we begrudge the poor in America in 2012 for living any better then a peasant during the dark ages?
More madness from the right wing.
For some strange reason, Republicans find this concept objectionable, even frightening. They would prefer, apparently, that anyone who descends into poverty be allowed to languish there, just so those at the very top get to accumulate a few more dollars that they don't really need.
It' mind-boggling that they've been able to sell this callous attitude to so many working class people whose chances of finding themselves poor massively outweigh the slender possibility that they may become rich.
Respect the question mark!
Even that premise is fraudulent under a modern, healthy capitalist system. Safety net spending has a stimulative effect (within proportion, you trolls), and keeping someone from falling into destitution is a lot easier and less costly then trying to elevate someone back into the employable workforce from absolute destitution.
Sadly, as each year passes we move farther and farther from a modern healthy capitalist system, and drift closer to global fascist corporate oligarchy. The Ayn Rand philosophy of wealth worship, objective materialism, and sociopath level dehumanization of fellow human beings has found an avid following among the wealthy elite.
Interesting that the people who blabber most about "American Exceptionalism" resent the fact that our poor aren't as poor as those in the Third World.
I think after three long years of daily unhinged Obama derangement syndrome, the rise and fall of Glenn Beck, and the total transformation of Fox news from GOP cheerleaders to GOP kingmakers...
Now I believe there is no level of hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance, or reality disconnect they aren't capable of.
Not only has Fox News been pushing class warfare, the upper class has been waging war on everyone else for decades.
Instead of increasing profits that are due to the productivity gains by the average worker filtering down to the worker, as they have done since the Industrial Revolution started, those gains have been kept from the workers and only shared among the wealthiest Americans! That's why wages for the average Joe have been stagnant for the past 30 years while the rich have seen an explosion on their wealth.
That's true class warfare. The people upon whose backs the wealth was created are denied a share of that wealth, while those lucky few, whose only connection with the increased productivity is that they're the bosses of the workers, are the ones who've benefited from that increase in productivity.
And the fact is, with the advent of the PC, that increase in productivity has been huge! At a time when the middle class should have grown by leaps and bounds due to the computer becoming involved in nearly every job, the poor and middle class haven't seen a bit of that growth.
That's true class warfare.
What it means to be poor! I lived this for many years, billionaires will never get it!
Poor pitiful, helpless, put-upon billionaires!
Shouldn't charity begin at home?
It was Hoover that promised a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.
Where was that money supposed to come from.
Who is playing games?