NationStates Jolt Archive

HA HA HA!! Opinion. Just becase some Democratic representative says it on the House floor doesn't make it true. It's mostly partisan rhetoric.
So you think the guy was just beat his gums and actually was just lying so that he could look like an idiot FOR THE RECORD?

Just because YOU say it is NOT true doesn't make it false. You are just speculating. And IF it is true, which I suspect it is, then perhaps you should be concerned?

So you think the guy was just beat his gums and actually was just lying so that he could look like an idiot FOR THE RECORD?

Just because YOU say it is NOT true doesn't make it false. You are just speculating. And IF it is true, which I suspect it is, then perhaps you should be concerned?

Maybe I should be concerned. But why would a Canadian be concerned?

Maybe I should be concerned. But why would a Canadian be concerned?
Mainly because the US and Canada are each others greatest trading partners!!

That and the fact that Canadians own a lot of US stocks and bonds.

There are two things you never take into account when you make this argument Purly--not that I blame you alone. The punditry conveniently forgets as well. One I've already talked about in other threads--closing the tax loopholes that allow corporations to move headquarters offshore and avoid paying income taxes. That'll raise a hefty chunk. The other is that by targeting the tax cuts toward those who will actually spend the money, i.e. the middle and lower income levels, you boost the ecoomy. When the economy is humming, more people are working, more people are paying taxes, businesses are selling more goods and they're paying more taxes as well. Revenues increase in healthy economies. How do we know this? It's happened before--in the 90s.
However, as we've seen before, taxing corporations is dangerous. Businesses are the backbone of our economy, no matter what size they are. Rich individuals may spend a lot on luxuries, but companies can't. They spend to bring more money into the economy. Why should we tax this?

Face it, the "tax the rich" mantra is only for public consumption. "Vote for Kerry, he is going to stick it to those rich guys!" Yeah....he is the richest man to ever run for president, sure he is going to "stick" it to himself. Wake up....

Wake up indeed - I seem to remember a Rockefeller and a Forbes running for President.

According to Forbes, if elected, Kerry would tie with JFK, but still be less wealthy than George Washington. Of course, Kerry - like Washington - married a wealthy woman; nowadays, campaign finance reform keeps his wife from contributing more than $2,000 to his campaign.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/02/13/cx_da_0213kerry.html

Bush, on the other hand, had the richest cabinet in US history - all millionaires, with an average net worth ten times that of the Clinton cabinet.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0227-05.htm

Any wonder why Bush is trying to remove taxes on wealth and migrate towards income or even sales taxes?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1077949,00.html

Let's be serious, though - Kerry's talking about rolling back taxes to pre-Bush levels. We aren't talking about anything near the progressive tax structure this country had during the 1950s. It's inconceivable to me that reversing an unwise and unfair tax cut could be viewed as "soaking the rich".

However, as we've seen before, taxing corporations is dangerous. Businesses are the backbone of our economy, no matter what size they are. Rich individuals may spend a lot on luxuries, but companies can't. They spend to bring more money into the economy. Why should we tax this?

There are several arguments as to why corporations should be taxed; this looks like a good (Canadian) paper on the subject:

http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxstudy/wp96-2e.pdf

My opinion: corporations can be taxed to make accounting easier, to encourage responsible corporate behavior (i.e., Superfund taxes), or just to keep money being incorporated and thus dodging taxes.

However, as we've seen before, taxing corporations is dangerous. Businesses are the backbone of our economy, no matter what size they are. Rich individuals may spend a lot on luxuries, but companies can't. They spend to bring more money into the economy. Why should we tax this?Let's not kid ourselves--industries aren't shutting down and corporations aren't going out of business or outsourcing jobs because of tax liabilities. It simply doesn't happen. If a company is in such dire financial shape that a tax bill is going to force it to go under, then it's got much bigger problems.

So the real question ought to be--are these corporations giving back a sufficient amount considering the amount of infrastructure the federal, state and local governments are providing? That's where the debate ought to lie.

Let's not kid ourselves--industries aren't shutting down and corporations aren't going out of business or outsourcing jobs because of tax liabilities. It simply doesn't happen. If a company is in such dire financial shape that a tax bill is going to force it to go under, then it's got much bigger problems.

So the real question ought to be--are these corporations giving back a sufficient amount considering the amount of infrastructure the federal, state and local governments are providing? That's where the debate ought to lie.
And they are. Not just corporations, of course, but small businesses. They are the primary backbone of the economy, and not the individual, or the government.
My favorite part, however, is that I don't mind if income taxes are kept high, so long as corporate taxes are cut. I think that money is better spent collectively, and on business spending, hiring workers, etc. Besides, it'd make accounting disappear from their spending.

And they are. Not just corporations, of course, but small businesses. They are the primary backbone of the economy, and not the individual, or the government.
My favorite part, however, is that I don't mind if income taxes are kept high, so long as corporate taxes are cut. I think that money is better spent collectively, and on business spending, hiring workers, etc. Besides, it'd make accounting disappear from their spending.Problem with that theory is that corporations aren't spending their profits on business spending or hiring workers or, God forbid, paying workers a higher wage. Not for the most part--there are exceptions like Costco, but for the most part corporations are concerned with rewarding stockholders first, last, and in all places in between, and the largest shareholders (and by extension, largest benefactors of this policy) are the upper executives of the corporations and the other super-rich. It is true that more Americans than ever own some stock, but it's still a tiny percentage of Americans who derive any significant percentage of their income from stock as compared to traditional income.

Problem with that theory is that corporations aren't spending their profits on business spending or hiring workers or, God forbid, paying workers a higher wage. Not for the most part--there are exceptions like Costco, but for the most part corporations are concerned with rewarding stockholders first, last, and in all places in between, and the largest shareholders (and by extension, largest benefactors of this policy) are the upper executives of the corporations and the other super-rich. It is true that more Americans than ever own some stock, but it's still a tiny percentage of Americans who derive any significant percentage of their income from stock as compared to traditional income.
If you're that rich, though, money means something completely different. It's all tied up into investment capital, and not just blue chip megacorps. It'd encourage more venture capital to start new businesses, or perhaps angel funds. If you own less shares, the company may feel compelled to reward higher dividends, and perhaps you can spend it. Microsoft just offered $3/share in dividends, for example.
Don't forget, this would also apply to small businesses. They have a great oppritunity for growth potential, and would benefit from the extra money floating around. A giant corporate tax cut, combined with preexisting regulations should make the financial system first rate, and make the marketplace more competitive, but ultimatly more prosperous.

Seems like the crux of our disagreement, New Anthrus, is in our economic philosophies. You sound like a supply-sider. I've lived through three supply side presidencies and seen them all fail with various degrees of severity, the earlier forms failing less badly than the latest version. But make no mistake, from the point of view of someone at the lower economic levels, they all failed.

I just don't buy it anymore. Supply side doesn't work, unless your goal is to concentrate wealth in the hands of a very few. I don't think a government's economic policy ought to work toward that goal, especially not one that's ostensibly egalatarian. I'm no socialist--I think that the free market does wonderful things as far as economic growth is concerned--but I am in favor of effective government regulation.

Seems like the crux of our disagreement, New Anthrus, is in our economic philosophies. You sound like a supply-sider. I've lived through three supply side presidencies and seen them all fail with various degrees of severity, the earlier forms failing less badly than the latest version. But make no mistake, from the point of view of someone at the lower economic levels, they all failed.

I just don't buy it anymore. Supply side doesn't work, unless your goal is to concentrate wealth in the hands of a very few. I don't think a government's economic policy ought to work toward that goal, especially not one that's ostensibly egalatarian. I'm no socialist--I think that the free market does wonderful things as far as economic growth is concerned--but I am in favor of effective government regulation.
Yes, but I separate regulations with taxes. I favor things like the SEC and Federal Reserve, and believe they should continue their jobs.
I see, btw, supply side working. In the 1980s, when it was tried, it did work. People were hurt, I can't deny that. But someone is a victim in any system. In these tax cuts, however, small business owners benefit from the extra capital available. I personally believe in this because my grandfather's real estate business had its greatest growth then. Besides, in the past twenty years, largely due to the eighties, our economy expanded by $5.5 trillion. New Anthrus is my puppet, btw.

I gathered that New Anthrus was your puppet, but thanks for verifying.

Supply side works in the sense that it rewards the investor class at the expense of those dependent on income. If you're fortunate to be part of the investor class, then you love supply-side economics, because it works for you. And to be honest, no proponent has ever pretended otherwise.

But if you're not part of that class, then supply-side doesn't work for you. Trickle-down resembles tinkle-on more than anything else if you're part of the blue-collar working class, because for the working class to receive any sort of benefit from supply-side, they have to depend on the largesse of the people receiving the tax benefits, and the wealthiest people and corporations aren't exactly known for their largesse, even in terms of job creation.

Since I've never been a part of the investor class, and have no plans to become so, you can understand why I might prefer an economic system more geared toward lifting the fortunes of the lower income groups, rather than one geared toward rewarding the people who already have tons of money.

I gathered that New Anthrus was your puppet, but thanks for verifying.

Supply side works in the sense that it rewards the investor class at the expense of those dependent on income. If you're fortunate to be part of the investor class, then you love supply-side economics, because it works for you. And to be honest, no proponent has ever pretended otherwise.

But if you're not part of that class, then supply-side doesn't work for you. Trickle-down resembles tinkle-on more than anything else if you're part of the blue-collar working class, because for the working class to receive any sort of benefit from supply-side, they have to depend on the largesse of the people receiving the tax benefits, and the wealthiest people and corporations aren't exactly known for their largesse, even in terms of job creation.

Since I've never been a part of the investor class, and have no plans to become so, you can understand why I might prefer an economic system more geared toward lifting the fortunes of the lower income groups, rather than one geared toward rewarding the people who already have tons of money.
I can see your point, in that sense. However, supply side economics is, as I see it, a rising tide that lifts all boats. Maybe not every last one, but most of them. Ever since it was first implemented around the early eighties, average incomes have risen. The service economy has grown, and that's one of the reasons we have a trade deficit. We don't earn money from goods, but we do earn money from our services. And of course, our economy increased dramatically in that time.
Even if you aren't an entrepenuer, benefits were still felt. More capital going to businesses, especially small businesses, meant more jobs created, and more growth oppritunities. I can even argue that supply side economics helped to bring prices down, as less of a company's income went to taxes, or buying goods from overseas made expensive by tarriffs.

Except that we saw greater overall growth and greater income growth among the lower income levels, greater home ownership among the lower income levels, greater increase in quality of life for a larger group of people--that rising tide--under Clintonian economics than we ever saw under Reaganomics and their subsequent Bush iterations. We did better away from supply-side than we ever did under it, and by we, I mean people in my income level (and we are the largest demographic).

And before you say that Clinton was set up for success by Reagan, let me counter by saying that if that's the case, then Reagan was set up by LBJ. Presidents may not control the economy as much as they get blamed for when it goes bad, but they set a tone for it, and they push for economic policies and priorities that do have effects on the economy as a whole. They, as all politicians do, seek to reward their constituencies. Republican supply-side Presidents have benefited their largest constituency--the wealthy and corporations. Democratic presidents have benefited their key constituency--working class voters. I'm working class and will always associate myself with them, no matter how much I earn in the future, so I'll go with the guy who tailors his economic policies to my best benefit.

Except that we saw greater overall growth and greater income growth among the lower income levels, greater home ownership among the lower income levels, greater increase in quality of life for a larger group of people--that rising tide--under Clintonian economics than we ever saw under Reaganomics and their subsequent Bush iterations. We did better away from supply-side than we ever did under it, and by we, I mean people in my income level (and we are the largest demographic).


Only except Clinton was another supply-side believer. He organized NAFTA and the WTO. It became a boon for businesses seeking to expand their markets, and also helped in supplying investment capital. He may have raised taxes, but mostly just income taxes. If you believe he was more oriented to the demand side, it was a damn good ruse of Clinton. He was a closet adherer all along.

You're confusing free-trade with supply-side economics. Clinton was a free-trader, no question, but his tax policy was decidedly not supply-side economics. He raised taxes on the highest income earners--a move that sent supply-siders into a tizzy and had Limbaugh screaming that he was going to fuck up the economy beyond repair. Didn't happen. In fact, the opposite happened. He targeted tax cuts toward those people who had to spend the money, and lo and behold, they spent it, and consumer spending drove the economy to unseen heights.

Bush II gives targeted tax cuts to those who can afford to sock it away and who don't need to spend it, and then wonders why the hell the economy continues to sputter because consumer spending is flat. Why? Because the people most likely to spend money don't have it to spend.

It's possible that in terms of trade, Bush and Clinton are similar, but in terms of economic philosophy, they were miles apart. I haven't even gotten into the fiscal discipline part of the argument either.