Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Life, the Universe and Everything (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   The Tax Fairy (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=5689)

uncle ebeneezer 08-04-2010 01:20 PM

The Tax Fairy
 
Is Coming!!!

TwinSwords 08-04-2010 06:41 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9ks36c549B...0725185218.gif

The funny thing is that if Obama's tax plan were enacted, most Republicans would pay less income tax, and yet, that group -- Republicans -- is so deeply confused and so totally misled by their deliberately dishonest leadership that the vast majority will think their taxes have been increased.

Too bad you can't get through to a wingnut. They make easy targets for a ruling class that controls them through fear and lies.

TwinSwords 08-04-2010 06:59 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...axcutscbpp.jpg

Unit 08-04-2010 08:55 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
I'm not sure how these projections are made, but if they take current tax revenues and extrapolate, that can lead to a distorted picture because we're in a recession right now so tax revenues are depressed at the moment.

Unit 08-04-2010 08:57 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 173601)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9ks36c549B...0725185218.gif

The funny thing is that if Obama's tax plan were enacted, most Republicans would pay less income tax, and yet, that group -- Republicans -- is so deeply confused and so totally mislead by their deliberately dishonest leadership that the vast majority will think their taxes have been increased.

Too bad you can't get through to a wingnut. They make easy targets for a ruling class that controls them through fear and lies.

Well the typical answer is that small businesses employ about half of the labor force, and so people realize that such taxes might affect future employment. Is that a wingnut thing to say?

bjkeefe 08-04-2010 10:31 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer (Post 173540)

Eh. You know what that "Statue of Alexander Hamilton, first secretary of the Treasury, in front of U.S. Treasury building" needs?

Moar codpiece.

Then it would look like "Mission Accomplished" for realz, and 'fur could take pleasure in it without feeling ... uncertain.

Whatfur 08-04-2010 10:38 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 173632)
Eh. You know what that "Statue of Alexander Hamilton, first secretary of the Treasury, in front of U.S. Treasury building" needs?

Moar codpiece.

Then it would look like "Mission Accomplished" for realz, and 'fur could take pleasure in it without feeling ... uncertain.

OMG...I must be in your heads. How did I become a part of this discussion? ....and please tell me you didn't come skipping over when you saw the title?

bjkeefe 08-04-2010 10:53 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 173635)
OMG...I must be in your heads.

Nope!

#furryfail

Once again, you're mistaking self-importance for importance.

Better luck next time!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 173635)
....and please tell me you didn't come skipping over when you saw the title?

Nope. You're the only "curious" sort we have on this board. If you know what I mean, and I think you do. Everyone else besides you is comfortable in his or her own sexual identity and orientation, as far as I or anyone else can tell.

Not to worry, though. I have some confidence you'll admit to yourself what you are before you start collecting Social Security. Five years is a long time!

Whatfur 08-04-2010 10:54 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 173643)
Once again,...mistaking...

Whatever the case, thanks for helping build the legend.

bjkeefe 08-04-2010 10:58 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 173644)
Whatever the case, thanks for helping build the legend.

#furryfail

Once again, you're mistaking self-importance for importance.

Better luck next time!

(Kind of funny how you fled once we started talking about your ... curiosity, though.)

Whatfur 08-04-2010 11:07 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 173645)
#furryfail

Once again, you're mistaking self-importance for importance.

Better luck next time!

(Kind of funny how you fled once we started talking about your ... curiosity, though.)

Are you flirting with me?

bjkeefe 08-04-2010 11:09 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 173648)
Are you flirting with me?

As much as that notion gives you a woody, no. You're not my type. I like people with self-confidence.

Glad to hear you're fantasizing more about beating me off than beating me up, though. This is progress for you! Very good!

stephanie 08-05-2010 01:45 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 173617)
Well the typical answer is that small businesses employ about half of the labor force, and so people realize that such taxes might affect future employment. Is that a wingnut thing to say?

I don't think it's necessarily a wingnut thing to say, no, but I think it's incorrect. First, in terms of the effect on small businesses being an actual worry, and, more significantly for the current discussion, in terms of why people react the way they do.

Unit 08-05-2010 03:52 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 173745)
I don't think it's necessarily a wingnut thing to say, no, but I think it's incorrect. First, in terms of the effect on small businesses being an actual worry, and, more significantly for the current discussion, in terms of why people react the way they do.

Why not? If half of the labor force is employed by small business owners, wouldn't they be particularly worried that higher taxes on their employer might lead to hardship?

Don Zeko 08-05-2010 05:05 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 173616)
I'm not sure how these projections are made, but if they take current tax revenues and extrapolate, that can lead to a distorted picture because we're in a recession right now so tax revenues are depressed at the moment.

Good point! Why don't you call the CBPP and inform let them know right now? I'm sure they never thought of that when they were making this projection.

Unit 08-05-2010 06:13 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 173787)
Good point! Why don't you call the CBPP and inform let them know right now? I'm sure they never thought of that when they were making this projection.

I don't know anybody there. It would indeed be nice to know how exactly this graph was produced. Obviously, when making predictions there's a lot assumptions to be made etc...

stephanie 08-05-2010 08:24 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 173773)
Why not? If half of the labor force is employed by small business owners, wouldn't they be particularly worried that higher taxes on their employer might lead to hardship?

Because I listen to the types of things people say, and that's not the kind of thing they get all emotional about. It tends to be some (often imagined or confused) effect on their own taxes.

Also, of course, the effect on small businesses and their taxes isn't nearly what you say. I am a part owner of a small business, and increased taxes would not be a difficult thing for us (or for most other small businesses) to avoid.

TwinSwords 08-05-2010 08:39 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 173807)
I don't know anybody there. It would indeed be nice to know how exactly this graph was produced. Obviously, when making predictions there's a lot assumptions to be made etc...

Yeah, because it's impossible to imagine that increasing taxes might lead to lower deficits. I suspect Alinsky methods.

Unit 08-05-2010 08:48 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 173821)
Because I listen to the types of things people say, and that's not the kind of thing they get all emotional about. It tends to be some (often imagined or confused) effect on their own taxes.

Also, of course, the effect on small businesses and their taxes isn't nearly what you say. I am a part owner of a small business, and increased taxes would not be a difficult thing for us (or for most other small businesses) to avoid.

If the new taxes would be so easy to avoid, why impose them?

Also there are more people out there then you ever will be able to talk to. I don't know what the average Republican voter says, my point is that there are coherent arguments that could be made.

Unit 08-05-2010 08:50 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 173823)
Yeah, because it's impossible to imagine that increasing taxes might lead to lower deficits. I suspect Alinsky methods.

Not so obvious: take the PIIGS, they have high taxes AND high deficits.

stephanie 08-05-2010 08:53 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 173825)
If the new taxes would be so easy to avoid, why impose them?

I didn't say they'd be easy to avoid across the board (I think that they will increase revenues). I'm talking about the argument that there's going to be some huge effect on small businesses.

Moreover, the question wasn't whether there are coherent arguments that a person could make for being against increasing taxes. If one is asking why the rhetoric against the increases by certain types of people who will pay less, not more, in taxes, it's worth looking at the rhetoric and what seems to draw the emotion.

Don Zeko 08-05-2010 09:12 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Correlation does not equal causation. There are lots of other obvious variables at work here that you're ignoring.

Unit 08-05-2010 09:23 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 173827)
I didn't say they'd be easy to avoid across the board (I think that they will increase revenues). I'm talking about the argument that there's going to be some huge effect on small businesses.

Of course the effect is always at the margin and especially on businesses that don't get created as a result. It's always hard to describe the unseen consequences.

Quote:

Moreover, the question wasn't whether there are coherent arguments that a person could make for being against increasing taxes. If one is asking why the rhetoric against the increases by certain types of people who will pay less, not more, in taxes, it's worth looking at the rhetoric and what seems to draw the emotion.
If a coherent argument exists, it could very well be the case that emotional reactions (against tax increases in this case) could stem from experience/tradition/philosophy/etc even though they are not completely well-articulated. But again, I don't know. In fact, last I'd heard, people who pay very little in taxes usually vote Democrat.

Unit 08-05-2010 09:25 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 173830)
Correlation does not equal causation. There are lots of other obvious variables at work here that you're ignoring.

Do you now of any historical case where a country reduced deficits by increasing taxes?

Don Zeko 08-05-2010 09:51 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Seriously? Are you seriously going to ask me this question? Let me answer it with a question of my own. Do you actually believe that a reduction in the income tax rate from today's levels would cause an increase in revenue?

Unit 08-05-2010 10:02 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 173838)
Seriously? Are you seriously going to ask me this question? Let me answer it with a question of my own. Do you actually believe that a reduction in the income tax rate from today's levels would cause an increase in revenue?

Seriously, I don't know of any example. Do you?

About your question, I actually don't know. It depends on too many variables, in short it would depend on which side of the Laffer curve you happen to be. But I have no idea how to determine that.

stephanie 08-06-2010 11:47 AM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 173834)
In fact, last I'd heard, people who pay very little in taxes usually vote Democrat.

Remember McCain pointed out that most of the country pays very little or nothing in taxes (since apparently only the income tax counts, and not FICA or any of the various other taxes).

But I think there are plenty of people who pay little in taxes in that sense in both parties. There's still some denial about that that seems most extreme among certain groups who vote Republican.

Unit 08-06-2010 07:21 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 173887)
Remember McCain pointed out that most of the country pays very little or nothing in taxes (since apparently only the income tax counts, and not FICA or any of the various other taxes).

But I think there are plenty of people who pay little in taxes in that sense in both parties. There's still some denial about that that seems most extreme among certain groups who vote Republican.

This is what I was referring to.

bjkeefe 08-06-2010 07:45 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 173887)
... (since apparently only the income tax counts, and not FICA or any of the various other taxes).

Something that can never be stated often enough. Thank you.

stephanie 08-09-2010 11:33 AM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 173943)

I've read that. You vastly oversimplied what it says, and nothing in what it says contradicts the original comment we've been discussing.

Unit 08-10-2010 05:45 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 174283)
I've read that. You vastly oversimplied what it says, and nothing in what it says contradicts the original comment we've been discussing.

I'm not sure what I've oversimplified, and it does seems pertinent to the original comment if the people that pay "more" taxes (relatively speaking) are more likely to believe in anti-tax Republican rhetoric. Also, as I said above, you don't have to be paying a lot of taxes to understand the argument for a low-tax regime.

Unit 08-10-2010 05:47 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 173838)
Seriously? Are you seriously going to ask me this question? Let me answer it with a question of my own. Do you actually believe that a reduction in the income tax rate from today's levels would cause an increase in revenue?

From your tone, it sounds like yours was a rhetorical question. Yet it's far from being unanimously settled.

stephanie 08-10-2010 06:01 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 174660)
I'm not sure what I've oversimplified

The book is about how the effect of income on vote is strong in states which are poor and much less to non-existent in states which are relatively richer.

More significantly, TwinSwords' (was it his?) original comment didn't claim that all Republicans who ranted about taxes paid little in federal income taxes, etc., let alone as compared to Dems. He asked about those who do. (Who, IME, typically rant about their supposed taxes, apparently not understanding that they actually pay very little in federal income tax and are in that group McCain basically dismissed as deadbeats.) I think he's right that there's something going on here besides an academic attachment to a belief that increased taxes might indirectly affect them by increasing taxes for a few small businesses on the margin.

Unit 08-10-2010 08:06 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 174665)
The book is about how the effect of income on vote is strong in states which are poor and much less to non-existent in states which are relatively richer.

More significantly, TwinSwords' (was it his?) original comment didn't claim that all Republicans who ranted about taxes paid little in federal income taxes, etc., let alone as compared to Dems. He asked about those who do. (Who, IME, typically rant about their supposed taxes, apparently not understanding that they actually pay very little in federal income tax and are in that group McCain basically dismissed as deadbeats.) I think he's right that there's something going on here besides an academic attachment to a belief that increased taxes might indirectly affect them by increasing taxes for a few small businesses on the margin.

Well, that's easy enough: this is what TwinSwords said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords
The funny thing is that if Obama's tax plan were enacted, most Republicans would pay less income tax, and yet, that group -- Republicans -- is so deeply confused and so totally misled by their deliberately dishonest leadership that the vast majority will think their taxes have been increased.

There are a lot of claims packed in this paragraph: first (and this is what I objected to) he dismisses the idea that "lower taxes for everyone (including the rich)" could be one of the fundamental values of the Republican side; the other claim is that the leadership is deliberately dishonest, I'm guessing because they're in the pockets of the top 1%, or 5%.

As I said above I think that such a fundamental value could be held a priori, without a logical argument underlying it (even though such an argument might exist).

For the second point, the very rich seem to lean slightly to the left and lobbyists seem to be quite happy in the current "stimulating" context.

TwinSwords 08-10-2010 08:55 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 174693)
There are a lot of claims packed in this paragraph: first (and this is what I objected to) he dismisses the idea that "lower taxes for everyone (including the rich)" could be one of the fundamental values of the Republican side

No, I didn't dismiss that idea; it's clearly true. It's not the whole picture, because (1) there are a lot of conservatives who complain that the working class and poor pay too little in taxes, and (2) there are a lot of conservatives who favor a flat tax or other regressive tax measures that would further shift the tax burden from those who can afford it to those whose standards of living have been steadily eroded by decades of conservative economic and tax policy.

But as a general bumper sticker summary of the Republican position on taxes, "lower taxes for everyone" is as fair and accurate as you can probably get in four words.

I am curious what I said that you thought meant I was "dismissing the idea" that lower taxes for everyone is a fundamental Republican value.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 174693)
the other claim is that the leadership is deliberately dishonest, I'm guessing because they're in the pockets of the top 1%, or 5%.

The first half is indisputably true. I won't bother to argue the details; I don't have time, and you wouldn't believe me no matter how exhaustively I documented the claim.

As for why the Republican leadership lies, it's not simply because they are working to protect and promote the interests of the super rich. I mean, they are. But there's a more precise explanation: they can't sell their proposals to the public on any honest basis. That is, if you make it clear that the only beneficiaries are the top 1%, you won't get much public support. If Republicans were fully honest about their economic agenda -- greasing the skids for the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else -- no one would support them. Therefore they have to justify their proposals with populist language and pretend that they are looking out for all people.

I'll grant that this is sometimes true of conservative Democrats, too. For example, NAFTA was universally understood by educated and informed people as a scheme to undermine American labor and, specifically, American unions. The whole point of NAFTA was to accelerate the decline in the standard of living that Americans had enjoyed since The New Deal and the rise of unions led to the largest and most prosperous middle class in human history.

But you can't go to the people and tell them you want to reduce their wages and their standard of living. So you have to lie. The policies themselves compel our leaders to lie to us.

What's really unsettling is how easy it has been to manipulate and misinform the public.

Don Zeko 08-10-2010 09:46 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 174661)
From your tone, it sounds like yours was a rhetorical question. Yet it's far from being unanimously settled.

I think we were reading different articles. The only people that were willing to say that the peak of the Laffer Curve is below the current rate were Pat Buchanan, Larry Kudlow, and Donald Luskin. If it's demagogues and scam artists like that against actual serious people/economists on the left and the right like Bruce Bartlett, Greg Mankiw, Brad Delong and Dean Baker, that doesn't sound like a serious debate to me.

Unit 08-10-2010 09:50 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 174699)
No, I didn't dismiss that idea; it's clearly true. It's not the whole picture, because (1) there are a lot of conservatives who complain that the working class and poor pay too little in taxes, and (2) there are a lot of conservatives who favor a flat tax or other regressive tax measures that would further shift the tax burden from those who can afford it to those whose standards of living have been steadily eroded by decades of conservative economic and tax policy.

But as a general bumper sticker summary of the Republican position on taxes, "lower taxes for everyone" is as fair and accurate as you can probably get in four words.

I am curious what I said that you thought meant I was "dismissing the idea" that lower taxes for everyone is a fundamental Republican value.

Well, if you agree that it's one of their fundamental values, why are you so puzzled by the apparent contradiction of 'wingnuts' complaining that O's plan raises taxes for the rich while lowering those of most Republican voters?

Quote:

The first half is indisputably true. I won't bother to argue the details; I don't have time, and you wouldn't believe me no matter how exhaustively I documented the claim.

As for why the Republican leadership lies, it's not simply because they are working to protect and promote the interests of the super rich. I mean, they are. But there's a more precise explanation: they can't sell their proposals to the public on any honest basis. That is, if you make it clear that the only beneficiaries are the top 1%, you won't get much public support. If Republicans were fully honest about their economic agenda -- greasing the skids for the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else -- no one would support them. Therefore they have to justify their proposals with populist language and pretend that they are looking out for all people.

I'll grant that this is sometimes true of conservative Democrats, too. For example, NAFTA was universally understood by educated and informed people as a scheme to undermine American labor and, specifically, American unions. The whole point of NAFTA was to accelerate the decline in the standard of living that Americans had enjoyed since The New Deal and the rise of unions led to the largest and most prosperous middle class in human history.

But you can't go to the people and tell them you want to reduce their wages and their standard of living. So you have to lie. The policies themselves compel our leaders to lie to us.

What's really unsettling is how easy it has been to manipulate and misinform the public.
Since I don't believe such conspiracies I would have liked if you hinted to the details, but the part about NAFTA is probably enough. Why would educated and informed people would want to deliberately undermine American labor? And are you so sure that unions are so beneficial to said labor? They procure benefits for job-holders at the expense of those who don't have a job.

TwinSwords 08-10-2010 10:18 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 174710)
Well, if you agree that it's one of their fundamental values, why are you so puzzled by the apparent contradiction of 'wingnuts' complaining that O's plan raises taxes for the rich while lowering those of most Republican voters?

I never said anything like that. What I said was that despite the fact that Obama's tax plan would lower taxes on most Republicans, most Republicans would believe just the opposite: that Obama had increased their taxes. And the reason for this confusion? Because they are systematically lied to by conservative leaders, most prominently talk radio and Fox News, but extending to virtually all elected Republican leaders and other conservative pundits. There's nothing controversial about anything I've said here. We just know that conservative leaders will claim Obama has raised their taxes, and we just know that most conservative followers will believe them.

Incidentally, we don't need to project the future; we can look to the past. In his first year in office, Obama oversaw tax cuts for most people, and yet countless Republican rank-and-file complained that their taxes had been increased.

It's kind of like the conservative paranoia that Obama is moving to take away their guns. In fact, the only action Obama and the Democrats have taken since 2008 has been to extend gun rights. But if you talk to most rank and file conservatives or their leaders, they will tell you just the opposite. In the main, the leaders are lying and know they are lying, but the conservative rank and file are dupes who honestly believe what they are told.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 174710)
Since I don't believe such conspiracies I would have liked if you hinted to the details, but the part about NAFTA is probably enough. Why would educated and informed people would want to deliberately undermine American labor?

Because it's expensive! They would rather not pay those "high" wages and salaries, or pay for those expensive benefits. They'd rather pay much, much less for labor and keep the difference for themselves. The wealthy have already been able to shift hundreds of billions (if not trillions) in wealth out of the hands of the middle class and into their own hands, but they've just gotten started. Things are going to get much worse.

Incidentally, I don't know what you do for a living, but I work in corporate America at a sort of middle-to-high level, and I can tell you flatly: there are frank and open discussions inside the walls where I work about how wages and benefits can be further cut. When NAFTA passed, there was practically dancing in the halls where I work, and my company hit the ground running, literally ready to exploit the new law on Day One.

Unit 08-10-2010 11:51 PM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 174709)
I think we were reading different articles. The only people that were willing to say that the peak of the Laffer Curve is below the current rate were Pat Buchanan, Larry Kudlow, and Donald Luskin. If it's demagogues and scam artists like that against actual serious people/economists on the left and the right like Bruce Bartlett, Greg Mankiw, Brad Delong and Dean Baker, that doesn't sound like a serious debate to me.

Well Ezra has an advantage here, since he's the one picking the spokesmen on either side. BTW recall that I would have sided with the ones who said "I don't know". And Mankiw's answer was more subtle...

Unit 08-11-2010 12:15 AM

Re: The Tax Fairy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 174714)
I never said anything like that. What I said was that despite the fact that Obama's tax plan would lower taxes on most Republicans, most Republicans would believe just the opposite: that Obama had increased their taxes. And the reason for this confusion? Because they are systematically lied to by conservative leaders, most prominently talk radio and Fox News, but extending to virtually all elected Republican leaders and other conservative pundits. There's nothing controversial about anything I've said here. We just know that conservative leaders will claim Obama has raised their taxes, and we just know that most conservative followers will believe them.

Incidentally, we don't need to project the future; we can look to the past. In his first year in office, Obama oversaw tax cuts for most people, and yet countless Republican rank-and-file complained that their taxes had been increased.

It's kind of like the conservative paranoia that Obama is moving to take away their guns. In fact, the only action Obama and the Democrats have taken since 2008 has been to extend gun rights. But if you talk to most rank and file conservatives or their leaders, they will tell you just the opposite. In the main, the leaders are lying and know they are lying, but the conservative rank and file are dupes who honestly believe what they are told.

If I'm uncertain about the side of the Laffer curve we happen to be on as far as general tax rates go, I'm quite certain that you cannot raise revenue simply "soaking" the rich. That has never happened, not even in Europe.

Also, there are different ways of "cutting" taxes, I don't think Obama has tweaked tax brackets so far, am I wrong.

Finally, let's talk political rhetoric: the impression one has is that the Dems have given out a lot of goodies, made a lot of promises, but have punted the ball on how to pay for them to future politicians, so I suspect the partisan line on the right is more that taxes *will* go up, for sure, on everyone.


Quote:


Because it's expensive! They would rather not pay those "high" wages and salaries, or pay for those expensive benefits. They'd rather pay much, much less for labor and keep the difference for themselves. The wealthy have already been able to shift hundreds of billions (if not trillions) in wealth out of the hands of the middle class and into their own hands, but they've just gotten started. Things are going to get much worse.

Incidentally, I don't know what you do for a living, but I work in corporate America at a sort of middle-to-high level, and I can tell you flatly: there are frank and open discussions inside the walls where I work about how wages and benefits can be further cut. When NAFTA passed, there was practically dancing in the halls where I work, and my company hit the ground running, literally ready to exploit the new law on Day One.
But those savings on wages are passed on to the consumers. Cost cutting means progress, if you disagree then you should also oppose cost-cutting technological advances. Suppose that a firm fires all its employees and replaces them with computers, how is it different from your NAFTA outsourcing scenario?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.