From Aziz Ansari's Twitter

#26
#26
both but the govt one was the biggest issue. Not to mention we were actually in a recovery mode from a few different events
 
#27
#27
utvolpj said:
both but the govt one was the biggest issue. Not to mention we were actually in a recovery mode from a few different events
Click to expand...

Are you refering to the tech bubble?

I agree that we have a spending problem. Looking objectively, decreasing revenue while increasing spending (which both parties are guilty of) is a recipe for disaster. Just from trying to be as nonpartisan as possible and looking at the evidence before me, tax cuts have not produced their desired effects.

Not trying to be difficult, but if it tax cuts undoubtedly creates jobs, I still don't see why we have so much unemployment and underemployment. To me, consumers drive the economy not producers. Consumers don't have enough buying power to fuel a true recovery.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#28
#28
JayVols said:
Are you refering to the tech bubble?

I agree that we have a spending problem. Looking objectively, decreasing revenue while increasing spending (which both parties are guilty of) is a recipe for disaster. Just from trying to be as nonpartisan as possible and looking at the evidence before me, tax cuts have not produced their desired effects.
Click to expand...

tech bubble followed by a rather large plane crash or 3. It took a while to come back from that

JayVols said:
Not trying to be difficult, but if it tax cuts undoubtedly creates jobs, I still don't see why we have so much unemployment and underemployment. To me, consumers drive the economy not producers. Consumers don't have enough buying power to fuel a true recovery.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

So how would increased taxes give the consumer more buying power? Create or save, can you really tell the difference in an economy going under? Can you say spending money will create jobs? We were told spending a trillion dollars on stimulus would do the same and we can see how that worked

Cut the stupid spending, cut taxes (or reform the code) and get govt out of the people's way. The people in DC aren't going to fix this by getting more involved
 
#30
#30
utvolpj said:
tech bubble followed by a rather large plane crash or 3. It took a while to come back from that



So how would increased taxes give the consumer more buying power? Create or save, can you really tell the difference in an economy going under? Can you say spending money will create jobs? We were told spending a trillion dollars on stimulus would do the same and we can see how that worked

Cut the stupid spending, cut taxes (or reform the code) and get govt out of the people's way. The people in DC aren't going to fix this by getting more involved
Click to expand...


I understand the other that you were refering to now.

After I submitted my previous post, I realized that I wasn't very clear on my point. The tax cuts enacted were top-heavy. The upper 5% of an economy can't sustain it when it is as large as ours. I would favor larger tax cuts for the middle class. That would give consumers more ammo to fuel a recovery.

Spending in the form of reinvestment/expansion does create jobs. I go back to one of my earlier thoughts: tax cuts for this type of behavior, I support. Hoping that tax cuts are used for these activities hasn't worked.

As to the stimulus not creating jobs. Looking at the situation from my pov, there is as much evidence that top-heavy tax cuts create jobs as there is that the stimulus created jobs. Neither have worked.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#31
#31
why should the successful be penalized more just because they worked and achieved? Does everyone not have that chance? They already pay a huge amount of the taxes taken in every year. Allow corps to invest more of their money on people and send less to the govt and things will change too.

The govt is targeting the wrong people. Don't allow people to sit on their ass for 2 yrs while collecting a check and I would bet a large amount of money that the unemployment rate goes down quickly
 
#34
#34
utvolpj said:
why should the successful be penalized more just because they worked and achieved? Does everyone not have that chance? They already pay a huge amount of the taxes taken in every year. Allow corps to invest more of their money on people and send less to the govt and things will change too.

The govt is targeting the wrong people. Don't allow people to sit on their ass for 2 yrs while collecting a check and I would bet a large amount of money that the unemployment rate goes down quickly
Click to expand...

I totally agree on the check collectors. Without welfare changes that encourage career recipients to seek employment, we are in trouble, deeper trouble than we are in now.. I can agree to a point on unemployment benefits, but the results in a sluggish economy would possibly result in a couple of scenarios: 1. They apply for and receive welfare/food stamps, etc and remain on the govt dime (see above comments on welfare) or 2.They take minimum wage jobs or close to that which is arguably better than paying them for not working, but does little to encourage economic expansion buy raising buying power. This further perpetuates our non growth. I honestly have no answer other than decent wage job expansion.

I don't favor penalizing anyone. We all share an interest in improving the economy. Our economy has been the strongest when we have had a healthy middle class. The economic boom of post WWII saw 60% of the population as being middle class. Much demand that fueled the boom came from earnings from war bonds/ earnings from war production and rationing due to the war. People wanted to buy items that were restricted and for the 1st time since the depression, they had the means to do so. The resulting buying spree resulted in a very prosperous time that gives legitimacy that consumers, given the proper buying power, fuels recovery more than producers. Producers simply respond to consumer demands. I am not insinuating any type of class warfare argument. I am simply looking at our economic history. When the middle class struggles so does our economy. Right now, a good portion of the middle class is hurting bad and it is shrinking. Corporate profits are at very high levels, some are at record levels. Not very much is transferring on down the ladder as much as it should. Productivity is at extremely high levels. People that are working are working hard for less. Workers may not invest money, but they surely invest other assets into companies with the return of, to a large
degree, just being thankful they have a job.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#36
#36
utvolpj said:
why should the successful be penalized more just because they worked and achieved? Does everyone not have that chance? They already pay a huge amount of the taxes taken in every year. Allow corps to invest more of their money on people and send less to the govt and things will change too.

The govt is targeting the wrong people. Don't allow people to sit on their ass for 2 yrs while collecting a check and I would bet a large amount of money that the unemployment rate goes down quickly
Click to expand...


Absolutely not.
 
#37
#37
govols120 said:
The fact that people find Dane Cook or Daniel Tosh funny and not Aziz Ansari is sad.
Click to expand...


I like Tosh's stand up. The show is sometimes funny, but frequently infantile.

Dane Cook is not remotely funny. He's actually really awful, imo.
 
#38
#38
You got swindled was some hilarious stuff.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#40
#40
JayVols said:
I understand the other that you were refering to now.

After I submitted my previous post, I realized that I wasn't very clear on my point. The tax cuts enacted were top-heavy. The upper 5% of an economy can't sustain it when it is as large as ours. I would favor larger tax cuts for the middle class. That would give consumers more ammo to fuel a recovery.

Spending in the form of reinvestment/expansion does create jobs. I go back to one of my earlier thoughts: tax cuts for this type of behavior, I support. Hoping that tax cuts are used for these activities hasn't worked.

As to the stimulus not creating jobs. Looking at the situation from my pov, there is as much evidence that top-heavy tax cuts create jobs as there is that the stimulus created jobs. Neither have worked.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

the tax cuts weren't top heavy - they lowered taxes for everyone. if you pay more taxes and get an 8% cut vs a 10% cut it may seem top heavy but the truth is over 40% of households pay no income tax as a result of the Bush tax cuts. It's a historically large tax cut for the lower and middle class but because the rich gained wealth at the same time it appears top heavy.

The payroll tax cut of last year (and that is being proposed) is not at all top heavy but it's hard to show that it has had any more or less stimulative effect than the Bush cuts that were extended.

now our Prez is saying extending the payroll tax cut will create jobs but raising taxes on the rich will not negatively impact jobs. I call BS on that - it's class warfare rather than economic strategy
 
#41
#41
Trickle Down Theory has proven to not work. Anyone disagree?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#44
#44
volinbham said:
the tax cuts weren't top heavy - they lowered taxes for everyone. if you pay more taxes and get an 8% cut vs a 10% cut it may seem top heavy but the truth is over 40% of households pay no income tax as a result of the Bush tax cuts. It's a historically large tax cut for the lower and middle class but because the rich gained wealth at the same time it appears top heavy.

The payroll tax cut of last year (and that is being proposed) is not at all top heavy but it's hard to show that it has had any more or less stimulative effect than the Bush cuts that were extended.

now our Prez is saying extending the payroll tax cut will create jobs but raising taxes on the rich will not negatively impact jobs. I call BS on that - it's class warfare rather than economic strategy
Click to expand...

Ok, I agree that it was across the board cuts, but the largest percentage of cuts were on the top and bottom of the socio-economic ladder.
The lowest rate went from 15% to 10% and the highest went from 39.6% to 35%, cuts of 5% and 4.6% respectively. The more middle incomes saw rate decreases of only 2%. My point is that the middle income/class, if you must, received the lowest cuts, and those people are what drives our economy through spending. I simply think the cuts were not given to the proper groups to spur the economy. I am not anti-tax cuts per se. I am pro-targeted tax cuts as a reward for desired behavior. I would say, perhaps erroneously, that those that were in the 2% cut bracket have spent that money as intended: on goods and services. Those that got the 4.6% cut have not created jobs with their cut.

I really am not trying to be a smart azz. Really. But, in regards to these cuts as executed, I quote John Boehner, "Where are the jobs?" since the cuts?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#45
#45
JayVols said:
I really am not trying to be a smart azz. Really. But, in regards to these cuts as executed, I quote John Boehner, "Where are the jobs?" since the cuts?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I believe that job growth from 2004 to 2008 was highly positive (see data below)

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

so after the cuts of 2001 and 2003 we saw 4 years of rapid job growth erasing all the job loss from 2000 and resulting in net job growth for Bush presidency.

Now, is all that due to tax cuts? Absolutely not but they likely had a positive effect on economic growth - the real driver of job growth.

As evidence, Obama has extended those cuts. Why? Because raising taxes is recognized by virtually all economists as having a negative impact on economic growth.

So what is the argument vis a vis jobs for raising taxes on the rich?
 
#46
#46
volinbham said:
I believe that job growth from 2004 to 2008 was highly positive (see data below)

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

so after the cuts of 2001 and 2003 we saw 4 years of rapid job growth erasing all the job loss from 2000 and resulting in net job growth for Bush presidency.

Now, is all that due to tax cuts? Absolutely not but they likely had a positive effect on economic growth - the real driver of job growth.

As evidence, Obama has extended those cuts. Why? Because raising taxes is recognized by virtually all economists as having a negative impact on economic growth.

So what is the argument vis a vis jobs for raising taxes on the rich?
Click to expand...

If I read the graph correctly Bush ended his Presidency with the number of jobs created basically even with the start. Yes, there were increases in the middle, but if the cuts were continued, shouldn't job creation have continued or at least not fallen sharply at the end despite the events at the time?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#48
#48
Actually the upper middle rates dropped 3% not 2%. All tax payers got the 5% drop since they all earn in the lowest bracket. Child credits and child dependent care credits also increased.
 
#49
#49
JayVols said:
If I read the graph correctly Bush ended his Presidency with the number of jobs created basically even with the start. Yes, there were increases in the middle, but if the cuts were continued, shouldn't job creation have continued or at least not fallen sharply at the end despite the events at the time?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Why should that be the case? Do you believe tax rates are the only impact on jobs?

We have been at a steady state on tax rates for 8 - 10 years.

I guess the key counter question is how would raising taxes on the wealthy create jobs?
 
#50
#50
volinbham said:
Why should that be the case? Do you believe tax rates are the only impact on jobs?

We have been at a steady state on tax rates for 8 - 10 years.

I guess the key counter question is how would raising taxes on the wealthy create jobs?
Click to expand...


No. There are many impacts, but what is being tried now isn't working too well.

I agree with tax cuts, larger cuts even, IF it is based on money reinvested in a company to expand at home and creates US jobs. I am just not too keen on off the top cuts with the hopes that it will be used for the above. If the reasoning for the tax cuts is to create jobs, tie the cuts to that condition.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top