New American Dream is to have a JOB.

#3
#3
"The most dismaying signal of a weakening economy came from the American consumer, as retail sales fell a stunning 0.5 percent in June, far below the expectation for a 0.2 percent increase. An astounding 70 percent of retailers missed their sales targets in June, reflecting the most difficult month since November 2009. The retail weakness was broad-based, and indicators were down dramatically from the first quarter, as June represented the third month in a row that retail sales have weakened. In the past when retail sales were down three consecutive months, it was a signal of an oncoming recession. The result is that the underlying trend in GDP growth is barely above 1 percent."



Supply side economics will not fix that problem.


/thread /discussion
 
#4
#4
lawgator1 said:
"The most dismaying signal of a weakening economy came from the American consumer, as retail sales fell a stunning 0.5 percent in June, far below the expectation for a 0.2 percent increase. An astounding 70 percent of retailers missed their sales targets in June, reflecting the most difficult month since November 2009. The retail weakness was broad-based, and indicators were down dramatically from the first quarter, as June represented the third month in a row that retail sales have weakened. In the past when retail sales were down three consecutive months, it was a signal of an oncoming recession. The result is that the underlying trend in GDP growth is barely above 1 percent."



Supply side economics will not fix that problem.


/thread /discussion
Click to expand...

and throwing money at 93 million under and unemployed will fix the problem?

oh wait, let me guess, you agree with Pelosi that unemployment checks stimulate the economy, don't you?

great idea, take money out of the hands of productive people and give it, with no strings attached, to unproductive people.
 
#5
#5
lawgator1 said:
"The most dismaying signal of a weakening economy came from the American consumer, as retail sales fell a stunning 0.5 percent in June, far below the expectation for a 0.2 percent increase. An astounding 70 percent of retailers missed their sales targets in June, reflecting the most difficult month since November 2009. The retail weakness was broad-based, and indicators were down dramatically from the first quarter, as June represented the third month in a row that retail sales have weakened. In the past when retail sales were down three consecutive months, it was a signal of an oncoming recession. The result is that the underlying trend in GDP growth is barely above 1 percent."



Supply side economics will not fix that problem.


/thread /discussion
Click to expand...
surely you're kidding again?

do you not think this is an unemployment / capital spending issue? If you can't see the forest for the trees, you'll keep on seeing through this horrendously myopic lens you have and never see the long term solution. The best economic run America has seen post-industrial boom was driven by ten years of enormous levels of small business investment.
 
#7
#7
MG1968 said:
and throwing money at 93 million under and unemployed will fix the problem?

oh wait, let me guess, you agree with Pelosi that unemployment checks stimulate the economy, don't you?

great idea, take money out of the hands of productive people and give it, with no strings attached, to unproductive people.
Click to expand...


Be better to give to middle class taxpaying families, yes. Much better than giving more to the one percent, who are not investing in job creating platforms even now.
 
#8
#8
lawgator1 said:
Be better to give to middle class taxpaying families, yes. Much better than giving more to the one percent, who are not investing in job creating platforms even now.
Click to expand...

again, rather than understand why the money is on the sidelines, it's much easier to simply say give it to someone else for a short term shot in the arm from pure consumption spending. One approach has a prayer of long term help, the other has no prayer whatsoever at being anything more than vote buying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
lawgator1 said:
Be better to give to middle class taxpaying families, yes. Much better than giving more to the one percent, who are not investing in job creating platforms even now.
Click to expand...

why would you not give it to both? If we all agree that tax relief stimulates the economy (which is a proven unequivocal historical fact) then why is it not good enough for all that are paying into the system? I just don't get the line of thinking here. With Democrats tax breaks are only good some of the time. Why not have long term tax relief to all? Simply put, that would require spending reductions of taxpayer funds and that is not in their ideology.
 
#10
#10
BigPapaVol said:
again, rather than understand why the money is on the sidelines, it's much easier to simply say give it to someone else for a short term shot in the arm from pure consumption spending. One approach has a prayer of long term help, the other has no prayer whatsoever at being anything more than vote buying.
Click to expand...

Agreed. People do not understand the sheer amount of cash that corporations are sitting on right now. There is going to be a huge infusion in the economy whenever they feel the environment is right for investment.
 
#11
#11
BigPapaVol said:
again, rather than understand why the money is on the sidelines, it's much easier to simply say give it to someone else for a short term shot in the arm from pure consumption spending. One approach has a prayer of long term help, the other has no prayer whatsoever at being anything more than vote buying.
Click to expand...


$2,000 a year for a family living on $50k, sustained over a four to five year period, means new furniture, maybe a new car, clothing, perhaps a couple of vacations. Characterizing that as going down to the Quickmart to buy cigarettes and candy is intentionally understating the effect that such money could have as a "short term shot in the arm."

Compare it to giving millionaires or corporations more tax breaks or cuts in their rates. The reason they aren't investing now is because there is no demand. Why hire people and build a new factory, movie theatre, or restaurant when the ones out there now are underutilized and losing money?

You want to give them a reason to unleash all that investment cash just sitting there right now? As the question posits-- you have to give them a reason. And the only reason not out there right now is customers.

Tax break for middle class = customers = demand = growth and employment.

Tax break for the 1 percent = more money in bank accounts and bonds. Great for the finance industry. But we continue the slide to recession.
 
#12
#12
LG, you clearly have no concept of savings as it correlates to capital investment. Maybe that linkage will help you understand.

Giving, for multiple years, to everyone under 50K, who already pay no federal taxes, is one of the most ridiculous proposals I've ever seen for generating lasting economic impact.
 
#13
#13
lawgator1 said:
$2,000 a year for a family living on $50k, sustained over a four to five year period, means new furniture, maybe a new car, clothing, perhaps a couple of vacations. Characterizing that as going down to the Quickmart to buy cigarettes and candy is intentionally understating the effect that such money could have as a "short term shot in the arm."

Compare it to giving millionaires or corporations more tax breaks or cuts in their rates. The reason they aren't investing now is because there is no demand. Why hire people and build a new factory, movie theatre, or restaurant when the ones out there now are underutilized and losing money?

You want to give them a reason to unleash all that investment cash just sitting there right now? As the question posits-- you have to give them a reason. And the only reason not out there right now is customers.

Tax break for middle class = customers = demand = growth and employment.

Tax break for the 1 percent = more money in bank accounts and bonds. Great for the finance industry. But we continue the slide to recession.
Click to expand...

Then five years down the road, and they're in debt and we've had another fake built up market bust. We'd be no better off then now, besides being deeper in debt, and kicking the can down the road a little bit more.
 
#16
#16
lawgator1 said:
I think you will find that the number of people who believe in trickle down is much lower than you had hoped. And going down even more every day.
Click to expand...
of course it is. Who wants to deal with the reality that the rich guy they're voting to more heavily tax is the one actually paying the bills?
 
#17
#17
BigPapaVol said:
of course it is. Who wants to deal with the reality that the rich guy they're voting to more heavily tax is the one actually paying the bills?
Click to expand...


I agree that anyone earns any income at all ought to be paying on that.

And I further think that someone making that same amount of money by investing should pay the same exact amount as the guy making that working at a local store or factory.
 
#18
#18
lawgator1 said:
I agree that anyone earns any income at all ought to be paying on that.

And I further think that someone making that same amount of money by investing should pay the same exact amount as the guy making that working at a local store or factory.
Click to expand...

that's a different argument than pure theft to encourage short term consumption at the expense of long term I.

The debate about cap gains is legit, but double taxation is problematic and further impediment to savings is a huge problem for future job growth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#19
#19
BigPapaVol said:
that's a different argument than pure theft to encourage short term consumption at the expense of long term I.

The debate about cap gains is legit, but double taxation is problematic and further impediment to savings is a huge problem for future job growth.
Click to expand...


If I invest $100 into a stock and sell it for $150, you claim that it is double taxation to tax the $50, since tax must have been paid, either on me getting the $100to invest to begin with, or the corporation having paid tax on its profit, leaving the $50 for me.

If I paint houses, and am paid $50 for my work, why isn't that double taxed by the same logic? Either it is double taxed because the guy paying the contractor I work for had to earn the money that leaves me with $50, or, if I am paid directly, the guy who hired me had to earn the $50 to pay me, and he was taxed on his own earnings.

Every dollar is taxed multiple times as it moves through the economy, as long as it translates work into some kind of money. If you want to argue we ought to come up with a system to avoid that, fine, but I don't see that as particularly feasible at the moment.

Point is, distinguishing capital gains as "double taxed" versus income derived from labor is a bogus distinction, and always has been.
 
#20
#20
lawgator1 said:
If I invest $100 into a stock and sell it for $150, you claim that it is double taxation to tax the $50, since tax must have been paid, either on me getting the $100to invest to begin with, or the corporation having paid tax on its profit, leaving the $50 for me.

If I paint houses, and am paid $50 for my work, why isn't that double taxed by the same logic? Either it is double taxed because the guy paying the contractor I work for had to earn the money that leaves me with $50, or, if I am paid directly, the guy who hired me had to earn the $50 to pay me, and he was taxed on his own earnings.

Every dollar is taxed multiple times as it moves through the economy, as long as it translates work into some kind of money. If you want to argue we ought to come up with a system to avoid that, fine, but I don't see that as particularly feasible at the moment.

Point is, distinguishing capital gains as "double taxed" versus income derived from labor is a bogus distinction, and always has been.
Click to expand...

As in $100 that you could have made painting houses?
 
#21
#21
Hold up. You're arguing that we should add more impediment to investment. I know it follows with the ridiculous argument you've been making about structural change the economy and there never being a solution to our "demand" problem, but stop doing so with me. Make that argument to folks who like the handout solution and believe it viable for addressing our "structural" issues. You and volprof, the history guru, can have a ball with one another and never know that your idea breaks the system.
 
#22
#22
lawgator1 said:
Every dollar is taxed multiple times as it moves through the economy, as long as it translates work into some kind of money. If you want to argue we ought to come up with a system to avoid that, fine, but I don't see that as particularly feasible at the moment.

Point is, distinguishing capital gains as "double taxed" versus income derived from labor is a bogus distinction, and always has been.
Click to expand...

If we taxed investment income at the same rate that we tax other forms of income, the market would crash in a hurry.
 
#23
#23
BigPapaVol said:
Hold up. You're arguing that we should add more impediment to investment. I know it follows with the ridiculous argument you've been making about structural change the economy and there never being a solution to our "demand" problem, but stop doing so with me. Make that argument to folks who like the handout solution and believe it viable for addressing our "structural" issues. You and volprof, the history guru, can have a ball with one another and never know that your idea breaks the system.
Click to expand...


You think that if Mitt Romney's money manager knew that Romney's taxes were going up on capital gains he'd stop investing ?

Please.
 
#24
#24
lawgator1 said:
You think that if Mitt Romney's money manager knew that Romney's taxes were going up on capital gains he'd stop investing ?

Please.
Click to expand...

You do know that the amount of potential gains depends on the amount of risk right?

If you're going to get killed on the tax rate, why put your money at risk for helping a promising start up business?

You treat money and investing like its in a vacuum.
 
#25
#25
lawgator1 said:
You think that if Mitt Romney's money manager knew that Romney's taxes were going up on capital gains he'd stop investing ?

Please.
Click to expand...

what? are you saying that he doesn't evaluate investments on the merit, to include the tax bill, and weigh it against the risk?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top