Job Creators

[gcoll]

oh? and that has been born out where and when exactly?

What are you referring to?

[flea]

No.

I don't think there is any short term policy that does much of any good.

If there was a "way out of a depressed economy" that was as simple as increasing government spending or cutting taxes, or cutting spending, there wouldn't be recessions.

Not all recessions are created equal. Austerity fanatics get Ireland, Spain, Italy, and Greece. Keynesians get United States and Japan.

So let me get this straight though. You agree that austerity is bad in a recession. But you also believe nothing the government does helps a recession. These two ideas cannot co-exist. Either I'm mischaracterizing what you said or you don't really believe one of those things.

[gcoll]

So let me get this straight though. You agree that austerity is bad in a recession. But you also believe nothing the government does helps a recession. These two ideas cannot co-exist. Either I'm mischaracterizing what you said or you don't really believe one of those things.

Recognizing that short term benefits are outweighed by their long term costs is not inconsistent with concluding that austerity might be harmful in the short term.

Nor is it in any way inconsistent with saying that short term fiscal policy, overall, is ineffective in the long run.

Not all recessions are created equal. Austerity fanatics get Ireland, Spain, Italy, and Greece. Keynesians get United States and Japan.

Have most of the "austerity measures" even gone into effect yet? And don't a lot of their measures also include raising taxes?

[stephkyle7]

What are you referring to?

Since you ask, Ill attempt once more to address a point you raise from a open and honest perspective, ny fear is that you will,as it has been my experience reading your posts, ignore facts that dont support the idea you want to express and just continue insisting you are "right" even though there IS no factual reference to justify any position when dealing with Theory.

No where in history has your presumptive scenario been attempted.
Even under the circumstances youd like to paint with the idea, it ONLY bears fruit under a controlled enviorment.

If you give a million poor people, one million dollars , you are assuming, that "prices" will adjust. You have no factual evidence to support that. None what so ever.
Competition still exisits. Under the Bush administration, due to the continued deregulation of the banking sector, we saw the creation of more Millionaires then ever before.
This did not artificially inflate prices in the least.

Now although it is a little tangental (which youve made cear many times ,seems to put you out of sorts)The Bush Administration touted this fact , while ignoring that as Ive pointed out,the available wealth at any given time is finite, so those new "millionaires" fortunes didnt materialize out oif thin air, for people to become wealthier, others lose wealth.
Supply siders always talk as if there is a magical stream that wealth is created from, there is not.

So when you say that, you are basing it on the "theroies" of supply side economics, that are only valid under strict compliance to expected behaviours which are NEVER the case.
Additionally, you are assuming that with that Million dollars, the poor should(and need to ,to satisfy your model). spend ever penny on consumption and be back in the same boat that they started in.
Again, there is no historical basis for this claim.

Why couldnt they start a buisness with it like the "good" wealthy person might? Why couldnt they invest it like the Good wealthy person?
Again for your model to bear out people must conform to controlled behavior.

And lastly ,you seem to under the misperception that the Redistribution of wealth is strictly a matter of an economic model, it is not.
It is only half of the equation, the other half is limiting the unfettered manipulation of the market that having a great deal of power allows.
Much in like how we break monopolies so as to protect from them holding to much control in the market,plutocrats have the same power and excercise it ALL the time.

Much in the same vein as Ive attempted to get people to understand that a coprporation is little more then a defacto branch of the government having power and influnce over policy, so to are the plutocrats having so much disposable wealth available to buy influence and power to shape legislation to further benefit themselves as is evidenced by the comments made by Sheldon Adelson which Ive provided In the 49% thread.

He doesnt care one wit about, gay marriage, or gun control, hes pro choice, and wants socialized health care...but he votes Republican in an effort to crush unions and pay less taxes. When Rs win ,in any level of governance he uses his wealth to craft legislation that has little effect besides benefitting him personally at the expense of millions of others.

The short term benefit of stimulus, is not diminished by long term effects because it is not a long term goal, it is as the term suggests, a short term initiative to jump start spending, which in turn increases revenue.
Without spending, there is no job creation, without more jobs ,you will never increase revenue.
This increased taxation is a small measure towards a more appropriate balance.It will not effect anything other then producing a slight increase to revenue, the Economy, as it always has will GROW in response to these efforts(as it clearly has since Obamas term began) and supply siders will spin out some outside reason to disavow why their thinking was trumped.

[flea]

Recognizing that short term benefits are outweighed by their long term costs is not inconsistent with concluding that austerity might be harmful in the short term.

Nor is it in any way inconsistent with saying that short term fiscal policy, overall, is ineffective in the long run.

Okay so you agree it's harmful in the short run but good for long-term growth. But if any short term fiscal policy is ineffective in the short run, what is the disadvantage of mitigating suffering in the short-term and then reverting to a more austerity driven long-term policy when we've recovered?

Because I agree that many of the tenets of austerity are exactly what should be pursued during healthy economic times. But I also think that perpetual unemployment is not just a short-term harm - it casts a shadow over the long-term on growth. Additionally, we had a credit crisis that still hasn't shaken out yet and many believe (convincingly) that more harm is to come unless it's mitigated. Perpetual debt on a microeconomic level is even more harmful than public debt (which actually is healthy when it's reasonable).

Have most of the "austerity measures" even gone into effect yet? And don't a lot of their measures also include raising taxes?

I'm not really an expert but I know a lot of services have been cut, those nations are seeing huge level of unemployment and levels of unemployment under 30 that reach 50%. At least part of the austerity response to a crisis is "do nothing" before they cut more, and that's what the drag has been (so many economists argue).

[stephkyle7]

^ yes they have, Spain, England,and Greece have all but abandonded them completely.
Greece has been forced to continue some of the measures due to the complete insolvency they faced, not becaue they were having the desired effect.
But you touch upon an interesting idea flea, and it is one of the cornerstones of the great capitalist lie.

why indeed is it that it always has to bee one way or the other?
The simple answer that is entirely obvious is that it doesnt.
So then why is it always presented as such?
To keep people arguing, top keep us polarized and divided, and angry, and upset, people are distracted when they are emotional, people will cut off their noses to spite their faces, this allows for all the "fun and games' with the revenue that keeps the eliye on top.

[The Schmooze]

All this debate is is whether or not the richest Americans will have their taxes raised by 3%. That's it. Doing so will neither "punish job creators" nor "destroy our economy".

...but from even the most casual observer's point of view, we've seen over a decade with "trickle down" economic theory. Common sense tells us that if we try something and it does not work, then it's time to try something else.

[Jerry34]

This is one of my biggest problems with the tax code and the whole we shouldn't punish the job creators BS. There isn't a level playing field when a huge corporation can funnel income through Bermuda and not pay taxes on billions of dollars or revenue.

My small business can't do that.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...0-billion.html

[behindmydesk]

Well that's only partial cab. For instance, a company can expand but if taxes are limiting how high they can expand they will do only partial expansion or do it with used equipment which does little to the manufacturing part of the economy. We saw this with accelerated appreciation, at various times in the past 10 years, with 2011 year end being the last time. I had a few customers who opted to buy new from me because of that as opposed to getting older technology but still in better shape then their current equipment.

[cabernetluver]

Well that's only partial cab. For instance, a company can expand but if taxes are limiting how high they can expand they will do only partial expansion or do it with used equipment which does little to the manufacturing part of the economy. We saw this with accelerated appreciation, at various times in the past 10 years, with 2011 year end being the last time. I had a few customers who opted to buy new from me because of that as opposed to getting older technology but still in better shape then their current equipment.

I think we have taken a sharp turn into a side question.

While tax treatments can make some things more interesting, what they really are is an expenditure to subsidize that business hiding under a special treatment disguise. This is exactly what Alan Simpson has popularized as a tax expenditure. I am not on principle opposed to a subsidy if there is a good public interest.

Back to your first section, income and capital gain taxes are on profits. They are not limiting factors. The profit (or lack to be more specific) is the limiting factor.

[GasMan]

guys, Im going to try and simplify things in regards to the economy one last time...

concetration of wealth has led to the fall of Kingdoms and empires, it also has been directly linked to higher instances of mental health and substance abuse issues.

Austerity doesnt work because the ONLY thing that will truley grow an economy ,besides supply side voodoo economics, is wealth redistribution.

Just because supply side economics isn't valid, that doesn't make wealth redistribution the answer. Let's start by not perverting the system in the first place with targeted tax cuts since these benefit a few people who use their money and power to influence the system. This hurts the rest of the tax base and encourages a quid pro quo government. You don't have to give money back if you never took it in the first place.

When you give poor people other peoples money...they spend it.
At the grocery store, at the gas station, at Target, at K-mart, that in turn increases demand, and then you have job growth.

Job growth increses tax bases and then you have higher revenues.
Higher revenued ends deficet spending and allows you to pay off long term debt.

The only difference between this method and the republican method is to say let wealthy people KEEP more of thier money and THEY will create more hobs etc,etc, the problem as Ive said before is that the wealth creation they create continues to be JUST THEIR OWN,and the "trickle down" is only expressed in the stock market, in short, in retirement portfolois and long term assests, not in spending.
For an economy to GROW, wealth creation is SECONDARY TO SPENDING.
it shouldnt be that difficult a concept.

The problem is that it is too much like the "Republican method". I think, if we get rid of the crooked Sheriff of Notingham then we don't need a Robin Hood is a better method.

.

[stephkyle7]

^ that would be a really great place to start GM...my only concern would then be something I think weve disscussed before, I have no faith in the compliance of people, or companies in regaqrds to any rules, laws, or Guidelines.

There are some with great integrity, and there are way to many that lack it, the system always get manipulated,twisted,abused.
police corruption was the rule rather then the exception for 150 years.
Politcians have always abuswed their power, wealthy people have always leveraged their wealth to screw the poor...redistributing their gains IMO is the only way to keep them honest.

[GasMan]

I think that instead of re-engineering the system to try to get the outcome you want it would be better to work on improving transparency. When you impose taxes, rules and regulations that treat people differently you open the door for obfuscation, noncompliance, avoidance, and abuse and who has the best access to the lawmakers making these taxes, rules and regulations? Not you or me.

[The Schmooze]

I think that instead of re-engineering the system to try to get the outcome you want it would be better to work on improving transparency. When you impose taxes, rules and regulations that treat people differently you open the door for obfuscation, noncompliance, avoidance, and abuse and who has the best access to the lawmakers making these taxes, rules and regulations? Not you or me.

I think we need to find a way to get rid of money in politics. It's gotten to a point where money is free speech, and bribery is legal. The largest corporations spend more on lobbysts than they pay in taxes, and as "persons" they have the Constitutional right to do so.

That's why the government doesn't represent the people any longer. Who is an elected politician going to listen to, the grandmother who sent him a $200 check for his election or a corporation that gave him $80,000? When a handful of corporations are funding their campaigns, you better damn well believe they expect to be paid back.

[GasMan]

I think we need to find a way to get rid of money in politics. It's gotten to a point where money is free speech, and bribery is legal. The largest corporations spend more on lobbysts than they pay in taxes, and as "persons" they have the Constitutional right to do so.

That's why the government doesn't represent the people any longer. Who is an elected politician going to listen to, the grandmother who sent him a $200 check for his election or a corporation that gave him $80,000? When a handful of corporations are funding their campaigns, you better damn well believe they expect to be paid back.

Agree, GO FAIR TAX!