Sunday, September 19, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
The government should be the port of last call, not a universal entitlement for everybody, so it's a matter of using scarce resources in the most fair and equitable way.
Said by, Ruth Richardson, the former New Zealand Finance Minister.
Gibbs said the middle class should not be used as a political football by Republicans maneuvering to give tax cuts to wealthy taxpayers, who he said don't need the reductions. Republicans say paring taxes for the wealthy would encourage them and the businesses they operate to create jobs.
Of course, Democrats are using the same political maneuvering and trying to incite class warfare at every turn. But who the hell is he to say whether or not these people need their own money? This is the main problem that I have with liberals - they believe that your own money isn't yours.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
So an article came out today where the House Republican leader, Boehner, today said he will support a law that keeps the tax rates for those earning under 200,000 the same and increases tax rates for those making over. The last paragraph says,
At a White House news conference Friday, Obama described the Republican proposal for a tax extension for the highest of earners as an effort "to give an average of $100,000 to millionaires."What is Obama really saying here? What is this per year? Per decade? A lifetime? Because if yearly that would imply an annual salary of $3,333,333 and that would be a pretty large average salary. He certainly must not be talking about the median salary above that tax bracket. Also, he has repeatedly stated that he wants to raise taxes on those individuals earning over $200,000. Does Obama think that everybody who makes over $200,000 a year is a millionaire? I bet this is news to a lot of people.
And who are the millionaires in this country? Obama would have you believe they are only people on Wall Street bagging million dollar salaries. But Stanley's, "The Millionaire Next Door" provides some answers. Generally they are people in their 50s and 60s who have lived below their means, invested their earnings, and accumulated wealth over time. They probably had good jobs but most weren't making over $200,000 a year.
Oh and about all those Wall Streeters who are making $200-300,000 a year... to most people who live in smaller cities that sounds like a lot, but after the federal, state and local governments eat through half and then they pay 30,000 a year in rent, that only amounts to a good job equivalent for smaller cities. Think those making $85-100k a year. They've got bills too, and these people don't become millionaires overnight.
So who is getting the $100k Obama is talking about with this statement?
And really, who is doing the giving here? The government taking less of worker's own hard-earned money amounts to "giving" the worker money? Karl Marx and George Orwell would be very proud of Obama. He studied hard.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
And I'd like to mention about that bullshit promise of not raising taxes on anyone making under $250,000: he plans to raise the capital gains and dividend taxes. Duh! Not only 'rich' people own stocks!!
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Does more, eh? Where's your data? This is the problem with journalists who know nothing about economics, they just make stuff up without support. Whatever sounds good to them is what they will advocate.
Spending money is only good for the short term. Saving and investing leads to more consumption later. Like always, we face trade-offs. Advocating policy that leads to artificial spending now might make things feel better, but what do you think happens when those policies are lifted?
You think the cash for clunkers program was effective? All it did was transfer money from tax payers to the auto industries. It was a bailout, plain and simple. Just like the housing tax credits, all it did was move buying decisions around and cause the tax payer to lose. If a firm cannot earn a profit because they have promised too many benefits and cannot compete on the global economy, they should be allowed to meet their demise.
Once again Leonhardt fails to understand the concept of a control case. The economy was already on a downward spiral handed over from Clinton. What does Leonhardt expect, the tax cut takes effect and suddenly all problems are cured? No clearly things would take some time and also, what would have happened without the tax cuts? Also, you cite the 2001 cuts, but not the 2003 cuts which were stronger because they phased the tax cuts in at a faster rate (instead of the rates dropping in 2006, they dropped in 2003) and growth exploded the following quarters.
Also, I like how you provide invalid references (sarcasm). Also, you fail to understand that employment lags. The economy can start to do better but unemployment can lag for years, just like in this recession. A better metric is the GDP growth rate, and you will find that GDP grew strongly after his tax cut.
Taxes matter more than you think. Assuming all tax rates go up here: If I make 100k a year and my taxes go up an extra 3,000, do you think I don't feel that? And since my take home pay would be nearly 50k, that would represent 6% of my income. If I make 250,000 that is an extra 7,500, and that is on top of an extra progressive rate, so the actual increase in the tax burden is several percentage points higher.
Liberals like you love to tax away other people's money to spend on your socialist pet projects. You agree that taxes matter, but then downplay its importance with the caveat that follows. If taxes aren't that big of a deal, then why does the government spend so much time manipulating consumer behavior with the tax code (think cigarrette taxes, green rebates, mortgage deductions, etc.)? The tax cuts went disproportionately to high-income tax households because they pay more of their income in taxes! Why do liberals consistently rant about how the wealthly benefited the most from tax cuts.? If I am earning 100k and my taxes go down three percent (for example), I get three thousand dollars back. If Bob makes 10k and his taxes go down three percent, he gets 300 back. Is it really unfair that I got a larger dollar amount? No, especiallly since I was paying a lot more in taxes than Bob was in the first place!