BoatShoes;894509 wrote:Actually it sounds more like the guy who said this "The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State." Hint, hint, Adam Smith who supported progressive taxation and got the ball rolling on this whole capitalism thingy.
[INDENT]Clearly, you've studied Adam Smith more than I. Can you find the quotes from Mr. Smith wherein he advocates half of the population pays no taxes? How about the quotes from him that show the top 10% of wage earners need to pay more than the 60% of the tax burden they already share? Where's the passage that defines what amount equates to, "paying their fair share".[/INDENT]
BoatShoes;894509 wrote:And, being as such that BHO has proposed the hike on personal income taxes to 39.6% on the top marginal rate to help reduce the deficit...not to redistribute to other people. the redistribution you irrationally fear and which Obama has never supported involves transfer payments from one person to another through things like SNAP or TANF. Furthermore, increasing taxes on those in the top marginal rate bracket to pay for payroll tax cuts and tax cuts for business owners is a more efficient way of stimulating the economy without having the tax raises negatively effect unemployment like say, firing FBI agents might, etc.
[INDENT]You use a lot of words so let me see if I understand your point. Are you suggesting that taking more money from the top earners and increasing goverment spending (with those same dollars collected from the top earners) is not a wealth redistribution policy? It's not an irrational fear, Boat. But taking more money out of the private sector so as to increase inefficient government spending in some forelorn hope that it will spur the economy is indeed something to fear as it has not worked since Rosie the Riveter was building planes in an all out war against Socialist Nazis.[/INDENT]
BoatShoes;894509 wrote:Additionally, although it is disingenuous for BHO to refer to those in the top marginal rate bracket as "millionaires and billionaires" it is not that far off. A person's taxable income is not the salary they agreed to with their boss but the income left over after the plethora of distortionary deductions we now have in the code. For a Married Couple to be in the top marginal tax bracket they're going to have to earn more than $250,000 a year in ordinary income.
[INDENT]Looks like the Obama Kool Aid is working for ya.
Are you suggesting that people who have an AGI of $1,000,000 actually write off and take deductions totalling over $750,000 in order to get to a max of $250,000? Or, are you suggesting that income should not be taxed and we should institute a tax on wealth? Don't we already have that with the Capital Gains tax AND the DEATH Tax?
[/INDENT]
BoatShoes;894509 wrote:But as to your claim about "marxism," there is a serious difference between governments actively using fiscal policy in ways that can lower unemployment while also mitigating medium term deficit impact and government ownership of all private property so much so that failing to delineate between the begs the question as to whether one who is making the assertion you are is capable of having an adult conversation.
[INDENT]Redistribution of wealth and capital is certainly in Obama's makeup. He said so. He wrote so. His father expounded so. But you feel the need to question my age because you've previously posted he's the 2nd coming of Ronald Wilson Reagan.
[/INDENT]
BoatShoes;894509 wrote:One thing though that Barry should trump up more is a cut in the marginal rates on corporations. Tax receipts from taxes on corporations have averaged only 1.4% of GDP the last two years so reducing those marginal rates would have a lesser impact on our deficit and, at the very least, combat the idea the he is anti-capitalist, etc. He mentioned doing it in his speech but he should trump it up more IMHO. There is little evidence in the literature to suggest that it will increase investment in capital goods as much of this comes from retained earnings and internally generated funds stemming from spending by governments, individuals and businesses but he needs to do something to hard and solid to fight the unsupported notion that he's an anti-capitalist.
[INDENT]Careful, Boat. You're going to have your subscription the the Krugman Manifesto Diaries cancelled on you.
[/INDENT]
BoatShoes;894509 wrote:But finally, Adam Smith would not think a higher marginal rate for taxable income above $250,000 for a married couple is "marxist" nor contrary to the ideals of capitalism and wealth creation but wholly consistent with the concept of a social contract so perhaps you shouldn't either.
[INDENT]Yeah, you're probably right. Raising taxes never has unintended consequences. Like the luxury boat tax a few years ago...that didn't affect the boat workers too much did it? Or like having a corporate tax rate of 35% won't chase jobs and headquarters overseas to the UK. Or like raising taxes on cigarette smokers will increase tax revenue. Keep finding those Smith quotes that defend your point of view. My hunch is that there are thousands that are in direct disagreement with your opinions that we'll never read about.[/INDENT]
rivate investment—remains deeply depressed. Gross private domestic fixed investment fell steeply after the second quarter of 2007, and in the second quarter of 2011 it remained 19 percent below its pre-recession peak. This figure fails to show how bad the investment situation really is, however, because the bulk of the investment spending now taking place is for what the accountants call the ”capital consumption allowance,” the amount estimated as necessary to compensate for the wear and tear and obsolescence of the existing capital stock.
That can't be; it flies in the face of 'change we can believe in'!
