President vs. Arizona

[chickened]

Wealthy people invest, demands positions, creates a job creates an economy.

Government takes money, redistributes according to some one's idea, creates welfare dependency, eventually we all depend on Government.

This is where we are headed, they have run the working man into the ground with taxes and now they have their sights on the wealthy job creators in order to feed the welfare juggernaut.

 

[AquaEyes]

Trickle down economics does not work.

 

[hemet dennis]

Trickle down economics does not work.

It would if the spending was also cut but congress wont cut enough and keep it cut. If you only use part of a plan it will not give you the same results. Look at now we cut the payroll tax did it help ? It's not just one thing to fix the economy you need a whole plan.
Kennedy cut taxes and government income and the economy improved went up because he would not raise spending every year like we do now.
Nobody has ever been able to tell me how raising taxes on the people that create jobs makes more jobs.

 

[AquaEyes]

It would if the spending was also cut but congress wont cut enough and keep it cut. If you only use part of a plan it will not give you the same results. Look at now we cut the payroll tax did it help ? It's not just one thing to fix the economy you need a whole plan.
Kennedy cut taxes and government income and the economy improved went up because he would not raise spending every year like we do now.
Nobody has ever been able to tell me how raising taxes on the people that create jobs makes more jobs.

Because there's nothing that says they will create jobs here. If they pay less income tax, and can make more profit by shipping jobs overseas, then that's what they'll do. Our most prosperous economic periods coincided with much higher tax rates for the top 5%.

Job growth and prosperity in this country were higher when the tax rates for the upper 5% were also higher. Increased tax revenues allowed for public works projects, which employed more people at the bottom 95%. This meant increased spending by consumers, which prompted increased growth by producers. The difference between top-down and bottom-up economics is summarized nicely below:

Essentially, you could make life easier for the rich and hope they invest locally, or you could make life easier for the rest and know that they'll be buying more, which would automatically stimulate the producers.

 

[hemet dennis]

Because there's nothing that says they will create jobs here. If they pay less income tax, and can make more profit by shipping jobs overseas, then that's what they'll do. Our most prosperous economic periods coincided with much higher tax rates for the top 5%.

Job growth and prosperity in this country were higher when the tax rates for the upper 5% were also higher. Increased tax revenues allowed for public works projects, which employed more people at the bottom 95%. This meant increased spending by consumers, which prompted increased growth by producers. The difference between top-down and bottom-up economics is summarized nicely below:

Essentially, you could make life easier for the rich and hope they invest locally, or you could make life easier for the rest and know that they'll be buying more, which would automatically stimulate the producers.

You don't understand the effects of debt spending.

If you get twice as much money that is worth half as much do you think you can buy more ?

 

[hemet dennis]

Because there's nothing that says they will create jobs here. If they pay less income tax, and can make more profit by shipping jobs overseas, then that's what they'll do. Our most prosperous economic periods coincided with much higher tax rates for the top 5%.

Job growth and prosperity in this country were higher when the tax rates for the upper 5% were also higher. Increased tax revenues allowed for public works projects, which employed more people at the bottom 95%. This meant increased spending by consumers, which prompted increased growth by producers. The difference between top-down and bottom-up economics is summarized nicely below:

Essentially, you could make life easier for the rich and hope they invest locally, or you could make life easier for the rest and know that they'll be buying more, which would automatically stimulate the producers.

So when the tax rates were higher did we have the welfare and food stamps we have now ?

 

[AquaEyes]

You don't understand the effects of debt spending.

If you get twice as much money that is worth half as much do you think you can buy more ?

How is it debt spending if the tax burdens on the lower 95% are decreased, while the tax burdens on the upper 5% are increased, such that the total tax revenue is equal or greater than before?

 

[hemet dennis]

How is it debt spending if the tax burdens on the lower 95% are decreased, while the tax burdens on the upper 5% are increased, such that the total tax revenue is equal or greater than before?

So you want the top to pay even more (they pay over half now) and decrease the taxes on the middle.

You seem to forget we are spending 1 trillion dollars every year that we don't have.

 

[AquaEyes]

So when the tax rates were higher did we have the welfare and food stamps we have now ?

Are you claiming that food stamps and welfare caused the current economic condition? It could also be argued that the causal relationship went in the other direction. I'm not familiar with the history and figures of food stamps and welfare in this country, so I am not comfortable commenting further on it without taking the time to do research.

 

[AquaEyes]

So you want the top to pay even more (they pay over half now) and decrease the taxes on the middle.

You seem to forget we are spending 1 trillion dollars every year that we don't have.

So you're saying we should have the top pay even less?