Tax cuts don't grow the economy
Posted in the Utica Forum
#1 Oct 8, 2008
Sound's good, but it's a myth. It's never happened. Partially because most corporations don't pay taxes anyway because of loopholes. The other part is because labor in this country is radically more expensive than in third world countries regardless of how many taxes are paid.
Reagan's SNL Crisis
Bush 41 had to raise taxes.
Bush 43's debacle.
Sometimes people have to pay and balance the check book.
Middle class tax cuts help, because they actually spend the money instead of letting it grow interest in a bank account, but not corporate taxes--IT'S A MYTH
#2 Oct 8, 2008
Where exactly do you get your facts?
Where is it exactly do you think that wealth and job creation come from? The government? Nope, they have no money of their own. They take from some and give to others. Any monet that the goverment has comes from taxes and fees.
The real myth is that corporation pay no taxes. Let's take one of the "villians du jour" as an example. Exxon. Exxon paid over $27 billion in taxes for the year 2007. To put that number in perspective, the lower 50% of all individual taxpayers(that includes part of the middle class) in the US paid about $27 billion over the previous 6 years combined. That means that Exxon paid more taxes in one year than 65 million taxpayers did for six years combined.
After the taxes are paid corporations like Exxon take a large chunk of the profit that's left and re-invest. That means they expand and create new jobs. When they create new jobs there are more taxpayers. When there are more taxpayers the government collects more taxes. When the corporations make more money so does the government. That's how the sytem works.
#3 Oct 8, 2008
Let's say our country's tax rate was 10 percent less than say China or Mexico.
The average worker in China and Mexico makes 80 percent less money than in this country.
So we would have to cut taxes to be 80 percent lower than those countries just to even out.
So-a five percent tax cut won't attract business that are cheap but it does take revenue away from our country and we're in a deficit.
#4 Oct 8, 2008
#5 Oct 8, 2008
Spot on! Government is the antithesis of a growing and prosperous economy. They do not create wealth, and are a hindrance to economic growth. The primary objective of government is to perpetuate it's existence, for the benefit of the beaureacratic elite, which includes our elected officials. They do this by exercising their various tax schemes to create class warfare and a redistribution of wealth.
In our current economic condition, our government is the only real growth industry. That alone should be a warning sign as to where the true problem exists. Government has grown way beyond it's prescribed Constitutional limitations and has become a burden on the taxpayers and the economy. If you are truly concerned about economic growth then the real solution would be to reduce the size of government to it's prescibed Constitutional limitations. That would mean, eliminating at minimum, half of our government's current largess. Constitutionally, our government should only be performing few necessary services and functions.
It's obvious that many have bought into the pablum mantra that tax cuts don't work. It's true! They don't work for the benefit of our government and it's officials!
If you follow the logic that tax cuts don't work , regardless of social class, then the logical conclusion would be that the government should confiscate 90-100% of all income as taxes, and then make the wise decisions that they have been known for, to bring our economy to ultimate prosperity.
Also, not one penny of our tax revenues go directly to the government for the purposes of providing those services. You won't hear that mentioned on the MSM. When you find out where they really go, then you will finally begin to discover the massive fraud that has been perpetuated on the American people since December 1913.
Turn of the TV! Stop listening to the MSM! Go read a good book on Austrian free market economics! Get educated!!
#6 Oct 8, 2008
WHEN HAS IT WORKED?
Brazil--government invest in Sugar Ethanol, the country is run on sugar now
Our government was the FIRST to invest in public education for all--we quickly became the smartest.
What's doing better now FEDERAL credit unions or private banks?
Who was responsible for Abu Grab==a private company.
The point is government has to do things we can't do for ourselves.
Form a military
build schools and roads
help the disabled
invest in science
REGULATE PRIVATE BUSINESS--like labor laws--anti-discrimination laws--safety procedures--anti-fraud prosecution
When the GOVERNMENT DOEST THIS SOMEONE HAS TO PAY THE BILLS--SORRY
#7 Oct 8, 2008
I'm not trying to be a smartazz but, can you comprehend this:
"If you are truly concerned about economic growth then the real solution would be to reduce the size of government to it's prescibed Constitutional limitations. That would mean, eliminating at minimum, half of our government's current largess. Constitutionally, our government should only be performing few necessary services and functions."
Some of those constitutionally authorized services include:
Military - Strong Defense
Infrastructure- Roads, Bridges and Highways
Coin, Regulate, Issue and Control our Monetary System - Which by the way they don't do. Our government unconstitutionally and illegally gave that job to the private Federal Reserve Cartel in December of 1913. So this is one function that they're supposed to do, which they don't. That's another whole story. By the way Federal Credit Unions still subscibe to the Federal Reserve System.
Department of Education - Not Constitutionally Authorized. Get rid of it!
As far as the government investing our money in anything...no thanks! That is also not constitutionally authorized.
Department of Energy- Not Constitutionally Authorized. Get rid of it!
The Federal Reserve System - Not Constitutionally Authorized. Get rid of it! The Federal Reserve is no more federal than Federal Express. The Treasury Department which is constitutionally authorized should have direct control over the whole monetary system and it's policies.
Other than some other minor functions that's about it. The last time I checked every elected official and bureaucrat takes an oath to support and defend the constitution as the supreme law of the land. If their not going to follow it, don't take an oath to it.
"When the GOVERNMENT DOEST THIS SOMEONE HAS TO PAY THE BILLS--SORRY"???
Like $500 toilet seats, right! No Thanks
#8 Oct 8, 2008
So you're against public education?
Good luck with that.
The thing about the constitution is that the country was 1/100 of the size, the world was a million miles wider and there was slavery, political duels and the lack of women's rights. Against those things too?
It can be changed--it has to be--because times change. BTW-the Bill of rights wasn't in the original constitution.
#9 Oct 8, 2008
You really should educate yourself about the constitution and it's intent before you speak. You are clearly out of your league on this. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to your facts.
#10 Oct 9, 2008
I agree 100%. I would suggest that everyone read the Constitution. It's that great public school monopoly that keeps many people like the posters here ignorant of real history and law.
#11 Oct 9, 2008
You're against public schools right?
YOu believe in slavery, not in women's rights or the Bill of Rights right?
Against Brown vs. the Board of Education right? Against desegregation?
Against the popular vote right? Remember, it WAS a congressional vote for the first three presidents.
Tell me why all these things are wrong.
#12 Oct 9, 2008
If you were to actually read and understand the Constitution and supporting documents you would understand the the FEDERAL government was never meant to have power over some the things you speak of. Those powers are left to the states.
"all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people." We are 180 degrees from what the Founders intended.
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you mention popular vote. What is it that you think happens now? The president is not elected by popular vote. Our electoral system is an indirect one. He/she is officially elected by the Electoral College. That is a group of actual people who get together and elect the President. They vote based on the popular vote but they are not legally bound to do that. They may vote for whomever they choose. This is soemthing that's actually happened in the last two presidential elections. Look it up. By the way, didn't Al Gore win the popular vote and lose the election in 2000 ?
As for public education, I am not against it. I am against an education system that is a goverment run monopoly dominated by labor unions. I am for performance based pay and employment in public schools. I am for allowing parents the right to send their children to the schools of their choice. Let the money follow the child. These things should be the decisions of New York in my case and not the United States government. That is, unless we the people vote to ammend the US Constitution.
#13 Oct 9, 2008
Agree! I'm not against public schools either. I just don't think that they should be centrally planned (collectivism/socialism). If you're going to have public schools I believe they should be local or states rights decisions.
Remember, anything that is centrally planned (statism) falls more in line with the principles of Marx's Communist Manifesto than it does with the freedom and liberty priciples enumerated in our Constitution and Bill or Rights.
The question about slavery clearly shows that he does not understand these fundemental principles in our Constitution and the intent of the founders. In fact it was the Supreme Court (a federal government entity) that ruled in favor of slavery and got other "landmark" decisions (like Roe v. Wade) "self evidently wrong.
I would recommend that if "ok" is interested in learning the facts about some of his civic queries a good primer would be Kevin R.C. Gutzman's book; "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution."
#14 Oct 9, 2008
Thomas E. Woods, Jr PhD's politically Incorrect Guide to American History is another.
#15 Oct 10, 2008
we need tax cuts
Utica Lies and Riggies
Since: May 14
#16 May 25, 2014
Add your comments below
|Charles shcumer is loser scum||8 min||I read dumb people||13|
|Trump is our next prophet and one||9 min||youreabigdickmomm...||3|
|Trump's Speech||13 min||Donny||5|
|I just pooped||21 min||Love corn||3|
|Nicole Famolaro||23 min||Love fish||2|
|john brooks is a nazirite||28 min||Been There||47|
|Women getting divirced||28 min||Fordham Nights||33|
|Comets cecelie and rob||32 min||Shady||29|
|Utica's Top ten unsolved mysteries (Mar '08)||1 hr||Danceing cherry||731|
|Scott Hayes||3 hr||katie fan two||20|
|The U P D cover-up||3 hr||More douc||113|
Find what you want!
Search Utica Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC