May 20, 2012 -- 11:06AM, aarroottoonn wrote:

I made it to the :50 mark before shutting it off for utter stupidity. He said that those who think, "the rich are job creators and should not be taxed..." Nobody is saying that. Nobody. At all. Ever.

Such hyperbole just exposes him as another idiot talking about things he obviously has no knowledge of, or understanding.

This guy is a multi-millionaire.  Clearly he knows a lot more about making money - and jobs - than you!

May 21, 2012 -- 6:11AM, Kwinters wrote:

May 20, 2012 -- 11:15PM, MMarcoe wrote:

May 20, 2012 -- 9:05AM, Kwinters wrote:

Cutting taxes for the rich and rolling back regulations - the faith-based economic model of the GOP - will do nothing to increase consumption in the middle class.

Well, there are a lot of regulations out there that are just plain bad. I have an employer who has been harassed by the state DNR over idiotic regulations that have nothing to do with her business, but the bureaucracy insists on enforcing them anyway.

There's room for removing a lot of the regulations on the books.

But that won't create a single job if demand remains constant.

And the bank deregulation in the late 1990s played a major role in the near-depression and associated hemmorage of jobs we suffered in the oughts.

May 20, 2012 -- 11:06AM, aarroottoonn wrote:

I made it to the :50 mark before shutting it off for utter stupidity. He said that those who think, "the rich are job creators and should not be taxed..." Nobody is saying that. Nobody. At all. Ever.

Such hyperbole just exposes him as another idiot talking about things he obviously has no knowledge of, or understanding.

Well, it's too bad that you missed out on the rest of his speech, then.  It was pretty insightful.  He made his points well.  Businesses will always operate with as few employees as possible.  A business will be incented to hire more people when increased consumer demand requires them to do so, not when they benefit from a tax cut.

May 20, 2012 -- 1:37PM, fodaoson wrote:

May 20, 2012 -- 11:02AM, aarroottoonn wrote:

May 18, 2012 -- 10:04AM, fodaoson wrote:

KW, Good post, and a good TED talk.   In a consumer based economy   a large middle class with some discretionary  spending  money drives a good economy.  During the 1950’s boom times of the American economy the marginal tax rates were higher on the highest incomes (non salary incomes )

Yep, that whole WWII which destroyed Europe and Japan, and left us virtually unscathed, had nothing to do with the 50's boom. Nor did the relaxation of quotas and the resumption of car makers making cars; houses being sold again, etc, etc. Success in the 50's was solely due to higher taxation upon the higher tax rates.

Um...yeah.

OF course the resurgence the world economy(ies)  after WWII has a lot to do with the US economy ,but the fact remains that the tax rates were a their highest from 1942 to 1960 and growth was not stifled.  Close examination of tax cuts since WWII  will show that  a tax cut does not increase revenues (tax receipts income for government) for  the five years following a cut or stimulate the GDP .    For example the 1954 rate cut ( top 92% dropped to 91%) reduced revenue

Federal Receipts (constant 2005 $)

Year         Receipts     ($ B)

 

1953          619

1954          599

1955          544

1956          591

1957          603

1958          567

 

Starting with the 1954, in the five year period prior to the cut, the first four were boom years, probably resulting from all of the money being spent on the Korean War. The last year, however, we went into a recession as that spending dried up and the troops came home. That might have been the impetus behind the tax cut. Nevertheless, the boom was so strong, the 5-year period showed a growth of 4.7%!

The  tax cut was substantial. While it only dropped the top tax rate from 92% to 91% and, 23 tax brackets later, the lowest tax bracket from 22.2% to 20%. It was the middle tax brackets that saw the largest decline. You can see from the chart that this tax cut did have the desired effect, only 2.9% growth in the next 5 years. 

It can be argued back that the tax cut of 1954 DID INDEED create revenue, up from 544 to 603B ... in a market that was falling prior to the tax cut [619 down to 544]  It was just so fricken small that it's effect was short lived.

I don't agree that you can make the claim you're making based on the numbers.

May 21, 2012 -- 6:11AM, Kwinters wrote:

May 20, 2012 -- 11:06AM, aarroottoonn wrote:

I made it to the :50 mark before shutting it off for utter stupidity. He said that those who think, "the rich are job creators and should not be taxed..." Nobody is saying that. Nobody. At all. Ever.

Such hyperbole just exposes him as another idiot talking about things he obviously has no knowledge of, or understanding.

This guy is a multi-millionaire.  Clearly he knows a lot more about making money - and jobs - than you!

Since you don't have any idea what I do, or have done, that statement may not be accurate. However, it doesn't matter if he is a multi millionaire. The bankers you bash so often are as well, and know about making money and creating jobs as well. That doesn't mean that they haven't done some stupid things. In addition, I didn't question his knowledge of job creation, I questioned his knowledge of what people actually say, and understanding what they actually mean. When one states that anyone says the rich shouldn't be taxed, it is clear that they don't know what they are talking about, and can be safely ignored, as they are either an idiot or a demogogue.