Taxing the Rich Won't Solve Deficit, Says Tax Foundation

Get the economy moving and the revenues will increase

 

Couldn't be farther from the truth

 

Taxing the Rich Won't Solve Deficit

Yeah? What WILL it solve?

 

Wealth redistribution. That is what it is all about.

 

Of course. The government can do that by promoting policies that will increase demand. You do that by putting real Americans back to work in good-paying jobs. That can be done, in part, by adjusting our immigration and trade policies.

 

It will redistribute wealth, which is a good thing.

 

That has never been an economic factor in all of history. we need to drill our own oil, build our own power plants and wind farms. We need our own industries and we need to woo businesses back into the country. Ease regs and taxes. The economy will move so fast it will make your head spin.

 

Read your history books, Sister. Years ago, right after the civil war, people worked long workdays, with maybe 1 day off, a month. The days were 14+ hrs each day. If they didn't like it, tough. I know this to be true, studying this is college. The working conditions were horrible. Along came the labor unions, which made things safer for the workers, plus not having to be "gutted" at work with the long work days. Reagen forced the pilots(TWA??) to go back to work during a strike that happened during his two terms.

The middle class is THE PRODUCT of ALL WORKING UNIONS, which the Reps hate. Ohio and Wisconsin have limited the rights of these working unions by limiting their baragaining rights, which, in essence, weakens their power. You break the unions, and watch the "pay scale" drop.

The Reps push all the blame on the Dems, when that's not the case. Taxing the rich alone, will not stop the recession, but it is a step in the right direction. Better spending will help, too. Both sides are to blame for this mess, and not just OB.

 

To be accurate, in Ohio and Wisconsin it's the public unions that are getting reduced bargaining rights. The non-government unions are not affected.

 

Well, any jobs that get shipped overseas, that company should pay a major fine, IMHHO. Hershey's chocalate is sending their company to Mexico, for crying out loud. By keeping more jobs here, you create more jobs. More jobs means more taxes. Look at all the steelmills that shut down, and were sent overseas in the 2000's. If you stop all these "leaking jobs" from going elsewhere, that could help our economy rebound. What do you think about this?

 

Either way, they are trying to break these unions. Cutting the workers pay will not solve this either.

 

Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
Doctor: "Well, then don't do it!"

Congressperson: "Taxpayer, our deficit keeps growing!"
Taxpayer: "Well, then, stop spending my money, idiot!"

 

Bush didn't really "head it off." Greenspan primed the pump to postpone the recession of the dot-com bubble with 1% interest rates into a real estate bubble. Bush went along with it.

True. Neither Bush nor Obama really understand the fundamentals of economics.

 

We can stop jobs "leaking" overseas by rolling back some regulations and make taxes simpler and less burdensome.

Doing business over here should be something that people should want to do. Central planners have destroyed this former prospect.

 

Maybe some of this is because the standard of living years ago was much less than it is today. There were no electronic appliances and machines to make productivity easier, cheaper, and faster.

Legislation cannot magically increase everyone's standard of living. Only the laws of supply and demand in a free market can do so over time. If you had a primitive economy of a handful of people living on an island and having to survive the elements, bureaucrats forcing them to work 40-hour weeks with overtime pay could not magically make everyone wealthier. In fact, such would probably kill them off because they would not have enough food and shelter produced to survive.

Sure, but unions have overstayed their welcome. There is a difference between protection of life and liberty and interfering with liberty by forcing ridiculous licensing schemes and artificially restraining the supply of goods and services by forcing unreasonable wages to maintain tenure and shut out new entrants.

Could it be that some of these union workers are overpayed (by force of law)? What do you think has destroyed the auto industry in Detroit? The audacity of this garbage is that it distorts the market and artificially reduces the available supply of the skilled labor pool. Those with tenure are protected from competition, and new entrants are forcibly excluded from the market.

I believe in "bargaining rights" of everyone, just not the ability to protect special interests from market forces by law.

I think there is plenty of blame to go around in both parties. Neither understand the free market and the basic fundamentals of economics.

 

So you want others to work and earn wealth so it can be taken from them against their will for others who did not?

 

This is nothing more than political talking points from the left and it has nothing to do with what I responded to.

This is an over exaggerated statement which makes it completely false.

This is another false statement with no foundation. Conservatives have nothing against the idea of unions. What we object to is the excess in which they have operated. They are just as corrupt as any corporation and in some cases worse. The car makers ran into trouble because of them, states like California, Michigan, and Wisconsin have had their economic woes because of unions. They push prod and twist so much out of companies that their demands are not realistic. They work in underhanded ways to force companies to become Unionized.

That is what is objected to not the basic idea of unions.

They had gone into excess and were breaking the state. you cannot pay our more than you have coming in. And Government employees should not be union anyways.

Taxing the rich slows the economy. They are the job creators and the job givers.