You claimed 100% tax rates would not hurt employment. Congrats, you've (almost) successfully admitted you were wrong without admitting anything.
Higher profits means more power to increase expansion. You're "lets share all the wealth equally" liberal mentality precludes you from understanding this.
Yes, tax rates are progressive, so what? Once you enter the top tax bracket, such as the people in the top 2% you are so angry about reside in, ALL additional profit is at that 90% tax rate.
Actually, if you'd read my link showing the adjusted median income, you';d see it has increased about 10% since the 70's, not 1%. Again you make up numbers to try and support your theories, and hope nobody notices. I always notice, yet you continue to try and slip your bogus statistics past me.
So the truth finally comes out, you are just mad because your income bracket has experienced growth in the past 30 years, but you are mad because the highest income levels have increased MORE than yours. Socialism shrouded in a one-sided view of what is fair.
In the real world, of course 100% taxes would ruin the economy. I used 100% tax for the point that taxes do not affect the ABILITY to hire. Of course a 100% tax would kill any motivation, but a company will still be financially able to hire people, ignoring the fact that at 100% tax the business would not exist. Do you get what I'm saying?
You're technically right, but I'm skeptical of the real world effects. You know why? Because taxes have been dropping for 30 years and our economy is getting worse.
Any 90% tax rate would be on an enormous income, like over $1 million. So if all of your income over $1,000,000 was taxed at 90% (which I'm still under the assumption I never said I was in favor of), how horrible would that be for you. You might as well be poor! I'm sure they'd rather be poor than have their income over $1 million be taxed at 90%.
Yes it has increased ON AVERAGE FOR EVERYONE. But 80% of the gains went to the top 2%. Why is this so hard for you to understand? does you conservative "I don't care about anyone but myself" mentality preclude you from understanding this? Let me give you an example. If there are 10 people to whom I give $50 every week, I give everyone an average of $50 a week. But let's say I give two people an extra $50 per week, that means the average went up to $60! But the other 8 people are still at $50 per week. But the average went up? How is this possible?!?
It's not just more than mine. It's more than 80% of Americans, and it's at their expense. I don't think that's fair. But obviously, jealous is the best argument you can come up with.
LOL! Yep, when I think of you, I hink of a guy who has no inherent bias to either party. You are amazingly delusional.
As for looking at what both parties have done, this discussion, before you arrived, was about the corruption and ineptitude of BOTH parties. But you refuse to let Democrats be badmouthed equally with Republicans. YOU changed this into a partisan debate, nobody else. So keep your "Im not biased towards either party" and "lets look at what both sides have done" nonsense to yourself, or admit you are a Democratic lap dog. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wave.gif.002382ce7d7c19757ab945cc69819de1.gif
I like the Democrats, that's no secret. But it isn't because of an inherit (do you know what inherit means?) bias I have for them, it's because I agree with their economic policies. Actually, that's a little vague. It's because their economic policies actually benefit people in this country.
Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. Its not like I was saying a company owner will not risk his own profit/wealth by investing into a business if his potential return on investment is only 10%. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif
Okay, so you had a great straw man argument. Because I'm pretty sure that I never said I want his investment return to be only 10%.
Businesses hire to turn a profit, not to fill a demand in the market.
They fill the demand to create a profit. Employees are required to serve the demand. Employees are required to create a profit. Less employees = less profit as less customers are able to be served.
Case in point, if a company is firing people, it's not because of tax increases, it's because of drops in demand. If there is an apparent effect on lay offs because of a tax increase, it's because the business was over employed anyway.
Typical socialist mentality. Demand is merely their potential to turn that profit. If you remove a company's, or owner's, ability to turn a profit, you remove the company, or owner's, desire to risk expansion. Its really just that simple, which is why you continually avoid that point.
Because if a business isn't expanding, it doesn't exist. That is why every single business you ever see ever is closed for renovation.
