(02-07-2014 09:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  As it stands today, people criticize Obama for wanting to rebuild the middle class in THIS country calling wealth redistribution.

A bit off topic, for which I apologize, but I have to ask.

Could somebody explain how taxing the rich and redistributing to the poor helps those in the MIDDLE?

(02-07-2014 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 09:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  As it stands today, people criticize Obama for wanting to rebuild the middle class in THIS country calling wealth redistribution.

A bit off topic, for which I apologize, but I have to ask.

Could somebody explain how taxing the rich and redistributing to the poor helps those in the MIDDLE?

I'm sure it is much more complex than this but generally, I think the idea is that if you tax the rich and give to the poor, the poor will spend it on stuff that is produced by those who have jobs i. e. the middle class.

(02-07-2014 09:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Can you just imagine if the President started saying it is in our best interest to rebuild Mexico's middle class?

It's in our interests for Mexico to have a better middle class, but it's not our job to build it for them, that's Mexico's problem, they might need a little revolution to jump start things.

(02-07-2014 09:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 09:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  As it stands today, people criticize Obama for wanting to rebuild the middle class in THIS country calling wealth redistribution.

A bit off topic, for which I apologize, but I have to ask.

Could somebody explain how taxing the rich and redistributing to the poor helps those in the MIDDLE?

I'm sure it is much more complex than this but generally, I think the idea is that if you tax the rich and give to the poor, the poor will spend it on stuff that is produced by those who have jobs i. e. the middle class.

But if you tax the rich, they move the production offshore, so that the middle class that benefits is China's or Germany's, not ours. For that concept to work, you have to assume that what the poor consume here is in fact produced here. And in today's global economy, that's a bad assumption. That's why "stimulus" spending gets multipliers in the 1.25-1.50 range.

(02-07-2014 09:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 09:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 09:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  As it stands today, people criticize Obama for wanting to rebuild the middle class in THIS country calling wealth redistribution.

A bit off topic, for which I apologize, but I have to ask.

Could somebody explain how taxing the rich and redistributing to the poor helps those in the MIDDLE?

I'm sure it is much more complex than this but generally, I think the idea is that if you tax the rich and give to the poor, the poor will spend it on stuff that is produced by those who have jobs i. e. the middle class.

But if you tax the rich, they move the production offshore, so that the middle class that benefits is China's or Germany's, not ours. For that concept to work, you have to assume that what the poor consume here is in fact produced here. And in today's global economy, that's a bad assumption. That's why "stimulus" spending gets multipliers in the 1.25-1.50 range.

That is a good point. So then lets give insentives for producing products in the United States.

(02-07-2014 09:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  That is a good point. So then lets give insentives for producing products in the United States.

I think that's where we need to go.

(02-07-2014 09:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 09:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 09:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 09:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  As it stands today, people criticize Obama for wanting to rebuild the middle class in THIS country calling wealth redistribution.

A bit off topic, for which I apologize, but I have to ask.

Could somebody explain how taxing the rich and redistributing to the poor helps those in the MIDDLE?

I'm sure it is much more complex than this but generally, I think the idea is that if you tax the rich and give to the poor, the poor will spend it on stuff that is produced by those who have jobs i. e. the middle class.

But if you tax the rich, they move the production offshore, so that the middle class that benefits is China's or Germany's, not ours. For that concept to work, you have to assume that what the poor consume here is in fact produced here. And in today's global economy, that's a bad assumption. That's why "stimulus" spending gets multipliers in the 1.25-1.50 range.

That is a good point. So then lets give insentives for producing products in the United States.

So you'd be in favor of lowering corp taxes, getting unions under control, and reducing red tape and regulations?

(02-07-2014 10:19 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 09:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 09:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 09:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  A bit off topic, for which I apologize, but I have to ask.

Could somebody explain how taxing the rich and redistributing to the poor helps those in the MIDDLE?

I'm sure it is much more complex than this but generally, I think the idea is that if you tax the rich and give to the poor, the poor will spend it on stuff that is produced by those who have jobs i. e. the middle class.

But if you tax the rich, they move the production offshore, so that the middle class that benefits is China's or Germany's, not ours. For that concept to work, you have to assume that what the poor consume here is in fact produced here. And in today's global economy, that's a bad assumption. That's why "stimulus" spending gets multipliers in the 1.25-1.50 range.

That is a good point. So then lets give insentives for producing products in the United States.

So you'd be in favor of lowering corp taxes, getting unions under control, and reducing red tape and regulations?

I wouldn't be against giving tax breaks to companies who bring their companies back to the United States.

Obama has even said as much.

(02-08-2014 11:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I wouldn't be against giving tax breaks to companies who bring their companies back to the United States.
Obama has even said as much.

Not exactly what he said. He wants to lower the US corporate tax rate but apply it worldwide. That sounds good, like an incentive to bring jobs home because they would no longer get tax breaks by being overseas.

But it would apply only to US corporations, not their foreign competition. That means that a US corporation running business through, say, Ireland or Poland or wherever today, to take advantage of the tax rates would no longer get that advantage. But, and this is a significant but, that corporation's competitors would still get that tax break. That would place the US corporation at a distinct disadvantage. The inevitable result would be that US multinationals would move their place of incorporation overseas, and with it would go a lot of jobs--and high-paying jobs at that.

If you don't believe that would be the inevitable consequence, we can discuss that but I've found that to be an issue where once people make up their mind, they don't want to be confused by any facts.

If you want to admit that would happen but argue that somehow that would be a good thing, I'd be interested in your take.

Again, both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin said lower the rates, broaden the base, AND go to a territorial tax system, like the rest of the world. That's the way to attract businesses back, and both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin say that's the way to increase tax revenues at the same time. Yeah, I know Bowles-Simpson did not get the votes internally to force the issue before congress, but 70% was an unreasonably high standard for bipartisan agreement (when is the last time we got a 70% vote in congress on anything more controversial than naming a post office?), and they did get a supermajority (over 60%) of members voting in favor, including and absolute majority of both parties represented. That sounds pretty convincing to me. And not to demean any poster on here, but I can pretty much guarantee that as a group they had more intellectual capability, better data, and a more bipartisan outlook than anyone who posts here.

Boner dicked the dog on immigration. The republicans hired some billion dollar consultant to decipher why they lost in 2012, and he came up with "Hispanics don't like you". Then he sold them another billion dollar plan to "fix" it; immigration reform.

the republicans lost because they nominated the most unexciting guy on the planet.