notnoBuddha

There is debate, theory, absolute truth out there that less taxes the rich pay the more jobs they will create for the rest. My question is how many people will open a new factory, make a new toy, or invest in a product if there is no demand for it. I can't see where if I had an extra million that I would do so if there was no market. Another aspect of this is maybe, just maybe with an aging population in this country the peak consuming period of life is over for the baby boomers and just as there are less people to pay into social security so too there are less to buy houses, baby cribs and stuff. Help me out people.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Well you asked for an opinion so here goes: In the past ten years we've lost 250,000 jobs. Our, "job creators" added 300,000 jobs. The only problem? The lost jobs were lost in the United States and the new jobs were created overseas. I think it's time to tax the rich at least at the same rate we tax the middle class. Then, after you do that if you want to give them a tax break for every well paying job created in this country by them, let's talk.

les_stockton Loc: Eastern Oklahoma

Taxing income at the same right is fine with me. If you tax long-term capital gains (not short-term, which to me, is the same as income) you will kill any job creation. Long-term capital gains takes years to reap, and if the person is taxed the same rate, no one in a small business will expand; no one will create small businesses, and large businesses wont expand (except overseas).

I say keep long-term capital gains at the current rate, and remove the tax incentives and benefits some of the businesses have for offshoring jobs.

And I say this not as a theorist, but as someone who has created and run a small incorporated business.

larrycumba

No offense to you but I don't put too much stock in job statistics. An example would be the anouncement a couple of months ago. Seventy nine thousand jobs added that month. Sounds good, but in that month forty two thousand striking Verizon workers went back to work. That forty two thousand was listed as new jobs for that month.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

Let's see..Edison, Ford, Goodyear,Bell,Rockefeller... there was very little demand for Model T's before Henry showed up. There was very little demand for electric lighting before Edison showed up. There was very little demand for refined petroleum before Rockefeller showed up. (Yeah, whale oil is perfectly great product. Sharpen your harpoons, boys..)

NNB,you've hit the nail directly on the head right there, and very few other people seem to understand this basic truth of demographics. Our current population is simply not going to be buying cars and homes and refrigerators and all all those other great middle class 'goods' in anywhere near the same number that we did twenty to forty years ago. There simply are not the same number of people. It's a simple as that. The HUGE population bubble of the baby boomers is getting old. Pharmaceuticals, health care, and retirement living will be driving the economy in the next three decades, not new cars and Playstations. Today's kids will have to pay three or four times the current rate of SS tax to support us all. It's not a question of politics or immigrants or red vs blue states. It's a question of numbers. 280 million 45+. 70 million < 45. Do the math.

In terms of taxing the rich, thats another "Weapon of mass distraction", as Robin Williams would call it.

There simply aren't enough of them. You could tax every person in this country worth over 10 million dollars at 100% and it wouldn't make even a dent in either the deficit or the long term economic outlook. (Although it would make a hell of a dent in the spending habits of an awful lot of people). There simply aren't enough of them, compared to the huge 'middle class'. The poor aren't able to pay higher taxes, and there aren't enough rich to make a big difference. That's why the middle class will ALWAYS shoulder the burden of running the government. It sounds nice to say "Tax the RICH!" but it's a smokescreen by those people who would rather tax YOU because there's more of you.

The biggest problem with the RICH is that they're able to BUY legislation what helps them, at the expense of the rest. And that's simply a problem with the way the political system is put together. You can't blame someone for wanting to increase their own self-interest. We all do. You're a fool it you don't. Who here goes on strike for LOWER wages? Who here looks for places to spend MORE money?

You blame the person or system that gives them the tools to do it.

les_stockton Loc: Eastern Oklahoma

It would be harder for the rich to buy influence (or at least make it more visible to the rest of us) if we returned to a Constitutional government where the majority of the power were at the state level. that would make it more accountable to the citizens (after all, it's easier for us to get in a car and drive to the state capital to complain, than it is to take off work for a week and go to DC).
The rich get their influence when the power is in DC. If it were at the state, it would be more accountable (which is how it was set up to be).

Lmarc Loc: Ojojona, Honduras

AMEN! :thumbup:

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

Every day that passes in my life The founders seem wiser and wiser.

And Adam Smith was no dummy either.

It's only a matter of time. Buy gold and or silver.

Great thead Buddah man.