Democrats and Raising Taxes

[Spartan]

I listened to the Democrats (liberals) tonight and they were all talking about raising taxes.

The problem with Democrats / liberals is they have a real problem looking into the future to see the horrendous damage their policies do.

Do you remember when the liberals placed a 10% luxury tax on yacht sales ("get the rich")? What happened was the rich quit buying yachts, so the yacht manufacturers lost all kinds of money and the little guy who helped build the yachts got laid off. So it wasn't "get the rich," it was the liberals screwing the little guy - again.

Another prime example: The do-gooders in San Francisco decided to give $400 'welfare' checks to homeless people. Higher taxes helped pay for that. Help the poor, right? Well, next thing you know every vagrant in America (criminals too) began showing up in San Fran for a free ride. Crime went up, and the homeless were everywhere hitting on regular folks for money, etc., and engaging in criminal activities. The police finally had enough and told the libs they had to stop the madness, which they eventually did. Liberalism gone mad again.

Want to raise taxes on the corporations? Since all competitors will have their taxes raised, they’ll just raise their prices and pass it along to the little guy – the consumer. We’ll be paying the higher taxes for the corporations. The little guy gets screwed again. Or, corporations will leave America and operate out of lower tax countries. Common sense. Liberals don’t have it.

Tax the wealthy? A great many of them will move to whatever state or country gives them a better deal. Redistribute their wealth? Aryeh Spero noted, “It is America’s men and women of wealth, imbued with religious and civic responsibility, who have served as the greatest patrons of the civic infrastructure, be it hospitals, libraries, museums, the arts, or the charitable United Way. England once had those patrons, but they went away as redistribution of wealth came in.” The same thing will happen in America.

Redistribution of Wealth is, at its core, a radical left-wing economic scheme centered in greed and covetousness for other people’s money, rather than exercising personal responsibility and initiative and earning it one’s self.

Democrats…

Discussion...

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And not a citation in sight...

 

[Revoltingest]

And not a citation in sight...

As a ferriner, you wouldn't remember the tax on yachts, & the
resulting depression of that industry. He referred to something
well known, so I wouldn't expect a citation.
It would be like referring to the Vietnam War....no one with any
memory of the era would've forgotten it. No citation needed
cuz we know it happened.

The larger theme is that policies have unanticipated consequences.
Moreover, they sometimes don't even have the intended effect.
I believe the OP is urging more careful consideration of agendas.
What sounds good to the intended audience in a primary campaign
might be a less than optimal agenda to actually put into effect.

 

[Spartan]

And not a citation in sight...

You missed it all growing up or in your past?

That's another thing about liberals. They have no memory of the damages they've caused in the past, LOL?

 

[epronovost]

I listened to the Democrats (liberals) tonight and they were all talking about raising taxes.

The problem with Democrats / liberals is they have a real problem looking into the future to see the horrendous damage their policies do.

Don't you think that running a constant budget deficit that isn't covered by inflation and GDP growth is damaging? Last time I checked the US had a huge debt and a relatively poor social net. If you don't raise new taxes, you are going to end up having to make painful cuts to social services which can seriously harm the population, economic stability, capital mobility and the general health of the American society or raise new taxes simply to pay off the debt itself. I must admit that from my point of view the US tax system is byzantine in style.

 

[Spartan]

Don't you think that running a constant budget deficit that isn't covered by inflation and GDP growth is damaging? Last time I checked the US had a huge debt and a relatively poor social net. If you don't raise new taxes, you are going to end up having to make painful cuts to social services which can seriously harm the population, economic stability, capital mobility and the general health of the American society or raise new taxes simply to pay off the debt itself. I must admit that from my point of view the US tax system is byzantine in style.

Yeah, budget deficits are a problem. But it's easier to get Republicans to balance a budget than Democrats. Republicans normally have gone for reductions in spending programs to balance budgets. Democrats - if they do present a balanced budget - do it by raising taxes and gutting the military.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You missed it all growing up or in your past?

That's another thing about liberals. They have no memory of the damages they've caused in the past, LOL?

I'm not a liberal, but cool deflection there Tom Cruise.

 

[epronovost]

Yeah, budget deficits are a problem. But it's easier to get Republicans to balance a budget than Democrats. Republicans normally have gone for reductions in spending programs to balance budgets. Democrats - if they do present a balanced budget - do it by raising taxes and gutting the military.

I don't think the Federal US government has presented a balanced budget in decades. From the numbers I can get from wikipedia, the last POTUS to have overseen a reduction in the debt was Clinton and before him it was Carter, both Democrats. Bush, Obama and Reagan are the main culprite for the rise in national debt since the Great Depression and WWII. Apparently, Trump won't change that since he increased the spending and dropping the taxes (something Bush did too). From what I can see, all the cuts to services to the population of the Republicans are ofset by the drop in revenue to the State by lowering the taxes and then some.

History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, budget deficits are a problem. But it's easier to get Republicans to balance a budget than Democrats. Republicans normally have gone for reductions in spending programs to balance budgets. Democrats - if they do present a balanced budget - do it by raising taxes and gutting the military.

I think we can rest easy knowing that neither
Dem nor Pub will balance the budget.
Neither party has a good record on that.

Btw.....

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Don't you think that running a constant budget deficit that isn't covered by inflation and GDP growth is damaging? Last time I checked the US had a huge debt and a relatively poor social net. If you don't raise new taxes, you are going to end up having to make painful cuts to social services which can seriously harm the population, economic stability, capital mobility and the general health of the American society or raise new taxes simply to pay off the debt itself. I must admit that from my point of view the US tax system is byzantine in style.

But one day he might be in the yacht buying class, what then? Where's he going to hide his oiled up Laotian houseboys then if he supports raising taxes on the super-wealthy now? I mean what's more likely? That he ekes out a paycheque to paycheque existence for the next 50 years like the rest of us, or that he becomes a billionaire who we're talking about taxing moderately? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! Much better to protest against taxing those who can afford it harder than Mike Pence protests he's heterosexual!

 

[SoyLeche]

I don't think the Federal US government has presented a balanced budget in decades. From the numbers I can get from wikipedia, the last POTUS to have overseen a reduction in the debt was Clinton and before him it was Carter, both Democrats. Bush, Obama and Reagan are the main culprite for the rise in national debt since the Great Depression and WWII. Apparently, Trump won't change that since he increased the spending and dropping the taxes (something Bush did too). From what I can see, all the cuts to services to the population of the Republicans are ofset by the drop in revenue to the State by lowering the taxes and then some.

History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia

It seems like the best combo is a Democrat in the White House and Republicans controlling the Congress. Republican presidents tend to really suck fiscally, and Republicans in Congress only care about deficits when a Dem is president.

 

[epronovost]

I think we can rest easy knowing that neither
Dem nor Pub will balance the budget.
Neither party has a good record on that.

Btw.....

To be honest, the political culture of the US doesn't really allow it. Cutting services to the population is extremely unpopular for obvious reasons and raising the taxes are unpopular for obvious reason too. That's a recepe for perpetually unbalanced budgets. No politician wants to risk his or her job by doing the conservative thing of raising new taxes for no new services or cutting services without lowering taxes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Tax the wealthy? A great many of them will move to whatever state or country gives them a better deal. Redistribute their wealth?

No they won't. If they were, they would've by now. They have the means, and put their money over seas anyways.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah, budget deficits are a problem. But it's easier to get Republicans to balance a budget than Democrats. Republicans normally have gone for reductions in spending programs to balance budgets. Democrats - if they do present a balanced budget - do it by raising taxes and gutting the military.

Republicans in Indiana raised taxes in Indianapolis to buy the Colts a damn stadium. Republicans too are fans of taxes.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And not a citation in sight...

Doesn't need any. History is proof enough.

 

[Mindmaster]

I listened to the Democrats (liberals) tonight and they were all talking about raising taxes.

Rich people do not play by the normal rules.

1) If you tax them here they can buy it overseas. (Which is what happened with the Yachts. American companies tanked, but French and other companies prospered.)

2) If things get too expensive locally they can move literally overnight.

3) If you tax their companies heavily they can just close them up and reopen them elsewhere. If it's a minor tax they just fire as many people as they can to make up the difference. (They have to really... Labor is always their largest expense.)

They cannot always raise the price to deal with the increased tax burden, because the consumer has an idea of what price is acceptable. That's why often slashing employees is the first move. There is simply _no way_ to keep employment up and make new taxes. Anyhow, historically this isn't what works -- what works is lowering the taxes and getting the increased revenue via increased GDP. Essentially, it's like seeding your garden -- it costs you something, but in the long run you end up with more fruit.

What's more 20% of 100 or 10% of 200? This is the math Democrats can't understand... If you grow the economy you don't need to raise the taxes.

 

[Rachel Redeemed]

I listened to the Democrats (liberals) tonight and they were all talking about raising taxes.

The problem with Democrats / liberals is they have a real problem looking into the future to see the horrendous damage their policies do.

Do you remember when the liberals placed a 10% luxury tax on yacht sales ("get the rich")? What happened was the rich quit buying yachts, so the yacht manufacturers lost all kinds of money and the little guy who helped build the yachts got laid off. So it wasn't "get the rich," it was the liberals screwing the little guy - again.

Another prime example: The do-gooders in San Francisco decided to give $400 'welfare' checks to homeless people. Higher taxes helped pay for that. Help the poor, right? Well, next thing you know every vagrant in America (criminals too) began showing up in San Fran for a free ride. Crime went up, and the homeless were everywhere hitting on regular folks for money, etc., and engaging in criminal activities. The police finally had enough and told the libs they had to stop the madness, which they eventually did. Liberalism gone mad again.

Want to raise taxes on the corporations? Since all competitors will have their taxes raised, they’ll just raise their prices and pass it along to the little guy – the consumer. We’ll be paying the higher taxes for the corporations. The little guy gets screwed again. Or, corporations will leave America and operate out of lower tax countries. Common sense. Liberals don’t have it.

Tax the wealthy? A great many of them will move to whatever state or country gives them a better deal. Redistribute their wealth? Aryeh Spero noted, “It is America’s men and women of wealth, imbued with religious and civic responsibility, who have served as the greatest patrons of the civic infrastructure, be it hospitals, libraries, museums, the arts, or the charitable United Way. England once had those patrons, but they went away as redistribution of wealth came in.” The same thing will happen in America.

Redistribution of Wealth is, at its core, a radical left-wing economic scheme centered in greed and covetousness for other people’s money, rather than exercising personal responsibility and initiative and earning it one’s self.

Democrats…

Discussion...

 

[Rachel Redeemed]

Rich people do not play by the normal rules.

1) If you tax them here they can buy it overseas. (Which is what happened with the Yachts. American companies tanked, but French and other companies prospered.)

2) If things get too expensive locally they can move literally overnight.

3) If you tax their companies heavily they can just close them up and reopen them elsewhere. If it's a minor tax they just fire as many people as they can to make up the difference. (They have to really... Labor is always their largest expense.)

They cannot always raise the price to deal with the increased tax burden, because the consumer has an idea of what price is acceptable. That's why often slashing employees is the first move. There is simply _no way_ to keep employment up and make new taxes. Anyhow, historically this isn't what works -- what works is lowering the taxes and getting the increased revenue via increased GDP. Essentially, it's like seeding your garden -- it costs you something, but in the long run you end up with more fruit.

What's more 20% of 100 or 10% of 200? This is the math Democrats can't understand... If you grow the economy you don't need to raise the taxes.

 

[Rachel Redeemed]

So please enlighten us as to why our American factories went broke. We

 

[PureX]

The goal is to tax the income, not the toys people buy with it. And anyway, what loss is it, really, that we have fewer rich pricks running around on expensive yachts? How does yacht building really effect the overall quality of life in the U.S. compared to affordable health care and education?