Taxes on the rich already gone...

I agree that it is such entitlement mentalities that are engendered by the hellish conditions of a warfare-State on Earth. There would be no need for anything other than bearing true witness to our own legal doctrines regarding employment at will and State at-will employment laws if we were moral enough to faithfully execute our own laws, with a truer welfare-State.

 

In other words, you merely allege to have a Cause but can't prove it with a valid argument.

It cannot be a real time of War sufficient to deny or disparage our privileges and immunities merely due to allegations of war instead of real war, the "proof" of which is wartime Tax rates on the wealthiest.

 

Other than some infrastructure, there is little the government can spend money on that has anything but a negative multiplier.

And, the government doesn't even need to do much infrastructure spending, In CA, building developers must build the new roads, not the government (in my 90 square mile community, 5 roads are public - the rest that serve 6000+ homes are private)

Nice pipe dream, Johnson tried that with the Great Society, and poverty increased. Even JC says the poor will always be with you.

In your opinion, what deleterious effect has it had? The unemplyment cost for this recession has exceeded $400B.

 

When you say "some" infrastructure, you make it seem like the scale economies of a public sector may not matter much. Even our modern private sector would be challenged to create means of production on the scale of Hoover Dam.

The physical layer of infrastructure is a natural public sector monopoly for the provision of public goods and public services. Such market friendly, "conduits to markets" could improve the efficiency of our economy and reduce even industrial pollution in our environment.

Productions runs as long as our wars on abstractions would be more market friendly and potentially, as safe to invest in as thirty or more, year US bonds.

Only a warfare-State can be "socially challenged" when providing against its own interests in self-perpetuation. A welfare-State always knows it good for providing for the general welfare. We could have solved simple poverty in our republic as soon as unemployment compensation and the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will were developed. Now we already have existing laws and existing infrastructure which is underutilized.

 

I don't recall having a "cause."

Just exactly are you trying to say?

 

Good point! But don't ask the poor to give them tax breaks, when according to Bush they were the job creators when they were not.. The only ones that should be getting the breaks are the poor.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/super-rich-offshore-havens_n_1692608.html

So now that it's over there and not over here, how does it help the economy here? Most of that moneys gone. You say who cares. Do you really not care? You do know there are billions of those dollars overseas that were handed to the rich in the form of tax breaks, and those very tax breaks are making interest and more wealth for them over there, at the expense and sacrifice of the working poor here? How is it fair that the rich can use the tax breaks of the working poor here, because the working poor keep most of their tax breaks here for everyone to use, but the working poor aren't able to use the tax breaks of the rich over there?

 

Mobile capital will go where it can make the most profit. If the capital is owned by US citizens it will tend to gravitate back to us. If the capital remains overseas and its location can continue to make a profit in an over seas market it will stay there. This is hardly anything new and it has nothing to do with loyalty, except of course if the government is more concerned with taxing capital than keeping capital in the US. There will always be a balance and it all depends on how much of a market for goods and services there is here in the US rather than where the goods or services are created and performed.

Now lets discuss an issue which will be good for us, education. At the moment we are giving too much emphasis on college education, especially a liberal arts education. What we should be doing is offering a good occupational education, an education in the functions of trades. That will help more people, get more off welfare and improve our over all economy.

 

I'm not asking for loyalty, just a recognition of the facts and what is right and wrong. You're sort of talking out of both sides with your response, not to mention, off message. You say the capital tends to come back, but if they're making a profit overseas it might stay too. The capital is always going to make a profit over there in the form of interest if nothing else. Your message is ambiguous and contradictory at best. Also, the tax break issue was never addressed, and my question was never answered. Education and welfare was not the topic of my last post.

 

That wartime Tax rates on the wealthiest are a form of due diligence on the part of the least wealthy in our republic where it only takes money to make more money, and definitely not a work ethic nor learning how to fish.

In the alternative, if the wealthiest are unwilling to be burdened with wartime Tax rates, even for a War on Drugs, it should also be considered a "market based metric" of no confidence in our federal Congress to distinguish between real times of war and those time which only require lower taxes and Commerce, well regulated.

 

What is right is what creates the most prosperity per capita.

I do not waiver in my opinions and I have answered based on what I can understand of your posts.

Correct, if the capital belongs to US owners. Of course excessive taxation can keep the capital off shore.

Correct, if the capital makes most of its profits overseas it will tend to continue to develop that market; quite simple really.

Not true. Foreign interest markets are not that profitable.

Not in the least ambiguous or contradictory. Different sets of circumstances call for different conclusions.

Education and welfare was what I chose to discuss, and both relate to prosperity, un/employment, wage levels etc.. Please note it was not in response to your post.

 

That passage means nothing. Clarify it.

Also undecipherable!

- - - Updated - - -

Naptime

 

My comment has nothing to do with Bush or Obama or anyone else. It was a simple straight forward comment, that if repatriation tax rates are too high capital will tend to remain where it will do the company the most good.

Why should it concern anyone other than the company? Since I have discussed nothing but economics I will answer IAW is best for the bottom line. Capital is not in the social welfare business. And if the capital makes most of its profits overseas it will tend to continue to develop that market; quite simple really.

BTW, are you speaking of the truly poor? Or are you talking about the relatively poor. There is a huge difference and it is my opinion that we should take care of those who cannot take care of themselves but we should not habituate anyone to welfare.

 

Trillions are overseas because the dollar is the worlds reserve currency.

Billions more, because it makes no sense to make a profit where it is taxed at 35%, when an international corp can make the profit where it is taxed at 15%, or less. Billions more were moved offshore because of all this "tax the rich" clap trap.

Was the money moved due to tax breaks, or due to tax policy?


As far as the rich have $32T hidden offshore, avoiding $280B in taxes. Do a bit of math and this article makes little sense.

First, 280B / 32T = 0.875%, what tax bracket is that?

Second, the average income is $50K, with 130M tax payers = 50K X 130M = 6.5T, with half allocated to the top 1%. $32T would mean every penny that the top 1% earned for the last 10 years has been put overseas. What did those poor people live on.....

Third, $9.3T in 139 countried over the last 40 years (since the 70's), $1.67B leaving the country every year. Less than $1300 for each of the top 1%. Are we sure that wasn't charitible donations?

 

Infrastructure beyond 100% provides no return on investment.

So would the government of today, the NIMBY and enviromentalists have prevented any construction of significance, and many of little significance.

When was the last airport built? Denver....

What infrastructure do we desperately need today?

 

You don't believe in market based metrics, either? Why claim to believe in Capitalism?

 

Increasing the efficiency of our economy, is a "return on investment".

It is too bad they can't ban War due to its environmental effects.

We could use "conduits to markets" that even includes instustrial waste management capability, to lower that cost to the private sector and help preserve our environment.

 

As has been the case every time so far, you don't understand what I said and you continue to write in riddles.

I believe wholeheartedly in Capitalism and have never said anything to the contrary. There has never been an experiment in socialism which has been successful.

 

You claim to believe in Capitalism, but without market based metrics. Usually, only communism does that.

 

I have never suggested or said or implied that measurement and management is not important. All economists use market measurement and management in the process of trying to understand what makes the economy tick.

 

In the alternative, if the wealthiest are unwilling to be burdened with wartime Tax rates, even for a War on Drugs, it should also be considered a "market based metric" of no confidence in our federal Congress to distinguish between real times of war and those time which only require lower taxes and Commerce, well regulated.

 

Pretty hard to get everyone off welfare when you have more people than there are jobs.

 

True! But I have not problem helping those who cannot work because of physical or mental disabilities, so some welfare is always needed. As to unemployment, it is not so much that there are not jobs, there are just not that many jobs requiring unskilled labor. According to a news broadcast, actually from MSM and CNN, there are 3 million jobs going unfilled for lack of skilled employees. That is a good reason to consider improving our education system to train people for vocations instead of blindly sending so many off to college.

 

that is a republican myth, the taxes on the rich have not gone up, just their TEMPORARY Bush tax cuts expired

- - - Updated - - -

and that is the reality of our situation, foreign outsourcing is the real issue