Well, it is not the fact that they make money. Maybe it is that all the tax cuts ever proposed by Laffer proponents are passed with the message that trickel down works.

It doesn't. just another Republican lie.

Always amused by those individuals crying about how much MORE $$ someone else has than they do ...as if it's a 'zero sum' game.

If I made 10 times more money than YOU did last year...was that my fault ... or yours?

Jealousy rears its ugly head again.

As far as taxes go...best you look up WHO pays the majority of taxes in this country, (Hint) it aint the poor!

Well said!

Best,

Kurt

Actually this news should make on-ramp happy...the wealthy 1% pay a LOT in taxes. Therefore, more money in government hands, which seems to be on-ramp's goal....

Corporations have some of the rights of a person, but are basically soulless, possessing only the moral and social values that the leadership give it. Large corporations, separated from the public as they are, are like the federal government in that they are so distanced from the Average Joe they they do not respond well when problems arise. Small proprietor owned businesses have more moral ethics than corporations, especially large corporations. Officers of corporations are largely protected against legal action, except where they are involved in provable fraud. Small business does not have this advantage. If the small contractor, for example, makes a mistake, he or she is liable for the additional costs to make it right. The small contractor has a real stake in the success of his or her enterprise. Corporate officers, by and large, are carpetbaggers, going from corporation to corporation, seeking the most lucrative position.

Interlocking boards add to the problem..(You vote me a raise, and I will do the same for you). In effect, corporations, especially large ones, are not perfect. The economies of scale are a great advantage, as is the ability to use other people's money for capital. The little guy does not have access to that kind of advantage.

Yet, there are those in the upper middle class that seem to think that somehow corporations are a near perfect system of enterprise, forgetting the small companies out there who have to struggle against these behemoths just to survive. Some of you are in that category; small business people. Your goal should be to make the playing field more level than it is. Some rules and regulations are necessary to control places of business, whether we like the basic philosophy or not. Theoretically, businesses should be left alone, but without a moral and ethical compass, we will get overcharged, we will get shoddy products, and even (gasp!!) imports that can kill us.

What is interesting to me is that, unless I am mistaken, most of us here are relatively well off, we do not live in the rarified atmosphere that the captains of industry live in. And yet, we admire these people and really think they are worth the seven and eight figure incomes they receive. Their world is far different than mine, and I, for one, am glad of that. The compromises one would have to make morally and ethically would be beyond my capibilty. The crumbs that fall from the corporate table in the form of dividends and run-ups in stock prices are nothing in comparison to what the big boys get.

Just the rantings of a (hopefully) realistic thinker.

I think you missed the point. The Laffer curve and all it proponents have yet again been foiled by reality.

yes, people make lots more than you or me. just don't go telling me a tax decrease for them helps me.

Pretending this is about liberals being angry at other peoples' success is disingeneous. If you really think that, you're having a different conversation from the rest of us. You just don't get it.

I have essentially regulated businesses for the past seventeen years. I'm pretty comfortable with that role. Does it mean I want them to all go bankrupt?

Ahhhh, but it does. As the wealthy expand businesses, they create jobs. Lower taxes allows them to expand their businesses. When was the last time a homless guy offered you a job?

If you don't pay any taxes to begin with, then you're right. A tax cut won't help you. Nor will a tax hike hurt you.

The amount of money collected via taxes is staggering and most of it comes from the wealthiest folks.

The problem is the government, both parties, not the people making the money.

Best,

Kurt

Technically, as large corporations expand, many export jobs and domestically they install robotic automated equipment.

How does a tax increase reduce expansion? Most businesses will continue to produce as long as there is black ink on the bottom line. That is an economic certainty.

Where is the United States electronic industry? When was the last time you saw a television or radio or any device, for that matter, with a "Made in America" sticker on it? The answer that those kinds of products are economically impossible to build domestically falls on its face when one looks at auto producers like Hyundai and Toyota who have built massive plants here and still produce quality products and affordable prices. Sure, unions have had negative effects on some Amercan industries, but that is not the point. The point is that, despite the differences in wages domestically and globally, this country can still be competitive. So...What is stopping us?

Better ask all those CEOs out there for some believable answers.

What percentage of taxes are paid by the top 10% of income earners?

The other part of the question: What percentage of all earnings are paid to the top 10% of income earners?

The two are inseparable if the actual impact of taxation is to be known.

And what percentage of taxes are paid to the bottom 50% of income earners?

More importantly, how many of those people that are *****ing about the rich would have a job left if all the really rich people closed up shop and went on a cruise?

SO....anyone have an answer? Is there a table broken down by category of earnings vs. taxation? Or do we continue to respond to a question with another question? I admit I do not know the answer to the question I posed. I asked the question because I do not know and would like to.

And.....what would be the net spendable income by category? That would be interesting as well.

It's hard to see how anyone could disagree with that. It's not a problem with the amount of the revenue collection.

Sorry, Paul. It is sad that this myth persists. It is a brute fact that this assumption is incorrect. It was Dubya's dad who coined the phrase "Voodoo Economics" as a synonym for "Supply-Side Economics." Same as "Trickle-Down Economics." You don't hear those terms much any more. There is a reason. It is a disproved economic theory.

Let's say Millionaire A has a plant that makes toasters. If demand for toasters does not change, there is no reason for Millionaire A to hire more people or make more toasters. On the other hand, if the workers at Millionaire A's plant get a tax break, some of them might use the extra money to buy a toaster. That would be an instance that creates a job. It is not Millionaires that make the commercial world go 'round. It is consumers. Millionaires do not create jobs. Consumers do. Millionaires just make money when that happens.

Huh? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

I don't even know where to begin . . .:rolleyes:

Best,

Kurt

edit: It is true that consumers buy stuff they like, want or need. It is the "millionaires" in your example who take the risk via the use of their capital to make stuff the consumer might buy. If the "millionaires" make something the consumer likes, wants or needs, then he/she is rewarded for that risk via profits.

Take away that incentive of profit and welcome to the old USSR.

If one has a toaster factory and no one is buying toasters, or there is not growth in toaster sales, that "millionaire" is likely not going to be a millionaire much longer. Successful capitalists make more modern toasters or create a new technique for toasting, take a risk and either crap out or make more money based upon the actions of the consumer. Innovation is driven by that motivation for profit.

Non-performing companies do not contribute to the "millionaire" or his stockholders and thus do not contribute much to the IRS and the job market. Performing companies do all of the above.

FWIW.

Best,

Kurt

Steve,

Do you have the stats to back that up? I will be non-political in my assessment of your position once you find the data.

Tax cuts have always increased revenue to the Treasury (based mostly on the multiplier effect) going back to Kennedy's tax cuts in the early '60's where high marginal tax rates exist.

Government spending causes deficits.

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml