Doesn't taxing the rich actually increase U.S. job investment?

[gulliver]

Never forget the Maher principle: The American People are Stupid. They frankly seem to think that money taxed from the rich just disappears into thin air. The Republicans, of course, encourage that.

Accusing Obama of adding tax revenue to the debt ceiling deal, John Boehner said, "The extra $400 billion would have had come from increasing taxes on the very people that we expect to invest in our economy and to create jobs."

That's ridiculous. There's no other word. The U.S. wealthy are going to take the $400 billion and invest it, all right. But what keeps them from investing it all in foreign economies? Patriotism? Inherent niceness?

On the other hand, if the government taxes that $400 billion, there would be no doubt that the money would go into the U.S. economy. Taxation of people who leak gouts of money into foreign economies actually reduces the leakage.

[socialist_n_TN]

1. Why yes. Yes it does.

GET RID OF THE JOB KILLING TAX CUTS!

[rfranklin]

2. What works is raising the salaries of average people...

They put it back into the economy.

Wehave tyried it the other way for the past thirty years and the result has been a sick economy and growing poverty.

[Cosmocat]

7. and SOMEHOW they always get the high ground ...

in the debates - the same trickledown BS that has lukewarm benefits at best and works against economic growth more often than not.

There is a BALANCE, to where you have the rates just high enough that they DO spend it on BUSINESS related costs as business expenses.

But, we are past the point where they are not taxed enough that it makes it more worthwhile to them to horde it and make money off of money without having it go back into the ecomomy at large.

It just is clear as day, and common sense.

But, they get to keep recycling their BS with the media carrying water for it.

[aquart]

3. Yup.

It also, btw, keeps local property taxes lower because much gets returned to the states.

[TheKentuckian]

4. Of course, you can do even more good by only allowing the write offs to those

who hire and invest domestically.

It'll even increase wages and stop future cuts.

[hughee99]

5. Why would their be no doubt the money would go into the US economy?

The US spends LOTS of money abroad.

[gulliver]

6. Perhaps I should have said there would be no doubt...

...that the vast majority of the money would be kept in our economy. You're right. The U.S. government undoubtedly "spends LOTS of money abroad." I don't know how much LOTS is, but common sense would say that politicians of all stripes would be screaming if it were a major factor.

[hughee99]

8. Politicians of all stripes already complain about foreign aid given to

various countries. A good amount of money spent on Iraq and Afghanistan ends up in those countries, and some politicians take issue with that as well.

[gulliver]

11. About $4B of the $400B would be foreign aid.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/03/cnn-fact-check-obama-discusses-foreign-aid-and-pork-projects/

Interesting that the article says, "A May 2009 poll for the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation noted that 45 percent of Americans incorrectly thought that foreign aid was one of the two largest areas of federal spending."

And yes, a lot of politicians do make hay out of it due to the Maher Principle. You got me though. Some of the $400B would end up in foreign hands due to the wonders of accounting.

Maybe Dems should promise that all new tax revenues would be earmarked for debt repayment and the U.S. economy. That could be a good political tactic to get around Republican tactics.

[booley]

12. which is a boondoggle

Most of that aid isn't to feed hungry kids or set up schools.

It's military aid. In other words, we give other countries money to buy weapons... from US weapon companies... who then take part of their profits and use it to lobby politicians.. the same politicians who propagate the idea that helping the needy (here or abroad) is why we are are in debt.

And even the non military aid does much the same, being given to western contractors who do a shitty job and then take the money and run.

[cbdo2007]

9. Yes. They'll be more likely to put the money back into the business than take it as salary.

[eppur_se_muova]

13. Exactly, this is well understood by most people who bother to think about it.

Given the choice of reinvesting the money, or having it taxed as salary, which option makes more sense ? Maybe not a no-brainer, but no more than a half-brainer.

[Amonester]

10. Yes, but they own the mass media...

And have already close to half of the propagandized voters believe everything they tell them, to the point they want them back at the wheel (after they crashed the car following 8 years of irresponsible driving) as soon as Nov. 2012!

Go figure... :crazy: