Dems - Tax Increases Create Jobs

[red states rule]

Liberal Democrats are economic idiots. Why the hell would anyone think higher taxes and more government regulation would be a postive for private sector job growth and economic growth?







Democrats push $150B stock tax on Wall Street
By Silla Brush - 11/24/09 12:05 PM ET

A House bill still being drafted aims to raise $150 billion each year to pay for new jobs.

Under a bill being drafted by Democratic Reps. Peter DeFazio (Ore.) and Ed Perlmutter (Colo.), the sale and purchase of financial instruments such as stocks, options, derivatives and futures would face a 0.25 percent tax.

The bill, a copy of which was obtained by The Hill, is titled the “Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act of 2009.”

Half of the $150 billion in tax revenue would go toward reducing the deficit, while the other half would be deposited in a “Job Creation Reserve” to support new jobs.

The job fund would be available to offset the additional costs of the 2009 highway bill and other legislation that creates jobs.

The Obama administration and congressional Democrats are looking for ways to create jobs after the nation’s unemployment rate hit 10.2 percent in October and job losses are expected to rise.

House leaders have mentioned the possibility of a tax on stock transactions, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) appeared to raise questions about the approach last week. Pelosi said such a move would need to be done in conjunction with efforts in other countries.

“Obviously, we have to work with leadership on this,” said Leslie Oliver, spokeswoman for Perlmutter. “It has a long way to go, but the idea is to stir debate … We think this is one idea that makes a lot of sense.”

The stock tax measure specifies that tax revenue would need to support jobs that pay at least the median wage in the United States, promotes manufacturing jobs and prohibits any recipient of the $700 billion financial bailout from directly benefiting from the job reserve fund.



http://thehill.com//homenews/house/69295-dems-push-wall-street-150b-stock-tax

[CSM]

Liberal Democrats are economic idiots. Why the hell would anyone think higher taxes and more government regulation would be a postive for private sector job growth and economic growth?

Just another version of the liberal thought process.

Good is bad; bad is good with all kinds of emotional rationalizations to convince you. White is black and you are stupid if you don't believe that!

[red states rule]

Just another version of the liberal thought process.

Good is bad; bad is good with all kinds of emotional rationalizations to convince you. White is black and you are stupid if you don't believe that!

Liberals, for some reason, think it is a good thing to punish achievement and reward failure

The left demonizes those who are successful and punishes them by wanting (and taking) more of the money they work for

Joe the Plumber was savaged by the left for the unforgivable sin of asking then candidate Obama a question and showing the Dems intent to take money form one group of people and giving it to another group of people

Sure liberals say they want you to succeed, but they do not tell you is - do not succeed past a certain point or YOU will be punished by higher taxes and attacked on a daily basis for being greedy and not paying "your fair share"

[Joe Steel]

Liberal Democrats are economic idiots. Why the hell would anyone think higher taxes and more government regulation would be a postive for private sector job growth and economic growth?

More taxes means more tax revenue which funds more government projects which hire more workers.

For instance, when the government builds prisons for tax evaders, they'll contract with private construction companies who will be required to employ union workers.

Clear now?

[red states rule]

More taxes means more tax revenue which funds more government projects which hire more workers.

For instance, when the government builds prisons for tax evaders, they'll contract with private construction companies who will be required to employ union workers.

Clear now?

More taxes means LESS REVENUE. Look at tax revenue when the Feds raisd the xapital gaines tax. Revenues went down to less activity. Obama was nailed on that point in the Dem debate on ABC

Joe if you want to tax any activity you need to encourage that activity. Lowering taxes has always increased revenues

Your post shows the wrong way. You will INCREASE costs and those costs must be paid by someone - your post says the costs paid by the US taxpayer

Lust as Cash for Clunkers did nothing except shift sales from one month to another and cost taxpayers $24,000 per car sold

[Joe Steel]

More taxes means LESS REVENUE.

That's just nonsense.

[MtnBiker]

That's just nonsense.

Ha, what a dolt. :lol:


New York state raised tax by $5.2 billion but saw a %36 percent deline in revenue.

http://http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNQ6zYnQbPTc (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNQ6zYnQbPTc)

[MtnBiker]

BTW New York's liberal policies are doing a fine job of driving away the wealth creators in the state.

http://http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20091026/NEWS01/91026025/1.5-million-New-Yorkers-leave--state-still-grows (http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20091026/NEWS01/91026025/1.5-million-New-Yorkers-leave--state-still-grows)



For instance, when the government builds prisons for tax evaders

Why bring little Timmy Giethner or Charles Rangel into this?

And a prison is only a drain on an economy. The fewer prisons a society needs to allocate resources for means more resources availble for a capitalist industry to create wealth.

[Joe Steel]

New York state raised tax by $5.2 billion but saw a %36 percent deline in revenue.



Not because they raised taxes, dumbass.

[red states rule]

Not because they raised taxes, dumbass.

Here are 2 more examples dumbass - but you will never learn the truth or admit the truth




Increase in Tobacco Tax Leads to Decrease in Tax Revenues From Cigarette Sales in Chicago


James Gibson recently asked a man for a cigarette, to which the man replied that he “just bought this one for 50 cents.”

Gibson, 33, said he asked a number of “passers and mouth flappers” for a cigarette as he waited for a bus in front of a gas station on the corner of 35th Street and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive.

After negotiating with a fellow smoker, Gibson finished a “bummed” Newport cigarette before he boarded the bus.

“If I ask enough people, it will help me avoid paying for cigarettes at the gas station and on the streets,” said Gibson.

Scenes like this are becoming increasingly common as high taxes on cigarettes are changing buying habits in Chicago.

A pack of cigarettes is worth 98 cents per pack to the state of Illinois and $1.01 per pack to the U.S. federal government. After state, local and federal taxes — the city of Chicago adds 68 cents while Cook County adds $2 in taxes — a pack of cigarettes in Chicago is one of the most expensive in the Midwest, according to a yet to be published report by David Merriman, a professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago.

While neighboring states have increasingly higher tobacco taxes in Iowa–$1.36, Minnesota–$1.50 and Wisconsin–$2.52, Illinois’ residents in Chicago may be decreasing the city’s tobacco tax revenue by buying elsewhere, according to data received from Chicago’s Department of Revenue.

Buying habits have changed. Instead of buying cigarettes in Chicago, now consumers buy cigarettes outside the city, or even outside the state to avoid paying taxes, according to an emailed statement from Ed Walsh, spokesman for Chicago Department of Revenue.

Sales tax revenue on cigarettes in Chicago has decreased 67.78 percent since 2001, Walsh said.

On the South Side of Chicago, neighbors have witnessed last spring’s federal tax increase lead the distribution of cigarettes from stores to street corners where they are cheaper.

One local resident said he sees cigarettes sold on the corner of 47th Street and Cottage Grove Avenue when he heads to work at 6 a.m. and when he returns home at 7 p.m.

“From the moment I go to work until the moment I get off of work, I see them guys out there selling cigarettes,” said Tony, 52, who asked that his last name not be disclosed. He also said people can usually buy a single cigarette or a pack of cigarettes from men on the street because they are “cheaper.”

Experts believe that the increase in taxes could decrease Illinois’ tobacco tax revenue and increase illegal sales. Peddlers on the street are making a $2 to $3 profit on each pack sold.


http://www.chicagotalks.org/2009/11/13/increase-in-tobacco-tax-leads-to-decrease-in-tax-revenues-from-cigarette-sales-in-chicago/







and





Policy Points: Experts Agree That Capital Gains Tax Cuts Lose Revenue

During Wednesday’s Democratic presidential debate, Charles Gibson of ABC News made the following statements about capital gains taxes:

■“Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent and George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent and in each instance when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money.”

■“So why raise it [the capital gains rate] at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected.”
These statements, echoed in a Wall Street Journal editorial today, are seriously misleading, as explained below.

Cutting capital gains rates reduces revenues over the long run. That’s the conclusion of the federal government’s official revenue-estimating agencies, as well as outside experts and the Bush Administration’s own Treasury Department.

■The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation have estimated that extending the capital gains tax cut enacted in 2003 would cost $100 billion over the next decade. The Administration’s Office of Management and Budget included a similar estimate in the President’s budget.

■After reviewing numerous studies of how investors respond to capital gains tax cuts, CBO commented that “the best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains — and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.”

■The Bush Administration Treasury Department examined the economic effects of extending the capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Even under the Treasury’s most optimistic scenario about the economic effects of these tax cuts, the tax cuts would not generate anywhere close to enough added economic growth to pay for themselves — and would thus lose money.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1286

[MtnBiker]

Not because they raised taxes, dumbass.

Taxes went up, wealth earners left the state, Obama's spending did nothing. Raising taxes did not raise revenue.

[red states rule]

Taxes went up, wealth earners left the state, Obama's spending did nothing. Raising taxes did not raise revenue.

It is also happening in Maryland





Millionaires flee Maryland taxes
By: Leah Fabel
Examiner Staff Writer
May 27, 2009

The number of high-income taxpayers in Maryland has dropped by one-third, raising concerns that the wealthy are fleeing the state for its tax-friendlier neighbors.

About 2,000 residents filed returns in the highest bracket of more than $1 million in taxable income in April, down from about 3,000 in April 2008, according to the most recent data from State Comptroller Peter Franchot. Final numbers, which he said likely would include at least several thousand more million-dollar earners, will become available in October after tax returns that received extensions are filed.

“There’s no denying that the [tax] increase has had an impact on a sector of our citizens,” Franchot said.

Last year, the cash-strapped Maryland General Assembly raised by three-quarters of a percentage point the personal income tax rate for people earning more than $1 million in taxable income. That includes small businesses that file as “S corporations,” meaning the income is not distributed
solely to one individual.

“Higher taxes drive people away,” said University of Maryland economist
Peter Morici.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Millionaires-flee-Maryland-taxes-46138062.html