What the GOP, Ryan and the Mittster stand for

[BT]

I am not opposed to that, either. But at the present moment, taxing the majority would lower the amount spent by consumers in a consumer-driven economy, or so they say.

Again you speak of two separate actions. Raising revenues for the feds via taxation by raising taxes for all, is the the fair way to do it.

But then you attempt to protect all but the top quintile by saying doing just that will lower consumption. So which is more important, consumption, which i believe benefits the states or raising income tax which would benefit the feds.

Your arguments lately seem to lack focus.

[Xavier_Onassis]

But then you attempt to protect all but the top quintile by saying doing just that will lower consumption. So which is more important, consumption, which i believe benefits the states or raising income tax which would benefit the feds.

Your arguments lately seem to lack focus.
==============================================
It is not my argument that lower taxes for the people on the bottom will reduce consumption, it is what I have heard. The argument is that people in the lower brackets spend nearly all their money on consumer items, and people in the top bracket do not, because all their needs are met with a smaller percentage of their income.

The fatcat argument is that people in the top bracket create jobs. But if they buy stock in many companies, they are not creating jobs: they are simply buying stock from othe3r shareholders. If I buy 100 shares of Apple, the money I pay for them does not go to Apple, not a penny of it. Jobs are not created when the NYSE is churned.

That seems focused to me.

[BT]

It is not my argument that lower taxes for the people on the bottom will reduce consumption, it is what I have heard. The argument is that people in the lower brackets spend nearly all their money on consumer items, and people in the top bracket do not, because all their needs are met with a smaller percentage of their income.

OK you are simply repeating an argument.

So which is more important to the economy, consumption that benefits businesses and the states, or taxation on income that primarily benefits the federal government?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Both are important, of course.

A 4% raise in the top tax bracket would probably benefit the government more. It would have less impact on consumer spending.

[sirs]

That 4% means nothing if spending is going up quadruple, and we fall further into a black-hole of Greece-like debt.  That math doesn't add up.  And in the mean time, you've managed to squelch, even more so, those who help create jobs & could MAYBE start to heal the economy...less people employed...less people consume, outside of those uber-rich that can afford it

So, what does that punishing the top bracket, actually accomplish again?

[Xavier_Onassis]

It keeps you and Mrs sirs from starting a business and hiring a hundred workers or so.

[sirs]

So, to answer the question that Bt posed, you could care less about the economy, its taxation you want, and screw the consequences.  gotcha

[Xavier_Onassis]

Go create some jobs and shut up, sirs. You are really boring.

[sirs]

For someone so "boring", not only do you respond frequently, its rarely to debate, & most often to demean and slur, with the occasional outlandish/wreckess accusation, proven to be wrong.  I suppose why I can see how easily bored you can get, being so wrong, over and over and over and over again