How accurate is this information on "Bush Tax Cuts"

Reply

Wilburn Gross Posted: Tue, Dec 7 2010 7:35 AM

rated by 0 users

Here's what's REALLY FUNNY. The Bush administration pushed the tax cuts for the wealthy as being expensive but would pay for themselves many times over in the amount of jobs created. From the time they were instituted the number of jobs created were anywhere from "well below average" of the last 30 years to "largest number of jobs lost in a quarter" (last quarter of Bush administration). HOWEVER, there were records set

 1.Number of American jobs outsourced during any 4 year term of any president is GW Bush 2004-2008, which broke the record held by GW Bush 2000-2004 (record was for both total number of jobs outsourced and percentage of total number of American jobs).

2. When adjusted for inflation, wages for the middle class decreased for the first time in 73 years.

3. Here's the REAL LAUGH! According to Forbes magazine, in 2008, the 400 richest Americans had a RECORD net worth of $1.57 Trillion dollars, for an average of a little under $4 Billion a piece. The richest, Gates and Buffet, had about $40 and $50 Billion respectably, the "poorest" of the 400 was at about $1 Billion net worth. Collectively, they had an income of about $109.6 BILLION that year. They saved about 3.5 BILLION in taxes from what they would pay if they didn't have the Bush tax cuts.

In a sense, they were paid a little over $40,000 for every jobless American they made. But it was really much, much more than that. American companies these 400 had holdings substantial enough to have heavy influence in the company, (the study used 10% of the company) outsourced 114,000 jobs out of the country.

It's good to be the king,

here’s the kicker, and the top 400 produced about -87,000 jobs that year in the U.S. That's right MINUS 87,000 jobs. That's a little over 217 jobs per Billionaire. In fact, some of the biggest gainers made the most by DOWNSIZING AND OUTSOURCING JOBS.

And remember, that was in a year they owned the most, and made the most money any 400 people on earth from one country (even adjusted for inflation) in the history of mankind. It was also a year in which they had the BUSH Tax cuts. So in other words, in appreciation for saving them less

Reply

resist272727 replied on Tue, Dec 7 2010 12:01 PM

rated by 0 users

The "Bush Tax Cuts" were an ill-conceived scheme to get elected.  There was absolutely no attempt to cut spending and it got worse when Dems got elected.

Wilburn Gross:

When adjusted for inflation, wages for the middle class decreased for the first time in 73 years.

Actually, that's incorrect.  The last time CPI-adjusted average wages had decreased was 1999.  Overall they went from $23.45/hr. (2009$) in 2000 to $25.87/hr. (2009$) in 2008. 

Wilburn Gross:

Here's the REAL LAUGH! According to Forbes magazine, in 2008, the 400 richest Americans had a RECORD net worth of $1.57 Trillion dollars, for an average of a little under $4 Billion a piece. The richest, Gates and Buffet, had about $40 and $50 Billion respectably, the "poorest" of the 400 was at about $1 Billion net worth. Collectively, they had an income of about $109.6 BILLION that year. They saved about 3.5 BILLION in taxes from what they would pay if they didn't have the Bush tax cuts.

Probably not.  The "super-rich" typically can get away with paying about half of their income taxes due to tax code loopholes.  It's their money anyway, but I wish everyone could get away with not paying income taxes.

Either way, Buffet and Gates oppose tax cut extension.  Probably because it dosn't save them money.  And if they did save money, it's going to charity when they die anyway.

Wilburn Gross:

In a sense, they were paid a little over $40,000 for every jobless American they made. But it was really much, much more than that. American companies these 400 had holdings substantial enough to have heavy influence in the company, (the study used 10% of the company) outsourced 114,000 jobs out of the country.

They were paid their own money?  Yes.  War is peace.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength.

Wilburn Gross:

here’s the kicker, and the top 400 produced about -87,000 jobs that year in the U.S. That's right MINUS 87,000 jobs. That's a little over 217 jobs per Billionaire. In fact, some of the biggest gainers made the most by DOWNSIZING AND OUTSOURCING JOBS.

It was probably necessary.

Wilburn Gross:

And remember, that was in a year they owned the most, and made the most money any 400 people on earth from one country (even adjusted for inflation) in the history of mankind. It was also a year in which they had the BUSH Tax cuts.

Not because of the Bush Tax Cuts!

Reply

Clayton replied on Tue, Dec 7 2010 1:40 PM

rated by 0 users

"Tax cuts" are meaningless unless there are also "spending cuts" of equal magnitude because inflationary government spending drives up the prices of goods and services used by the private sector, effectively taxing away the difference between revenues and outlays. Money is just a medium of exchange - and a particularly unreliable one in a fiat monetary system - what really matters are real goods and services. There are only so many real goods and services in the economy at any given time and the more of those goods and services that the government consumes in the pursuit of its own ends, the higher the prices the rest of us must pay for the remaining goods and services. Price-controls (queueing) just result in another form of high prices - paid in foregone leisure, labor or other opportunities - instead of in dollars.

Taxes are only necessary in a sound money economy. If the government is forced to use the same money as everybody else, then it is restricted to bidding away only the amount of goods and services for which it can pay with the tax revenues that it managed to raise. But when the government can issue its own notes and force merchants to accept those notes, the government is freed of the shackles of popular backlash against excessive taxation. This is the genius of central banking. Dick Cheney meant exactly this when he said, "Deficits don't matter." As long as the Federal Reserve exists, they don't matter. By diffusing the costs of government throughout the entire economy, the central bank conceals the government's rapacious consumption of the economy's real resources. But the common man is imbued with a sense of awe for government functions, including money issue, and imagines that these must have some function beyond protecting the banking cartel and juicing real government revenues well beyond what the public's patience would bear in the form of direct taxation. So, instead of popular revolts - the normal feedback mechanism against excessive government consumption - we have economic depressions when the inflationary spending has so far dislocated investment into ends for which there is no non-government consumer demand that prices of consumer goods begin to skyrocket while wages flatten or fall, resulting in layoffs, shutdowns and outsourcing.

Clayton -

Reply

Wilburn Gross replied on Tue, Dec 7 2010 1:50 PM

rated by 0 users

Thanks Clayton I am going to post your reply on another forum