Stumble This | You should also watch “Jimmy Carter Reponds to his Critics” |
obamanomics,jimmy carter,economics,tax,recession,history repeats itself Obama's economic plan
Comments 
who voted for this video
Lurch
- Farhad2000
- littledragon_79
who voted against this video
rougy
Obama's Economic Plan Related Videos
 Jimmy Carter on Israel's apartheid policy & the Israel Lobby |  Jimmy Carter helps in the fight against River Blindness |  Jimmy Carter on "What's My Line" |
Fosfor Gadgets has a list of the ten weirdest USB-powered accessories available for your computer, including a functional George Foreman grill and heated slippers. My personal favorite, though, is the self-destruct device depicted on the left. I’d love to re-enact the self-destruct scene from the classic Star Trek episode “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.”
A couple of years later and guess what? Most businesses are coming back. Lost cost countries lead to lower quality production in most cases. And in lots of cases lower quality isn't acceptable to companies who try to sell their products at the same old prices and who have a quality image to lose. Also selective consumption, by punishing those businesses that leave with your wallet, can help.
Boo-hoo. Rich people have to pay a little more in tax.
The end is near....
Oh! And I especially love to hear more Fox News bullshit as if I couldn't turn around and see it everywhere I go.
Flat taxation is basically a fixed amount everyone pays, this is hardly if ever used.
Progressive taxation is where you tax the least to the lowest income earners and tax more on the highest income earners.
Regressive taxation is where you tax the lowest income earners the most and loosen the taxation as the income is higher. This is essentially what is in place right now in the US.
Income surveys shows that the largest amount of US wealth is centered in the top 1% of income earners, declining exponentially to the lowest income holders of which control far less wealth on a larger population base.
The theory dictates that economic growth is best with an emergent middle class, progressive taxation allows low income earners to move up the middle class. This is because this segment pays more of their income as a tax then the higher income earner. The middle class has been declining in the last 10 years.
20 dollars of tax on say a 100 dollar salary is a large percentage of your income. However 100 dollars of a 1000 dollar salary is less, the burden is far smaller, your standard of living does not get affected.
Remember that those who earn more already have access to alternative finical institutions and accounts that already circumvent the taxation scheme put forward, they can readily transfer income out of the nation into lower tax deposits internationally or even tax heavens. Leading to a rise of international companies basing their HQ in tax heavens, allowing them to escape corporate taxation.
The Bush idea of reducing taxation is fallacious as it only benefits those who are already rich, while still taxing more on those who are poor, pushing more people into low income segments of the economy.
Also cutting taxes has been possibly because of high taxation previously, we can afford to cut taxes on roads upkeep, sewage upkeep and other social services because the infrastructure has been heavily invested in by the government back in the 40s to 60s. Of course cutting those taxes leads to bridges collapsing and pipes exploding in the city.
Handing over upkeep to corporate sponsors, like selling pieces of road and social infrastructure is detrimental as companies seek profits not positive social externalities.
This shows a totally misunderstanding of what the US economy is experiencing, US companies moved out the US because labor costs were higher, this is natural business activity, they manufacture in China because it allows them to pass the previous high labor costs as a cost to the consumer. Thats why even though your T-Shirt is not made in the US, but China you still pay a lot for it because you are not benefiting from the low cost of manufacture. The company is.
The ludicrous actions of the Fed over the last few years has seen a rise in complicated financial derivatives that created the credit crush and the bubble market in Real estate and IT markets (1999 - 2000). Without addressing the problems of creating bubble economies.
The cost of the war is slated to be 3 trillion dollars in the long term, this is a war that was initially budgeted for under billion, and with promises that concessions from the oil capture would repay the cost of incursion.
This is why the next year will be harder for the US economy as it has to balance this commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan while at the same time dealing with a huge deficit in its current account and national debt. Higher taxation is needed for this, higher unemployment is a symptom of lackadaisical economic policy while higher gas prices is based on uncertainty because of the wars and emergent economic powers like China and India. There are more consumer for a very finite resource.
Lower taxation is the wrong way to go right now. The surpluses of the Clinton administrations evaporated and sunk into huge deficits. The US was and is acting like a teenager with a credit card that is maxed out. The costs of these actions can only be addressed with increasing taxation not lowering it again as society will be burdened with the cost while big companies will be benefiting or will be rescued via government subsidization as they cannot compete in raw manufacturing with China.
The idea that tax cuts only benefit the rich is also false. Numbers from the Treasury Department have shown the effect cuts have had on low income earners from 2001 all the way to estimated values in 2011. They are substantial compared to the tax estimates when the cuts lapse. It most certainly does not push more people into a lower segment. Numbers from the tax foundation detailing income tax rates from 1913 all the way up to 2008 demonstrate that the idea of cuts only for the rich is a myth. Low income earners experienced substantial decreases. In fact, a family making less than 30K a year is saving more in taxes than a family making 100K a year.
As for the Clinton surplus, that is completely false. Just check the US Treasury. Cooking the books and claiming a surplus does not make it true. At the end of Clinton's last fiscal year in 2001, the deficit was $133.29 billion with a national debt of $5.8 trillion. However, there was a point when we came somewhat close to a balanced budget. Funny enough, it was Republicans that controlled congress at the time and pushed for the spending cuts that decreased our deficit. You just can't keep a low or non-existant deficit if you don't stick to decreased spending though.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/reports/taxrelief_20012011_052708.pdf
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np