% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

The Boeing Company Message Board

  • gregjanetommax gregjanetommax Dec 13, 2012 9:44 AM Flag

    Liberal spin masters trying to discredit GOP efforts to cut spending


    Bernanke said Obama's policies do not support a recovery. He said it but where do you see it in the press. Obama has not cut a budget deal in 4 years, spend spend spend. So now the GOP are trying to harness that into spending cuts and the media are trying to discredit those efforts. The tax the rich gimmick at $200k is not millionaires or billionaires as Obama spins, even Reid and Clinton said as much. GOP efforts in spending cuts is heroic especially for our kids and grandkids who will be faced to pay off this debt.

    This topic is deleted.
    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • More gibberish from rush's wannabe rube.

      • 1 Reply to needmorevacation
      • How long a sayfu32, greggietommiemaxine, greedyoilybasterd crew member would have to work to make CEO annual pay: 1.1 million hours or 550 years.

        Between 1978 and 2011, worker compensation grew by 5.7 percent, according to an analysis by the the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank that advocates for lower-wage workers. In the same period, CEO compensation ballooned by 725 percent.
        6. MCDONALD'S

        CEO James Skinner's total compensation: $8.8 million.

        Average crew member salary: $7.65 an hour.

        How long a sayfu32, greggietommiemaxine, greedyoilybasterd crew member would have to work to make CEO annual pay: 1.1 million hours or 550 years.

    • Poor deluded bushbot/rmoneybot ...cutting taxes on the rich may not grow the economic pie, but can effect how the economic pie is sliced,,,
      and you still don't get no pie


      Study: Tax Cuts for the Rich Don't Spur Growth

      Cutting taxes for the wealthy does not generate faster economic growth, according to a new report. But those cuts may widen the income gap between the rich and the rest, according to a new report.

      A study from the Congressional Research Service -- the non-partisan research office for Congress -- shows that "there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth."

      In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth.

      The finding is likely to fuel to the already bitter political fight over taxing the rich, with President Obama and the Democrats calling for higher taxes on the wealthy to reduce the deficit and fund spending. Mitt Romney and the GOP advocate lower marginal tax rates for top earners, saying they fuel investment and job creation.

      The CRS study looked at tax rates and economic growth since 1945. The top tax rate in 1945 was above 90 percent, and fell to 70 percent in the 1960s and to a low of 28 percent in 1986.

      The top current rate is 35 percent. The tax rate for capital gains was 25 percent in the 1940s and 1950s, then went up to 35 percent in the 1970s, before coming down to 15 percent today - the lowest rate in more than 65 years.

      Lowering these rates for the wealthy, the study found, isn't aligned with significant improvement in any of the areas it examined. Pushing tax rates down had a "negligible effect" on private saving, and while it does note a relationship between investing and capital gains rates, the correlations "are not statistically significant," the study says.

      "Top tax rates," it concludes, "do not necessarily have a demonstrably significant relationship with investment."

      The study said that lower marginal rates have a "slight positive effect" on productivity while lower capital gains rates have a "slight negative association" with productivity. But, again, neither effect was considered statistically significant.

      Do higher taxes on the rich lead to faster economic growth? Not necessarily. The paper says that while growth accelerated with higher taxes on the rich, the relationship is "not strong" and may be "coincidental," since broader economic factors may be responsible for that growth.

      There is one part of the economy, however, that is changed by tax cuts for the rich: inequality. The study says that the biggest change in the distribution of U.S. income has been with the top 0.1 percent of earners - not the one percent.

      The share of total income going to the top 0.1 percent hovered around 4 percent during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, then rose to 12 percent by the mid-2000s. During this period, the average tax rate paid by the 0.1 percent fell from more than 40 percent to below 25 percent.

      The study said that "as top tax rates are reduced, the share of income accruing to the top of the income distribution increases" and that "these relationships are statistically significant."

      In other words, cutting taxes on the rich may not grow the economic pie. But the study found that those cuts can effect "how that economic pie is sliced."

132.23+0.91(+0.69%)Sep 28 4:04 PMEDT