Q. How many boat builders and luxury car making laborers lost their jobs?
Did it take to long to see the trickle down effect of economic jealousy?
All knowing one - They repealed it quickly as it destroyed parts of the economy. No thanks for your false facts.
Did it take to long to see the trickle down effect of economic jealousy?
All knowing one - They repealed it quickly as it destroyed parts of the economy. No thanks for your false facts.
Answer
Twelve days ago, the luxury tax on expensive cars expired. It was the last of the luxury taxes that the first President Bush signed in 1990 as part of the budget agreement in which he broke his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.
The agreement was brokered Sen. George Mitchell , D-Maine , then majority leader. And the luxury tax was supported by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.
The luxury tax applied not just to cars, but to jewelry, furs and private planes, and to expensive boats â yachts.
Not So Lucrative
Congress estimated that in 1991 these luxury taxes would rake in $31 million. But the actual sum was just $16.6 million.
Why? Because, to the surprise of no one except tax-raising politicians the luxury taxes caused people to buy less jewelry and fewer expensive cars, planes, and, especially, yachts.
The tax destroyed jobs â an estimated 25,000 of them in the boat-building industry, much of which is in New England â in Sen. Mitchell's Maine and Sen. Kennedy's Massachusetts.
Job losses cost the government more than $24 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenue. So the luxury tax actually cost the government money.
New England's boat-building industry was still so devastated by 1999 that another Kennedy â Ted's son Patrick, a Rhode island congressman â actually proposed a federal subsidy to help rich people buy yachts. He called it, "exactly the opposite of a luxury tax."
Remember this costly farce when you hear talk about helping the common folks by taxing the rich.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=132568&page=1
Twelve days ago, the luxury tax on expensive cars expired. It was the last of the luxury taxes that the first President Bush signed in 1990 as part of the budget agreement in which he broke his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.
The agreement was brokered Sen. George Mitchell , D-Maine , then majority leader. And the luxury tax was supported by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.
The luxury tax applied not just to cars, but to jewelry, furs and private planes, and to expensive boats â yachts.
Not So Lucrative
Congress estimated that in 1991 these luxury taxes would rake in $31 million. But the actual sum was just $16.6 million.
Why? Because, to the surprise of no one except tax-raising politicians the luxury taxes caused people to buy less jewelry and fewer expensive cars, planes, and, especially, yachts.
The tax destroyed jobs â an estimated 25,000 of them in the boat-building industry, much of which is in New England â in Sen. Mitchell's Maine and Sen. Kennedy's Massachusetts.
Job losses cost the government more than $24 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenue. So the luxury tax actually cost the government money.
New England's boat-building industry was still so devastated by 1999 that another Kennedy â Ted's son Patrick, a Rhode island congressman â actually proposed a federal subsidy to help rich people buy yachts. He called it, "exactly the opposite of a luxury tax."
Remember this costly farce when you hear talk about helping the common folks by taxing the rich.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=132568&page=1
Why did we have all these technological advances during a recession?
Iliketomak
Smartphones, tablets, better gas mileage on cars. I understand that technology advances quickly, but why did all these advances have to happen during and after the economic downturn of '07?
Answer
Not everybody suffered. Many basic manufacturing businesses never felt anything except maybe fewer sales, because of less of a demand. Luxury items suffered, however. Yachts and private planes dropped a lot, for example. So, time marches on and they (basic manufacturers) continued research and development of their products. It was the banks and insurance companies and real estate that suffered the most. Little people like me, part time inventors, who were involved with securities sold by the banks, lost money on the investments, but that did not bankrupt me, since I was diversified. I only lost 40% of what I had invested. Investment is like gambling, but what you are betting on is different. You can bet on the toss of a coin or bet on the skills and products of a company. Either way, over time, you win or you lose.
Not everybody suffered. Many basic manufacturing businesses never felt anything except maybe fewer sales, because of less of a demand. Luxury items suffered, however. Yachts and private planes dropped a lot, for example. So, time marches on and they (basic manufacturers) continued research and development of their products. It was the banks and insurance companies and real estate that suffered the most. Little people like me, part time inventors, who were involved with securities sold by the banks, lost money on the investments, but that did not bankrupt me, since I was diversified. I only lost 40% of what I had invested. Investment is like gambling, but what you are betting on is different. You can bet on the toss of a coin or bet on the skills and products of a company. Either way, over time, you win or you lose.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
