This is tax policy brilliance

[millertime24 8]

I don't give a fuck.

Muff #5048

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

The jumping is irrelevant, but your (lack of) economics background is highly so, particularly given your tendency to try to simplify economics to single variables.

He's certainly not alone in that regard. What we get from many on the right is "TAX CUTS" as the answer to everything. It's a knee jerk talking point that as Jon Stewart points out is "like my grandma and chicken soup".
Few care to point out however, that even in a time when we were in fiscal peril and while fighting two wars, that we had the lowest federal tax rate in decades.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The jumping is irrelevant, but your (lack of) economics background is highly so, particularly given your tendency to try to simplify economics to single variables.

He's certainly not alone in that regard. What we get from many on the right is "TAX CUTS" as the answer to everything. It's a knee jerk talking point that as Jon Stewart points out is "like my grandma and chicken soup".

Swap in left and "RAISE TAXES" and you have the same thing from the libs.

You don't get more of something by taxing it. Lower taxes and business hire, expand or give raises. Increase taxes and they lay off, contract, raise prices or cut hours/pay.

In which situation is Acme Widget Company going to have more widgets for sale, do you think? Are you more likely to buy a widget (unless it's a 'gotta-have' purchase) at $20 dollars, or at $10?

And, yes, that's oversimplified...but it works as an example.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Finish your arguments for once, IK'm tired of making u look silly.

Visited The Onion News Network lately?

Convict a president via impeachment lately?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

For once we agree. Who cares what classes anyone has or has not attended, if they jump, how much, how long, etc. Post data.

The jumping is irrelevant, but your (lack of) economics background is highly so, particularly given your tendency to try to simplify economics to single variables.

Funny, you claim to be so complex, yet you can't show me a maj fed tax cut that has benefitted us. WOW, I don't wanna be that complex where I can't even address an issue.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

For once we agree. Who cares what classes anyone has or has not attended, if they jump, how much, how long, etc. Post data.

Well, posting data that doesn't tell the whole story leads to incomplete discussions and often incorrect attributions. Qualitative discussion is necessary to figure out what needs to be considered before you start plugging and chugging to see what correlates. Data is important, no doubt, as without it you're left with conjecture. But attribution without understanding is actually dangerous as opposed to conjecture which is merely useless.

Simple generalizations about the economy and how it will react to a single input parameter (at non-trivial values) are invariably wrong.

That's really wonderful there, but you should actually address the data and then point out the shortcomings, rather than summarily, unilatterally discarding it. So go back and do that, rather than just making it obsolete or incomplete for lack of an argument.

Also, as with p[olitical science, fiscal sciences are somewhat the same; we don't have the ability to test, retest and test a thousand more times as with many clinical experiments where we run 1 and only independent variable, then a different one and so on until we find the dependent variable. Political sciences are somewhat a bastard science where we look at the limited data we have and draw conclusions.

Tell me why everytime we lower taxes things go to fuck? Why then when we raise taxes they heal? And I'm talking debt, growth, jobs, etc; it's pretty consistent. Then we factor in the common sense element; bean counters run the very rich and big corps, so wouldn't they advise their clients to reinvest in order to shild their profits? And when taxes are low like with Reagan and both Bush's, wouldn't that same accountant tell his client to pull out profits before taxes are raised? I mean, 35% is about as low as it gets, run that to 60-70% and it's a no-brainer to reinvest.

Like with math equations you work with in class, as you finish you look at it generally to see if it makes sense and doesn't it make sense as well as teh data suggests that high taxes = reinvest, low taxes = take profit?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

low taxes = take profit?

low taxes = hire more workers, expand business

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

low taxes = take profit?

low taxes = hire more workers, expand business

HEY!

Damit
Profit is evil

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

Quote

Does Lucky even jump?

The last neo-con asked if I has an economics class, now you wonder if I jump. I can show you neo-ons like you who don't and post here, I do jump and am D licensed. Now, on to your neo-con brothers who don't jump, I guess you don't care about that, save your ad hominems for those you disagree with. Sad you can't formulate an argument.

that's a lot of gall coming from you mr balck ( your spelling ) helicopter , and when referring to me put me down for conservative do you even know what neo or ad hominum mean ?
back on topic , taxes or revenues are only one part of the equation , spending is a much larger factor on debt and deficit , they must be considered and evaluated together as to how they affect macro economy and debt/deficit. will this put to bed your peurile urge to trot out your tax only theory ? are you really from zimbabwe like it says on your sig ? that would explain your seemingly low level of economic understanding. that combined with apparently never having taken an economics course . mtf !

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Finish your arguments for once, IK'm tired of making u look silly.

Visited The Onion News Network lately?

Convict a president via impeachment lately?

Yep! But Bill set me straight in one easy post. :)
You, OTOH, still think ONN is a legit news source.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Swap in left and "RAISE TAXES" and you have the same thing from the libs.

Because it's more fiscally responsible than the right's habit of growing government and cutting taxes.

Quote

You don't get more of something by taxing it. Lower taxes and business hire, expand or give raises. Increase taxes and they lay off, contract, raise prices or cut hours/pay.

In which situation is Acme Widget Company going to have more widgets for sale, do you think? Are you more likely to buy a widget (unless it's a 'gotta-have' purchase) at $20 dollars, or at $10?

And, yes, that's oversimplified...but it works as an example.

Taxes are at their lowest point in close to 40 years. And again, the sunset clause was put in the Bush tax cuts for a reason. And I fully understand the economic theory. So did Greenspan, who was "shocked" when he found out that business leaders were willing to ignore their business' health, and the well being of the shareholders in favor of risky, lucrative personal gain. The unchecked, free market capitalism model only works if you disallow excessive greed. Greed is fine. When it becomes excessive you can bring down a nation, a scenario that's no longer simply theoretical.

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

low taxes = hire more workers, expand business

That is one of very many options and certainly not a guarantee.

[billvon 2,435]

>low taxes = hire more workers, expand business

Or low taxes = pay executives more, keep current workforce, use money to lobby government to spend more on infrastructure _they_ want.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>low taxes = hire more workers, expand business

Or low taxes = pay executives more, keep current workforce, use money to lobby government to spend more on infrastructure _they_ want.

You're right - much better to raise taxes and have businesses downsize/close/move overseas to try to remain solvent.... all of which reduces gov't revenue in the triple whammy of lost business tax, lost income tax from the workers and reduced economic activity because the workers can't afford to buy shit anymore.

Brilliant plan, that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

Quote

>low taxes = hire more workers, expand business
Or low taxes = pay executives more, keep current workforce, use money to lobby government to spend more on infrastructure _they_ want.

You're right - much better to raise taxes and have businesses downsize/close/move overseas to try to remain solvent.... all of which reduces gov't revenue in the triple whammy of lost business tax, lost income tax from the workers and reduced economic activity because the workers can't afford to buy shit anymore.
Brilliant plan, that.

BRAVO , but how did you formulate that reply without reference to post 59 !

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

low taxes = hire more workers, expand business

That is one of very many options and certainly not a guarantee.

And completely unsupportable. We've had way more growth, way more stock market gains under D's than R's, way more economic disater under R's than D's. WIth that said, the 2 descent R's since FDR kept taxes high or raised them off teh floor and during this time things improved, so it isn't totally a partisan issue.

Low taxes have completely refuted the theory of supply side economics, yet the drones continue to drag on about it and never supporting any of it.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Finish your arguments for once, IK'm tired of making u look silly.

Visited The Onion News Network lately?

Convict a president via impeachment lately?

Yep! But Bill set me straight in one easy post. :)
You, OTOH, still think ONN is a legit news source.

Actually I did and have for some time. So let's summarize:

- I wasn't aware of a silly satirical, extremely obscure website.

- You weren't aware of how a very fundamental political process of discipline works, one that is taught in high school and goes back to at least the 14th century, not to mention Article 1 of the US Const: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution



Hmmmm, so you try to make me look bad for not ever hearing of the Onion, yet you aren't aware of the US Const?

Tell your girlfriends here that every time they bring up that lame Onion BS that I will remind us of your vast Constitutional knowledge.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Does Lucky even jump?

The last neo-con asked if I has an economics class, now you wonder if I jump. I can show you neo-ons like you who don't and post here, I do jump and am D licensed. Now, on to your neo-con brothers who don't jump, I guess you don't care about that, save your ad hominems for those you disagree with. Sad you can't formulate an argument.

Quote

that's a lot of gall coming from you mr balck ( your spelling ) helicopter , and when referring to me put me down for conservative do you even know what neo or ad hominum mean ?

Spelling Nazis are lame, both sides get tired of them, esp when they are usually typos. If you have a point to make, make it, if not keeping trying to say, "You performed a typo, your entire point must be invalid. Lame.

Neo = new

Ad Hominem = attacking a person rather than the argument. For example morons who attack a person's spellling to try to argue that they are wrong on an issue, or attacking character then saying therefore the substance must be wrong as well.

Quote

back on topic , taxes or revenues are only one part of the equation , spending is a much larger factor on debt and deficit , they must be considered and evaluated together as to how they affect macro economy and debt/deficit.

Oh, so if they are mutually as important as each other, let's examine times when spending is high and taxes low and vice versa.

Taxes low / spending high = Reagan, GWB resulted in high debt accrual.

Taxes high / spending high = 1940's thru 1960's. Resulted in the debt falling several times and when it rose, it never ran away.

To go to low spending we would have to go to the 1920's, an era where comparison to today's economy is irrelevant. Taxes were low and spending was low, the debt actually fell, but this led to an immediate era called the Great Depression, so that era was not a good model either.

So it looks like high taxation periods were the best, yielded the best results as far as debt accrual and overall eonomic bliss. Spending will always be high from here on out and even if it isn't, there is no evidence that eevn low taxes would be beneficial other than RW supply side theory, which has gone unproven to be beneficial.

Quote

will this put to bed your peurile urge to trot out your tax only theory ?

Mine isn't theory, mine has been proven. Here is a chart of top tax brkts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg

The best years were under high taxes, the worst under low taxes; so yours is unfounded theory, mine is statistically proven sound.

Quote

are you really from zimbabwe like it says on your sig ?

Are you that naive? Look at my profile.

Quote

that would explain your seemingly low level of economic understanding. that combined with apparently never having taken an economics course . mtf !

And that is the ad hominem. I'm sure there are economic geniuses in Zimbabwe. Instead of your lame spelling rants, from someone who can't capitalize or space correctly, or your lame attempt to trivialize someone from another country, why not actually address the data. Support your supply side theory with historical application that has worked?

• Quote

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Swap in left and "RAISE TAXES" and you have the same thing from the libs.

Because it's more fiscally responsible than the right's habit of growing government and cutting taxes.

Quote

You don't get more of something by taxing it. Lower taxes and business hire, expand or give raises. Increase taxes and they lay off, contract, raise prices or cut hours/pay.

In which situation is Acme Widget Company going to have more widgets for sale, do you think? Are you more likely to buy a widget (unless it's a 'gotta-have' purchase) at $20 dollars, or at $10?

And, yes, that's oversimplified...but it works as an example.

Quote

Taxes are at their lowest point in close to 40 years.

Yes, which is why we have this mess, as with the 1920's, with the Reagan era.

Quote

And again, the sunset clause was put in the Bush tax cuts for a reason. And I fully understand the economic theory.

Actually they were automatic as they were passed via reconcilliation.

Quote

So did Greenspan, who was "shocked" when he found out that business leaders were willing to ignore their business' health, and the well being of the shareholders in favor of risky, lucrative personal gain. The unchecked, free market capitalism model only works if you disallow excessive greed. Greed is fine. When it becomes excessive you can bring down a nation, a scenario that's no longer simply theoretical.

Greenspan recently woke up and admitted that tax cuts don't pay for themselves and that they only s/b used when teh economy picks up. He was made successful under Clinton, a failure under GWB. He wishes he had resigned after Clinton. The GWb cuts forced him to keep lowering the int rate, which fueled the mortgage mess.

• Quote

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>low taxes = hire more workers, expand business

Or low taxes = pay executives more, keep current workforce, use money to lobby government to spend more on infrastructure _they_ want.

You're right - much better to raise taxes and have businesses downsize/close/move overseas to try to remain solvent.... all of which reduces gov't revenue in the triple whammy of lost business tax, lost income tax from the workers and reduced economic activity because the workers can't afford to buy shit anymore.

Brilliant plan, that.

Growth has been much higher under higher taxes than under lower taxes, I challenge you to illustrate differently on a large scale, not some trivial, 6-month period of time. Use 100 years as a large sample size.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>low taxes = hire more workers, expand business

Or low taxes = pay executives more, keep current workforce, use money to lobby government to spend more on infrastructure _they_ want.

You're right - much better to raise taxes and have businesses downsize/close/move overseas to try to remain solvent.... all of which reduces gov't revenue in the triple whammy of lost business tax, lost income tax from the workers and reduced economic activity because the workers can't afford to buy shit anymore.

Brilliant plan, that.

BRAVO , but how did you formulate that reply without reference to post 59 !

Bravo http://images.paraorkut.com/img/funnypics/images/g/gay_cheerleader-12791.jpg Bravo

[skipbelt 0]

so you looked up ad hominum , now you know what it means , now maybe when you call for avoiding ad hominum attacks against you , you will extend the favor to everyone else !

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

so you looked up ad hominum , now you know what it means , now maybe when you call for avoiding ad hominum attacks against you , you will extend the favor to everyone else !

I can cite months, years ago where I used it in correct context. You need to take that shit to car forums; they're just that naive to be impressed. Now, as soon as the junior intellects stop changing the issue and trying to look bright and decide to address the issues I posted maybe we can actually get somewhere.

Here, I'll post them again:

Quote

back on topic , taxes or revenues are only one part of the equation , spending is a much larger factor on debt and deficit , they must be considered and evaluated together as to how they affect macro economy and debt/deficit.

Oh, so if they are mutually as important as each other, let's examine times when spending is high and taxes low and vice versa.

Taxes low / spending high = Reagan, GWB resulted in high debt accrual.

Taxes high / spending high = 1940's thru 1960's. Resulted in the debt falling several times and when it rose, it never ran away.

To go to low spending we would have to go to the 1920's, an era where comparison to today's economy is irrelevant. Taxes were low and spending was low, the debt actually fell, but this led to an immediate era called the Great Depression, so that era was not a good model either.

So it looks like high taxation periods were the best, yielded the best results as far as debt accrual and overall eonomic bliss. Spending will always be high from here on out and even if it isn't, there is no evidence that eevn low taxes would be beneficial other than RW supply side theory, which has gone unproven to be beneficial.

Quote

will this put to bed your peurile urge to trot out your tax only theory ?

Mine isn't theory, mine has been proven. Here is a chart of top tax brkts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg

The best years were under high taxes, the worst under low taxes; so yours is unfounded theory, mine is statistically proven sound.

Show me a major federal tax cut that has led to overall financial benefit. If you can dream one up, find 2, then 3, etc. Since, as you infer/claim, low taxes lead to prosperity, these examples should be plentiful.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

For once we agree. Who cares what classes anyone has or has not attended, if they jump, how much, how long, etc. Post data.

The jumping is irrelevant, but your (lack of) economics background is highly so, particularly given your tendency to try to simplify economics to single variables.

Well, I asked you, show me a major fed tax cut that has led to overall economic benefit. In fact, youy look that much more beat as I know law, aviation mechanics and a couple other issues by way of education/experience, but economics is something I've learned by reading and arguing, if you're so superior it s/b a snap to show me up - yet you can't. You can't show me a maj fed tax cut that worked to improve the economy. I can show you tax increases that did that and have, would be glad to again.

So you should bag the rhetoric about me not being degreed in economics as you can't hold up your end of teh argument. Tell me how Reagan-appointed Greenspan basically said Reagan was wrong when he said that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Oh, you don't wanna.

[mirage62 0]

Hey Mike let me be clear....I don't give a fuck - how's that?

But I admire your stance....write 97,000 post arguing with him but stand up for his rights in the non-jumping forum.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little