lawrocket 3 #51 September 14, 2010 QuoteI've phrased teh question a million times. Here we go again. No, not helped the rich, fascist pigs, but helped the poor, the MC, the middle-upper class. First - BINGO! By "helped" you don't mean, "helped everybody." You favor the taking of resources from some to supposedly provide to others. So "helped" means that you make a value judgment. We know that a tax cut has not helped the poor because the poor don't pay taxes. We know that tax cuts have helped the middle class because the middle class pay a large portion of the taxes and not takign their money they can spend it on their needs or wants. We know that tax increases hurt the poor, middle class and wealthy because the wealthy have fewer funds with which to hire people or purchase services. Remember the luxury tax a couple of decades ago where yachts were to have a large tax increase? It turned out that charging an extra $50k in taxes merely made it less expensive to buy the yacht internationally and sail it here, thus resulting in a net loss of revenue. I'll say again, the poor don't employ us. The middle class, to a large extent, do employ us. The wealthy employ more of us than anyone. Punish the wealthy and we punish ourselves. Perhaps if you spent a little less time hating and dehumanizing (again, the name calling) and some more time simply examining ripples then you'd have a better idea about how there is no panacea. Every policy has its positives and negatives depending on what we want to accomplish. QuoteLowered the debt or at least stopped the increase. The 1986 TRA increased revenues by lowering the marginal tax rates and eliminating tax shelters. Also - note that federal tax revenues (as a percentage of GDP) peaked in 2000 (about 21%). Then in 2001 they dropped below 20% and by 2004 were at about 17% (remember the economy tanked at the end of 2000 through 2002 with the dot com bubble bursting.) The "Bush tax cuts" resulted in lower tax rates in 2001 and 2003. See this. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8116&type=0 In it it is discussed how tax revenues grew more quickly than the GDP. Tax cuts resulted in revenue growth that exceeded GDP. Suck on that. Cutting taxes increases private investment in capital and labor and increases in consumer spending. taxing 50% of 1 trillion results in less that taxing 30% of 2 trillion. The problem is that you indicate no interest in actually getting to some economically feasible tax policy that ensures that the parasitic host wealthy and middle class survive. As Alvin Lee wrote, "Tax the rich. Feed the poor. Till there are no rich no more." All it means is that there are more poor people. What's your policy, dude? Is your policy goal to make sure that the poor are eliminated or that the rich are eliminated? I hate to break it to you, but poverty is stronger now than it was before the Great Society and before FDR. Tax policy hasn't done a damned thing as far as poverty is concerned because the left simply fails to recognize that history demonstrates that poverty cannot be cured by throwing money at it. QuoteAfter a maj fed tax cut, show me where, in most/all areas of the economy, indicators as well, were benefitted by the cut. See my link above. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts did a good job of increasing revenue (though from a bottom point). I know you point to the 1993 tax increase as a boom to the economy. Now, in 1993 there were 8 quarters of economic growth. The Cold War ended. And - technologies were greatly innovating productivity and entrepeneurship. One would expect solid growth to occur. Here's what that tax increase did: (1) Increased the individual income tax rate to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge for the highest earners, thereby effectively creating a top rate of 39.6 percent; (2) Repealed the income cap on Medicare taxes, making the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax apply to all wage income (this is an "off-the-books tax increase); (3) A 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes (taxed the poor) (4) Increases the taxable portion of Social Security benefits (another off-the-books increase); (5) Created a permanent extension of the phase-out of personal exemptions and the phase-down of the deduction for itemized expenses (this is where it hit businesses - by eliminating loopholes); and (6) Raised the corporate income tax rate to 35 percent. After the 1993 tax increase (between 94-97) employment rose by 11 million, the economy grew at 3.2% per year (average) and maret capitalization grew by 78%. The question is - did the economy perform this well because of or in spite of the tax increase? I'll answer this question as "NOBODY KNOWS OR CAN KNOW." In 1997, the GOP Congress passed tax-cutting legislation that Clinton resisted by signed. The most controversial cuts were: (1) Lowering the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent; and (2) phasing in the estate tax to kick in after $1 million. The capital gains tax decreased spurred massive investment. Here's the comparison between 1993-1996 and 1997-2000: The ecomony grew at 4.2% between 1997-2000 compared to 3.2% between 1993-1996. EMployment increased by 11.5 million jobs, compared to 11.1 million. WAGES grew 6.5% between 1997-2000, compared to .8% between 1993-1996. Market capitalizatin rose 95% between 1997-2000, compared to 78% between 1993-1996. Tax revenues (on budget) from 1993-1996 increased from $1.154 trillion to $1.453 trillion and ended up at $2.025 trillion by 2000. Now, did these increases is such things as real wages, tax revenues and GDP meet your definition of "help?" 1993 tax increases did not cause the economy to suffer. the 1997 decrease did not cause the economy to suffer. All the 1997 decrease did was allow people to invest their money where they wanted to invest it, instead of having the government tax them and invest the money where the government wanted to invest it. My problem is cause/effect. If you think that the "Clinton tax increase" of 1993 caused the economy to grow, then by logic you have no choice but to agree that the "Clinton tax decrease of 1997" caused the economy to grow at a greater clip. QuoteHigher taxes increase growth, keep the debt down and demand reinvestment over profit taking Actually, I just proved that LOWER taxes (specifically lowering the capital gains tax) increase growth and demand reinvestment DUE To profit taking. I showed you exactly what you asked for UNDER the metrics that you suggested. I specifically looked for wage growth. Neither higher nor lower taxes have kept the debt down since I've been alive because Congress can always spend more and has. Show me any time in the past 50 years where increased taxes have lowered the deficit. Note: the "surplus years" were 1998, 1999 and 2000 - subsequent to the "Clinton tax cut" of 1997. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #52 September 14, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote So all the data I post is a product of emotionalism? Quote Yes. Because you couch the data in emotional terms. And you're a fucking lawyer? I don't know what area you practice in, but generally you ahve to grow a thick skin. Truth is you would rather pretend to have your feelings hurt than to defend tax cuts where there is no data to show they do good things. Quote No, not quite. Unfortunately for you, I deal with this crap every day and I know it when I see it. What is the relevance of "Republiturd?" It has no relevance to any listeners. It is only relevant is the speaker wishes to paint himself or herself as somehow superior. The name calling is intended to paint someone on a level beneath you and the topic of conversation becomes that. The oddest thing is how few people recognize that such language reflects far more on the speaker than on the subject. As I have said many times, it creates an escape for people who don't want to address teh issues. Quote Or is it how you escape from actually having to address the data? Quote Quote Considering that not even YOU think the data can speak for itself Bullshit, it all speaks for itself. Quote Then put the data up there without the incediary allegations. If you think the facts are in your favor, then stress those facts. You don't do that. Therefore, the inference is that you would rather the data be obfuscated by your subjective feelings. I don't think you are a dumb person, and therefore I recognize that you know this is the case and put the language out there in order to add smoke to the data. I've posted this data umpteen million times, here goes again: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg/500px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg.png The 2 times when taxes were chopped huge, 1920's Harding/Coolidge 73% to 25% and 1981 Reagan 70% to 28% the results were the Great Depression and massive debt accrual respectively. Wealth was redistributed the the most wealthy in both cases, or as you call it; heaven on earth. Both times it took tax increases to recover. Hoover sat there for 2 1/2 years and then raised taxes 260% from 25% to 63% on June 6, 1932 and GHWB/Clinton raised them 12% over teh next 4 years after the senile fascist turd left. See, I can't help myself, there's your escape to feel hurt and refuse to further answer. Anyway, our best fiscal years were under high taxation, 1940s' - 1960's. And spending was very high during these times, we started to encounter tough times as the top marg brkt was chopped in teh 70's, disaster in the Reagan years when we revisited the GD year's tax brackets. Quote Quote - and it must be presented with skewed insults - Cry me a fucking river, I insult the ideology, which is very supportable, not the person. I'm not crying. Far from it. I'm trying not to laugh because you are presenting it from a self-anointed position as the speaker of the truth (HALLELUJAH!) who fails to indicate any grasp that reasonable minds may differ. Quote Quote then the data is unworthy of discussion. Exactly, this allows you an escape from having to SHOW US ONE FUCKING MAJOR FED TAX CUT THAT HAS HELPED.[\reply] Helped what? Helped me? Helped my employees? Helped my retirement? Helped the poor? Helped the deficit? "Helped what?" I've asked you that before and you didn't answer it. And your failure to comprehend that help for one implicates harm for another demonstrates the rampant confusion that you have between subjective feeling and objective reality. further, it is an indication of your inability to view the interests of those whom you deem unworthy. By calling them Republiturds, you have a much easier time destroying people, businesses and families. It's not what your use of these terms says about republicans but rather what it says about you. Volumes. Quote Instead sit there and wipe your eyes. I'm too busy wiping my ass. Quote Quote Perhaps if you simply posted the data for discussion it would be discussed. Since you havent' done that, then it won't be discussed. I'll start a thread and be completely w/o any hurty words for those with sensitivity issues and we'll see the usual suspects running teh same usual way. Just admit it's part of your ideology and you're sticking to your story w/o deliberate thought. Quote I'll admit that it is part of my ideology. But you also don't want to look at things like the 1986 Tax Reform Act and see what it did for federal revenues because your ideology doesn't like it. REVENUES NEVER MET THE GROTESQUE FEDERAL SPENDING UNDER REAGSN - FUCKING NEVER AND YOU CALL IT A WIN? That's what I'm talking about; you celebrate disasted for the country as long as a few can win. BTW, that tax act was the final chop from 38% to 28%. Look at the debt accrual under your boys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms Look at the 3rd chart/graph down: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms Clinton raised taxes / cut soending and receipts exceeded outlays the last 3 years of his term. Reagan and his brilliance never really came close to receipts meeting outlays; IOW's, he couldn't buy his way out of it. Quote Here's this item: When was the last time a US tax increase decreased the federal debt? Truman chopped taxes from 94% to 82% at the end of WWII. As with post-war economies, there was a recession anyway so he soon raised taxes back to 91% where they stayed all of Eisenhower's terms. So that increase aided Eisenhower to have teh debt fall 3 of hos 8 years. In 1968 and 69 taxes were raised from 70 to 77%, as you can see on the graph and in the data set http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States The debt fell under these taxes in 1969. Altho during Clinton's years the debt never fell, the deficit fell every year from 290B GHWB's last year to just 33B Clinton's last year, 8 years later. Again, fell each and every year. If the trend had continued, the debt would have fallen the next year but GWB gave away the surplus and cut taxes; we know what happened. We also know that Clinton raised teh top brkt 9% in 93 right after he entered office. Quote Or, when was the last time that a federal revenue increase was not outpaced by an increase in federal spending? In 97 I want to say under Clinton and 4 years after his tax increase revs beat outlays, held there until your hero took office. http://www.econdataus.com/outdoc10.html - - - - - - - - - - - OUTLAYS AS A % OF GDP: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/outlays-per-gdp.php As you can see, the worst since WWII were the Reagan years, the best the Eisenhower years followed by the Clinton years. This graph shows us the 1950's, 1969 and Clinton's years. Quote NJotice that austerity is being advocated and implemented in Europe? This is because austerity is the only thing that will actually work and the only thing that hadn'tbeen tried. OK, that is rhetoric. What is being implemented specifically? Quote Quote The tax cuts will expire and 200/250k and below won't get their meaningless tax cut, Quote It's meaningless? So get rid of it. Yea, I say Obama should just let all tax cuts expire, he's trying to help teh little guy tho. Quote An admission that tax cuts help. Welcome to the libertarian party. No, that's just to shut the rich whiners up. Besides, taxes for the 3% ers mean virtually nothing either way, so it's impact would be minimal and I don't wanna be accused of being a hypocrite, so raise them across the board. Quote Quote Just think if he had congress his last 6 years he could have made the debt fall, first time since 1969. WOW! So now you ARE saying that the "Clinton Quote surpluses" were not, in fact, surpluses because the surplus was borrowed from Social Security! By the way - the GOP did that. Show me what you're talking about via data/ev otehr than RW rag. Is that better? Feelings doing ok? Quote So you admitted something and now you want me to show you why you admitted it? It's great how we can agree on something and you'll change your mind. HUH? All you can do is look for something taht isn't said. See, that is lawyering brilliance, I'm over here getting hung up on irrelevant things like objecctive data. Quote Quote Obama has become Clinton II so far. Yes, the longest growth period in US history and you act as tho it's bad????? WTF? Quote The longest growth? Who? For Obama? I hate to break it to you, but you just mentioned that this is the second longest recession after the great depression. he's only been in for 22 months. How mnay times do I have to teach you guys it's been 20 months? He sin't pres as he's elected in Nov. Also, I was talking Clinton's growth period and you know it. Obama's policies are a lot like Clinton's. Quote Quote I think Obama's only hope of two terms is to get GOP Majority in both houses during this election. Recall that if Clinton would have been up for reelection in '94 and ran unopposed he would have lost. No way, the young vote will come out in 2012, not 2010 unfortunately and reelect him. Youth are tired of crusty old WASP maggots tying to cut education funding and sending them to war in the name of patriotism. Neither you nor I are young anymore. I do not speak for youth, nor do you. I speak for myself only. It's actually refreshing. Quote Quote I don't think this country has run better in recent memory than when there is a Democrat POTUS and a GOP Congress. So Clinton's first 2 years with a Dem congress where he raised taxes 9% top brkt which laid the base for a hugely sucessful presidency weren't good? Quote Yep. I don't think you remember that the GOP hadn't had the House since the 1950's and it was a MASSIVE turnaround because the population was so fed up with it. Glad you speak for all people in the US. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm So the R's ran the House from 95 to 05, they got nothing done under Clinton, shut the country down due the them not sending Clinton an acceptable budget and it was basiclly 6 years of gridlock under Clinton, 4 years of tax cuts, massive spending and massive debt accumulation under GWB; you must be proud. Quote The following 6 years of gridlock were good for what? Quote If you trust the government to look out for you and do all that is well and good then gridlock is bad. Imagine gridlock while Dubya was trying to go to war. It wouldn't have been good stuff. Hey, you just said it was a good thing people were allegedly fed up with the status quo and that it was great that the R's ran the House for the first time since teh 50's; make up your mind. I see you agree that a D House wouldhave been better in teh GWB years, maybe the people were right back in the 50's forward. Quote Gridlock of government means that you and I don't keep having rules changed on us. I'd like to see more gridlock. Remember when the government shut down du to gridlock? I do. I also recall that life actually went on. Yep and taxes stayed at 40% top brkt cause Clinton wouldn't cave, the deficit continued to fall. Quote The government that governs best governs least. Oh, as in under HArding/Coolidge? Not such a brilliant assertion, counselor. They stayed out of teh bank collapse, welfare and all of that. Then when FDR came in he enacted the banking holiday, interceded in the banking operations and things were far better. Quote Clinton's major changes took place in his 1st 2 years in office. Quote No. Clinton's major change took place in November 1994 when he was keen enough to realize, "I have a check on what I want to do." And please make up your mind. Did the Republicans screw up what Clinton was trying to do or not? No, he already did it in 93 with his tax increase, so the last 6 years were just reeling in the profits from that, fending off the R's and getting nothing NEW done, just living off what was done in 93. What happened in the last 6 years of Clinton? Small tax cuts in 97 as an exchange to appease congress, but nothing major either way. The 104th-106th congress got very little done, we had gridlock. The 103rd congress was great. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #53 September 14, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote It's typical for moronic American voters to rebel against the party in power. Sure the R's will gain seats, this tax issue could be the pickle that doesn't give them the majority in either house. Quote Moronic Americans. This is the attitude that is going to loose the house and senate to the GOP next month. The liberals of America talking down to the average person. Just because I own that opinion doesn't mean the DNC does. We will lose seats, it's almost an automatic. Quote Here is my favorite poll. If the election was held again today, Bush would winhttp://neoavatara.com/blog/?p=11604 You gotta be joking me, this isn't even as reliable as a RW rag, this is a guy with a site and his biased BS and you find it noteworthy???? …I am a thirty something radiologist and entrepreneur, living in the Central Ohio. I am married with two children. I consider myself a conservative, though I am moderate (or Libertarian) on many inssues. I think I am more a pragmatist that an idealogue, but certainly I can sometimes be idealistic. What a joke. Quote Do you miss him yet? His numbers seem to be improving under the Obama Regime... Why do I waste my time discussing grown up issues with a person who references fringe BS and considers them mainstream? As time has gone fwd GWB has fallen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States Dude You are so far left the main stream looks extreme right to you sheeesh Thx for the 1-liner, the world is a better place for it. Sorry Truth hurt? But your views are so extreme they are not worth replying to Not working again today? Actually I have the flu, thx for caring. And thx for your immense contributions to my thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #54 September 14, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote It's typical for moronic American voters to rebel against the party in power. Sure the R's will gain seats, this tax issue could be the pickle that doesn't give them the majority in either house. Quote Moronic Americans. This is the attitude that is going to loose the house and senate to the GOP next month. The liberals of America talking down to the average person. Just because I own that opinion doesn't mean the DNC does. We will lose seats, it's almost an automatic. Quote Here is my favorite poll. If the election was held again today, Bush would winhttp://neoavatara.com/blog/?p=11604 You gotta be joking me, this isn't even as reliable as a RW rag, this is a guy with a site and his biased BS and you find it noteworthy???? …I am a thirty something radiologist and entrepreneur, living in the Central Ohio. I am married with two children. I consider myself a conservative, though I am moderate (or Libertarian) on many inssues. I think I am more a pragmatist that an idealogue, but certainly I can sometimes be idealistic. What a joke. Quote Do you miss him yet? His numbers seem to be improving under the Obama Regime... Why do I waste my time discussing grown up issues with a person who references fringe BS and considers them mainstream? As time has gone fwd GWB has fallen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States Dude You are so far left the main stream looks extreme right to you sheeesh Thx for the 1-liner, the world is a better place for it. Sorry Truth hurt? But your views are so extreme they are not worth replying to Not working again today? Actually I have the flu, thx for caring. And thx for your immense contributions to my thread. Hope you get back to feeling well soon And Your welcome"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #55 September 14, 2010 Quote Quote Quote What will be funny is the flip in the liberal way of thinking when "certain strategys" are used to pass bills that are being fillibustered by the minority group. Don't worry. The Republicans still hold the record for threatened filibusters. The Dems will never even come close. Just like EarmarksDOH! "Despite pledges from President Obama and congressional leaders to curtail earmark spending, the practice has continued at previous levels. " From the 2010 Pig Book: Dems: 5070 record(s) for a total of $5,048,602,943 Reps: 2207 record(s) for a total of $2,639,932,600 You were saying? Look at the graph and read what I said. Earmarks are down since the Dems took over the purse strings from the borrow and spend Cons. A lot better? No, but still better. Earmarks are down, deportations of illegals are up. Crack down on employers who hire illegals is up. All that under Obama and you guys STILL want to hire back the same people who sank the ship? Fool me once....shame on.......fool......me...We WILL be FOOLED AGAIN! [windmill guitar emoticon] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #56 September 14, 2010 Quote Look at the graph and read what I said. Earmarks are down since the Dems took over the purse strings from the borrow and spend Cons. A lot better? No, but still better. Earmarks are down, deportations of illegals are up. Crack down on employers who hire illegals is up. All that under Obama and you guys STILL want to hire back the same people who sank the ship? Fool me once....shame on.......fool......me...We WILL be FOOLED AGAIN! [windmill guitar emoticon] Your time line is off a little.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #57 September 14, 2010 QuoteQuote From the 2010 Pig Book: Dems: 5070 record(s) for a total of $5,048,602,943 Reps: 2207 record(s) for a total of $2,639,932,600 You were saying? It would be too much to ask for a citation I'm sure, it would take honesty to post that. I'm pretty sure that's accurate. The Dems are in charge so they can push their earmarks more effectively. That's why the R's want power back. They want to get back to subsidizing the wealthy at our expense. You see, spending money to build a bridge or a fire department is "pork" in their eyes, even though it actually gives us something here in the US that is tangible and of benefit to society. On the other hand, throwing cash out of the back of a truck in a war zone (a war of choice mind you) or failing to hold polluters accountable by "shaking them down" for money to cover their damages, is "necessary top-down-job-creating-stimulus investment in our future". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #58 September 14, 2010 Quote Quote Look at the graph and read what I said. Earmarks are down since the Dems took over the purse strings from the borrow and spend Cons. A lot better? No, but still better. Earmarks are down, deportations of illegals are up. Crack down on employers who hire illegals is up. All that under Obama and you guys STILL want to hire back the same people who sank the ship? Fool me once....shame on.......fool......me...We WILL be FOOLED AGAIN! [windmill guitar emoticon] Your time line is off a little. I don't think so. To which comment are you referring? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #59 September 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote From the 2010 Pig Book: Dems: 5070 record(s) for a total of $5,048,602,943 Reps: 2207 record(s) for a total of $2,639,932,600 You were saying? It would be too much to ask for a citation I'm sure, it would take honesty to post that. I'm pretty sure that's accurate. The Dems are in charge so they can push their earmarks more effectively. That's why the R's want power back. They want to get back to subsidizing the wealthy at our expense. You see, spending money to build a bridge or a fire department is "pork" in their eyes, even though it actually gives us something here in the US that is tangible and of benefit to society. On the other hand, throwing cash out of the back of a truck in a war zone (a war of choice mind you) or failing to hold polluters accountable by "shaking them down" for money to cover their damages, is "necessary top-down-job-creating-stimulus investment in our future". There ya GO - Lucky has a groupie now!I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #60 September 14, 2010 Quote There ya GO - Lucky has a groupie now! "You keep using that whord. I do not think it means what you think it means." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #61 September 14, 2010 QuoteQuote There ya GO - Lucky has a groupie now! "You keep using that whord. I do not think it means what you think it means." Whord, or Lucky, or Go?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #62 September 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote There ya GO - Lucky has a groupie now! "You keep using that whord. I do not think it means what you think it means." Whord, or Lucky, or Go? You don't have six fingers on your right hand do you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #63 September 14, 2010 QuoteThe 2 times when taxes were chopped huge, 1920's Harding/Coolidge 73% to 25% and 1981 Reagan 70% to 28% the results were the Great Depression and massive debt accrual respectively. Wealth was redistributed the the most wealthy in both cases, or as you call it; heaven on earth. Coolidge and Congress reduced taxes - Coolidge so that only 2% (the wealthiest) paid any taxes (at 24%). The result was the "Roaring Twenties." (Note a pattern - when economies roar they crash). Coolidge also a huge fan of austerity and got about 25% of the wartime debt paid off. When Hoover got the taxes increased in 1932 (to a whopping 63% of net income for the wealthiest (what was left of them)) the Depression stayed - for another 7-8 years. I'll note my belief that the cause of the Depression was a market correction like the cause of the present recession. I reiterate my belief that the intervention of the federal government under the Hoover and FDR administrations prevented the market from again correcting itself from the irrational exuberance to irrational despair to rationality. Much like we see how the intervention of the federal government under Dubya and Obama admins isn't doing anything for the despair - and debt was not decreased, was it? When Reagan took office, unemployment was double digit, inflation was double digit and interest rates were double digit. Recall the terms "misery index" and "stagflation." The 1981 tax cuts were BIPARTISAN (recall that reagan had a Democratic House his entire presidency). The result? The federal government's tax revenues increased and continued to increase! The problem was that spending also increased at a greater clip than revenue increased. On the other hand, employment rose, inflation dropped and interest rates plummeted (these are all things that benefit the poor and middle class). When revenues increase, but the deficit rises, I have a hard time blaming "lack of revenue" for increasing debt. QuoteWealth was redistributed the the most wealthy in both cases, or as you call it; heaven on earth. Yes, if you call increased employment, decreased inflation and lowered interest rates as goign to the wealthy. I'm not sure if you are aware of who is typically looking for work, but the "wealthy" usually aren't more than a miniscule percentage. You're right - low unemployment, easier access to credit and low inflation are good things in my book. That you don't like them shows me that you are less interested in the improvement of the working man and more interested in the destruction of the wealthy man. QuoteAnyway, our best fiscal years were under high taxation, 1940s' - 1960's. And spending was very high during these times, we started to encounter tough times as the top marg brkt was chopped in teh 70's, disaster in the Reagan years when we revisited the GD year's tax brackets. I seem to recall the general feeling that the Reagan years were not a disaster but rather were a marked improvement over the last 20 years. QuoteREVENUES NEVER MET THE GROTESQUE FEDERAL SPENDING UNDER REAGSN - FUCKING NEVER AND YOU CALL IT A WIN? Correct. "Grotesque federal spending." See? We are in agreement! Revenues never match spending! Increase revenues by 20% and spending increases by 50%. Decreasing revenues means increased spending. I don't blame tax breaks for budget problems. I blame grotesque spending (which was most prevalent during Reagan, Dubya and now Obama (who really takes the cake!)). QuoteClinton raised taxes / cut soending and receipts exceeded outlays the last 3 years of his term. Clinton raised taxes in 1993. Taxes were cut in 1997 and, magically, spending was controlled. Borrowing money off the books balanced the budget because spending still increased with the massive revenue increases. These "receipts exceeded outlays" AFTER the tax cut of 1997. Not before. QuoteTruman chopped taxes from 94% to 82% at the end of WWII. As with post-war economies, there was a recession anyway so he soon raised taxes back to 91% where they stayed all of Eisenhower's terms. So that increase aided Eisenhower to have teh debt fall 3 of hos 8 years. Um - the federal budget deficit grew from $266 billion in 1953 to $286 billion in 1959 - the highest peacetime deficit up to that point. Eisenhower didn't like deficit spending but he knew that by decreasing government spending the economy will suffer - at least temporarily. Note - under Clinton, Congress brought spending under control. When Bush came in, the GOP Congress went nuts again with spending. QuoteIn 97 I want to say under Clinton and 4 years after his tax increase revs beat outlays, held there until your hero took office I've never voted for a presidential candidate who won. Note, also, that the revenues plummeted BEFORE Bush cut taxes. This may be a rough thing for you to read, but it's the truth. QuoteSo the R's ran the House from 95 to 05, they got nothing done under Clinton, shut the country down due the them not sending Clinton an acceptable budget and it was basiclly 6 years of gridlock under Clinton And that gridlock resulted in the economy you tout! See what I'm saying about gridlock? QuoteNo, he already did it in 93 with his tax increase, so the last 6 years were just reeling in the profits from that, fending off the R's and getting nothing NEW done, just living off what was done in 93. What happened in the last 6 years of Clinton? Small tax cuts in 97 as an exchange to appease congress, but nothing major either way. You considered the 97 cuts small. Investors did not. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #64 September 14, 2010 To get back to the thread. It seems to have been established that Republicans hold the record for earmarks, both in number and total amount. They also hold the record for threatened filibustering and reconciliation votes. Turtle seemed to question my additional assertions about immigration (I think he did, he didn't answer) so.... .."The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency says it's on a pace to expel some 400,000 people this year eight percent more than the last year of the Bush administration.......Mr. Obama is also targeting employers who hire illegal immigrants. Over the last two years, there's been a nearly six-fold increase in employer fines." So I'm still wondering, why are we trying to rehire the less effective legislators again? All the things listed above are what the folks on the right say that they want to see in our government. Admittedly, it's not to the scale we'd like to see but it's certainly been a step in the correct direction over the last couple of years. And if the right didn't spend so much energy trying to make sure Obama fails and joined in the solutions (instead of sitting on their asses bitching because the success train left and didn't give them a front row seat) then the country might be in better shape right now. It seems that they only want success on their watch, which makes them petty politicians without one statesman in the bunch. But to clarify, the Demoblicans aren't much better. But not much better is still better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #65 September 14, 2010 First, here's a tutorial on capital gains tax from teh CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0 Quote Quote I've phrased teh question a million times. Here we go again. No, not helped the rich, fascist pigs, but helped the poor, the MC, the middle-upper class. Quote First - BINGO! By "helped" you don't mean, "helped everybody." You favor the taking of resources from some to supposedly provide to others. So "helped" means that you make a value judgment. Pls, don't try to the courtroom theatrics here, esp with unproven theory that higher taxes on the rich means they always pay much more. Truth is, they usually have bean counters tell them what they need to invest to avoid taxation, hence more investment = more growth, less unemployment. Quote We know that a tax cut has not helped the poor because the poor don't pay taxes. True. Tax cuts hurt teh poor. Quote We know that tax cuts have helped the middle class because the middle class pay a large portion of the taxes and not takign their money they can spend it on their needs or wants. Wrong, the MC, wherever you place them, pay very little of the taxes too. The chart shows the MC at 30 - 55k household income. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class Now, what taxes do they pay? http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html If you are in the 32k AGI brkt and below, meaning you gross probably as much as that 55k amount with a house and 2 kids, you pay 3% of all income taxes, so your middle class attempt has once again failed in your attempt to say that this group pays most of the taxes, thereforetax cuts help them. Quote We know that tax increases hurt the poor, middle class and wealthy because the wealthy have fewer funds with which to hire people or purchase services. Wrong, tax cuts means the rich can pull their money out with less tax penalty. High taxes mean mean the rich must reinvest for a writeoff or lose it in teh form of taxation. Now no one likes the idea of having most of their asset value wrapped up in investments, but it beats paying 70% to the gov, paying 28% is worth liquidating and paying the fee. The rich aren't here to hire people cause they feel compelled to be a good American, they listen to their bean counters and act accordingly. When taxes are low, liquidate and bring your cash to safety. Quote Remember the luxury tax a couple of decades ago where yachts were to have a large tax increase? It turned out that charging an extra $50k in taxes merely made it less expensive to buy the yacht internationally and sail it here, thus resulting in a net loss of revenue. A very obscure tax, but we should have had import tarrifs attached to counter that. Also, that tax was imposed during the GHWB recession as I recall, so people weren't buying a lot of big ticket items anyway. Quote I'll say again, the poor don't employ us. The middle class, to a large extent, do employ us. Really? People making 55k employ us? You're thinking upper MC, don't confuse the two. And besides, raising taxes forces them to reinvest their profits, maybe not fair in your world, but it works vs your theory of low taxes and the subsequent fiscal disasters that follow. Quote The wealthy employ more of us than anyone. Wait, you just said the MC do, to a large extentt employ us. Make up your mind. Quote Punish the wealthy and we punish ourselves. Hey,. it's your masochistic fantasy; do as you wish. Taxes don't punish the wealthy, they force then to reinvest their profits like a real American would want to do, right? Quote Perhaps if you spent a little less time hating and dehumanizing (again, the name calling) and some more time simply examining ripples then you'd have a better idea about how there is no panacea. You employ sociopathic principles of 'fuck those w/o HC and then whone because I call you on it; get over it and quit posturing. Quote Every policy has its positives and negatives depending on what we want to accomplish. Right and low taxes allow for profit taking, high taxes demand reinvestment, so it depends upon your paradigm which way is best for you, we know which works best for the system. Quote Lowered the debt or at least stopped the increase. Quote The 1986 TRA increased revenues by lowering the marginal tax rates and eliminating tax shelters. Wasn't that a wonderful time for elitist, fascist corporate pigs? I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986 it's humaity gives me shivers al lover: The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15% since many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income. [1] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. No elitist sociopaths here, move along. Also, you claim the 1986 TRA increasd revs? http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html GRAPH #2. I don't see it, the graph doesn't really change direction from 1984 to 1988, if anything it dips in 1986 and REVS NEVER CAME CLOSE TO OUTLAYS; THE DEFICIT WAS STILL ON THE TOILET (red line on bottom). Yet another unsubstantiated point from you. Quote Also - note that federal tax revenues (as a percentage of GDP) peaked in 2000 (about 21%). Then in 2001 they dropped below 20% and by 2004 were at about 17% (remember the economy tanked at the end of 2000 through 2002 with the dot com bubble bursting.) The "Bush tax cuts" resulted in lower tax rates in 2001 and 2003. Actually they dropped to 16% in 2003-4. http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/current-tax-receipts There were factors such as 911, dot.com bubble that contributed for sure. Even with 911 we never had 2 consecutive Q's of negative growth. Not sure of your point of talking GWB tax cuts in teh 2-3 years preceding the tanking of revs. It kinda supports my case, but tehre was a lot of transition so it's hard to appoint a lot of blame at one element. Not smart to cut taxes amid a war that has coost well over 1 Trillion $ to date. What pulled us out of the 2004 low was the housing mess we have today. We injected stimulus thru our banks into mortage false appreciation and there was cash everywhere. Of course low taxes required low int rates to stimulate the economy and they stayed too long, creating a false appreciation frenzy. Quote See this. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8116&type=0 In it it is discussed how tax revenues grew more quickly than the GDP. I see, an article written in May 2007 that tries to analyze revenues in as recent as 2007 is best said here in teh article: Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006. CBO's analysis of that increase in revenues since 2003 is necessarily preliminary because relevant data are not yet fully available. So they admit they don't really have data to make an analysis. Now, there was a bost in revs from all the stolen house money, that is true. The keyword I've used is, SUSTAINED and you seem to miss it. Look at the graph: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/current-tax-receipts See how brief the success is until it turns into the 2nd worst fiscal disaster we've ever enjoyed? That isn't success and the disaster was more sustained than was the brief growth spurt that was a reaction to all the money floating around. Kinda like winning the lottery vs going to college and getting a career and putting the money together. But just like Reagan's debt nightmare, I see you consider GWB's total collapse as success too. Quote Tax cuts resulted in revenue growth that exceeded GDP. Suck on that. Don't be so mean, I'm like lawrocket, that hurts my feelings. Show me how you connect the dots between the tax cuts that were done during the tanking of the country and for 2-3 years later, then all of the sudden they come to work.. I mean there s.b some kind of immediacy if the tax cuts were to be credited for recovery, right? Why a 2-3 year lapse? Maybe the tax cuts prolonged the agony. But I think it's common knowledge the housing frenzy pulled us out of the 2003-4 gutter and threw us back in in 2007 until now. Quote Cutting taxes increases private investment in capital and labor and increases in consumer spending. Show me how. Cutting taxes allows for profit taking with little penalty. High taxes requires reinvestment of loss. Quote taxing 50% of 1 trillion results in less that taxing 30% of 2 trillion. You assume that 1T willbecome 2T; a huge leap. 30% of 2T yields profit taking and revs will temorarily rise, but then fall flat, a great illustration is found in the graph: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/current-tax-receipts Look atthis graph again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States See the table in teh lower left corner? Taxes were cut from 94% to 82% and the post war drought was on. Then taxes were jumped back to 91% in 1951 and look at this chart again: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/current-tax-receipts An amazing period of growth. Look at the same graph and see in Carter's years how he sustained revenue groth thruoghout his term, it fell as Reagan chopped taxes. Quote The problem is that you indicate no interest in actually getting to some economically feasible tax policy that ensures that the parasitic host wealthy and middle class survive. As Alvin Lee wrote, "Tax the rich. Feed the poor. Till there are no rich no more." All it means is that there are more poor people. Rhetoric. You actually *TRIED* to be empirical for a moment, then it's back to neo-con as usual. Quote What's your policy, dude? Is your policy goal to make sure that the poor are eliminated or that the rich are eliminated? Again, Mr. Esquire neo-con, it doesn't have to be extremes, it can be that the rich hang on to their asset, but they have to reinvest most of their profits which in turn creates jobs; win-win. Quote I hate to break it to you, but poverty is stronger now than it was before the Great Society and before FDR. I don't see the data but I assume you're right. Amazing what 30 years of mostly corpo-fascist policy has done; made it worse than the GD in ways. Quote Tax policy hasn't done a damned thing as far as poverty is concerned because the left simply fails to recognize that history demonstrates that poverty cannot be cured by throwing money at it. Really? Don't tell that to FDR. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poverty_59_to_05.png Looks like Clinton's policy worked well versus your last Nazi. Quote After a maj fed tax cut, show me where, in most/all areas of the economy, indicators as well, were benefitted by the cut. Quote See my link above. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts did a good job of increasing revenue (though from a bottom point). So you're saying it took 3 years for the 2001 tax cuts to finally work? Riiiight, as I see your sliding scale is working well. The 2004 gains were as a result of the frenzy of money floating around from the housing mess. Quote I know you point to the 1993 tax increase as a boom to the economy. Now, in 1993 there were 8 quarters of economic growth. The Cold War ended. Yes, GHWB and Clinton both cut the military and raised taxes, altho modestly and the result was a great economy, deficit fallen. Quote And - technologies were greatly innovating productivity and entrepeneurship. One would expect solid growth to occur. So what did these do to enhance growth? Your guess. Quote Here's what that tax increase did: (1) Increased the individual income tax rate to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge for the highest earners, thereby effectively creating a top rate of 39.6 percent; (2) Repealed the income cap on Medicare taxes, making the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax apply to all wage income (this is an "off-the-books tax increase); (3) A 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes (taxed the poor) (4) Increases the taxable portion of Social Security benefits (another off-the-books increase); Right, so rich people who get fre HC should pay; is that bad from Mr pay for your own HC? Quote (5) Created a permanent extension of the phase-out of personal exemptions and the phase-down of the deduction for itemized expenses (this is where it hit businesses - by eliminating loopholes); and (6) Raised the corporate income tax rate to 35 percent. Is that bad? And with all that revenues exceded outlays; so what's the problem? Quote After the 1993 tax increase (between 94-97) employment rose by 11 million, the economy grew at 3.2% per year (average) and maret capitalization grew by 78%. The question is - did the economy perform this well because of or in spite of the tax increase? I'll answer this question as "NOBODY KNOWS OR CAN KNOW." I see, you want to attribute the 5% tax cut of GWB to growth 3 years later, but this tax increase gain is mysterious to Clinton's gains . I think what made the 90's great were these things: - GHWB's 1990 tax increase - GHWB's military contraction/base closure - Clinton's 1993 tax increase - Clinton's base closures/contraction - The Dot.com boom Just as what made the 2001-present such a mess were: - GWB's tax cuts - 911 - Dot.com bust - Low interest rates leading to artificial house appreciation - Deceptive lending/borrowing - Katrina - 2 unneeded wars Now these could have been mitigated by having a competent leader in place, but we were gonna suffer bad times anyway, it would have been nice to not have such a moron as pres, I'm sure you agree. Quote In 1997, the GOP Congress passed tax-cutting legislation that Clinton resisted by signed. Yes, it was a deal for things like the sociopaths resisting to give him min wage increases, etc. Quote The most controversial cuts were: (1) Lowering the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent; and (2) phasing in the estate tax to kick in after $1 million. The capital gains tax decreased spurred massive investment. Here's the comparison between 1993-1996 and 1997-2000: The ecomony grew at 4.2% between 1997-2000 compared to 3.2% between 1993-1996. Assuming your numbers are correct, they are misleading. In 1993 the unemp rate was 7% that he inherited from 12 years of RW politics. The deficit was 290B in 1992. Granted GHWB made puny strides to be less like your hero, fascist Ronnie, but they were small strides. The economy was flat but the recession had ended as Clinton took office, as he raised taxes immed the numbers turned more postive, but it took time to quash the deficit, create growth, kill unemp, etc. So his first term was spent restructuring the base, his second he had unemp down and was able to bear the fruits of his growth. There were no relevent changes to the tax cose after 1993. The cap gains argument from you and Mike is lame. Cap gains are insignificant to the big tax picture. Here's that CBO site: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0 Capital gains taxes often garner policy attention that is disproportionate to their importance in generating federal revenues. One reason is that the realization of gains is very sensitive to capital gains tax rates, leading to speculation that changes in rates--and the alleged failure to take into account their effect on taxpayers' willingness to sell assets--explain how revenue forecasters have been surprised by movements in tax receipts. Another reason is that gains are a way in which earnings are paid to investors, prompting the idea that well-designed changes in the gains tax rate can significantly influence economic growth, with potentially large feedback effects on revenues. This revenue and tax policy brief outlines the basics of capital gains taxation in the context of estimating individual income tax receipts. This should put to rest how insignificant cap gains tax rates are eitehr way: Individual income tax receipts from capital gains realizations normally make up about 4 percent to 7 percent of individual income tax revenues (see Table 1); they are usually between 2 percent and 3 percent of total receipts. So please make a valid, relevant argument. Quote EMployment increased by 11.5 million jobs, compared to 11.1 million. WAGES grew 6.5% between 1997-2000, compared to .8% between 1993-1996. Are you shocked, the late 90's were about an employee's market; they could command what they wanted. The insignificant cap gains tax cut of a measly 8%, in an area that accounts for only 2-3% of all tax receipts anyway, did nothing to change the economy. I wonder what the 9% income tax increase, as well as other tax increases in 93 garnered in the way of revs from 93 until GWB cut them? Whatever was done in 93 was it for Clinton, it was gridlock after that. Quote Market capitalizatin rose 95% between 1997-2000, compared to 78% between 1993-1996. Tax revenues (on budget) from 1993-1996 increased from $1.154 trillion to $1.453 trillion and ended up at $2.025 trillion by 2000. And there were no relevant tax changes after 1993, unless you consider changing by 8% the part that accounts for 2-3% of all tax revenue . I'm sure you'll say that. That's like saying if you're chute is loaded 2:1, putting on 2-3% or 5 lbs of fat is going to drastically change flight characteristics. I'm sure you'll say that. Quote Now, did these increases is such things as real wages, tax revenues and GDP meet your definition of "help?" They were slight changes for the most part anyway, but to affect by 8% an area that accounts for 2-3% of all taxes is just lame and abstract and per the CBO too much attention is paid to cap gains tax anyway, you have just become irrelevant in your debate. Quote 1993 tax increases did not cause the economy to suffer. No, that with spending cuts caused the deficit to fall every year of Clinton's terms, not teh ,ast 4, all 8. Quote the 1997 decrease did not cause the economy to suffer. There were no relevant changes in 1997, unless 8% of 2-3% is relevant. .08 x .03 = .0024 or .24% WOW, that saved us all I'm a believer Quote All the 1997 decrease did was allow people to invest their money where they wanted to invest it, instead of having the government tax them and invest the money where the government wanted to invest it. It really had no impact. And as far as investment, when taxes are lowered, it allows you to pull out with less penalty, so it would advocate pull out of investments. You can invest where you want at any time anyway, that is just a bizzare thing to say. Taxation doesn't control investment areas; you pull 100k out of Boeing and put it in Apple; that happens w/o penalty IN ANY TAX RATE ENVIRONMENT. Quote My problem is cause/effect. If you think that the "Clinton tax increase" of 1993 caused the economy to grow, then by logic you have no choice but to agree that the "Clinton tax decrease of 1997" caused the economy to grow at a greater clip. No, because income taxes, personal and business, account for over 1/2 of all fed revs, cap gains taxes account for 2-3% of all revs. How long are you going to beat that lame drum? Quote Higher taxes increase growth, keep the debt down and demand reinvestment over profit taking Quote Actually, I just proved that LOWER taxes (specifically lowering the capital gains tax) increase growth and demand reinvestment DUE To profit taking. HUH? How is profit taking reduced under lower taxes; that's when you profit take when the penalty is lessened. Bizzare logic. When taxes are high, you leave your investments in or move them around, don't cash them out. Quote I showed you exactly what you asked for UNDER the metrics that you suggested. I specifically looked for wage growth. Neither higher nor lower taxes have kept the debt down since I've been alive because Congress can always spend more and has. Show me any time in the past 50 years where increased taxes have lowered the deficit. - Then explain how under Eisenhower, we had the cold war, Korean war, nuclear buildup and the debt fell 3 of Eisenhower's 8 years. - Explain how in 1969 when VN spending and CW spending was high with the tax increases right before then that receipts exceeded outlays. - Explain how under Reagan with the same high spending but low taxes outlays hammered receipts and the debt soared. Quote Note: the "surplus years" were 1998, 1999 and 2000 - subsequent to the "Clinton tax cut" of 1997. And subsequent to the 93 tax cut that had been cutting the deficit from 93 on, creating jobs, creating growth. Don't be a 3 percenter, but esp don't be 8% of a 3 percenter, or a .24%er. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #66 September 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote There ya GO - Lucky has a groupie now! "You keep using that whord. I do not think it means what you think it means." Whord, or Lucky, or Go? You just add absolutley nothing to the thread. Look at people who make substantive responses and try to be like them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #67 September 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote From the 2010 Pig Book: Dems: 5070 record(s) for a total of $5,048,602,943 Reps: 2207 record(s) for a total of $2,639,932,600 You were saying? It would be too much to ask for a citation I'm sure, it would take honesty to post that. I'm pretty sure that's accurate. The Dems are in charge so they can push their earmarks more effectively. That's why the R's want power back. They want to get back to subsidizing the wealthy at our expense. You see, spending money to build a bridge or a fire department is "pork" in their eyes, even though it actually gives us something here in the US that is tangible and of benefit to society. On the other hand, throwing cash out of the back of a truck in a war zone (a war of choice mind you) or failing to hold polluters accountable by "shaking them down" for money to cover their damages, is "necessary top-down-job-creating-stimulus investment in our future". There ya GO - Lucky has a groupie now! He's making substantive points on his own, that's not a groupie. You are a groupie, you make no points, just tag along like Rush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #68 September 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThere ya GO - Lucky has a groupie now!"You keep using that whord. I do not think it means what you think it means."Whord, or Lucky, or Go?You just add absolutley nothing to the thread. Look at people who make substantive responses and try to be like them.the substantive responses by lawrocket et al , only seem to retrench you further into you delusions ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #69 September 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThere ya GO - Lucky has a groupie now!"You keep using that whord. I do not think it means what you think it means."Whord, or Lucky, or Go?You just add absolutley nothing to the thread. Look at people who make substantive responses and try to be like them.the substantive responses by lawrocket et al , only seem to retrench you further into you delusions !charter member oflawrocket cheerleading club - spelling yank - ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #70 September 14, 2010 Quote Just because I own that opinion doesn't mean the DNC does. We will lose seats, it's almost an automatic. Well, actually it is the opinion of many members of the DNC, it is well documented on many of what you call "RW rags" and it's the reason a lot of independent voters are abandoning the left because so many democrats think they know better than the general public. It's the indoctrination they receive at their ivy league colleges. No I'm not going to provide you links, it is well documented, google is your friend. Quote You gotta be joking me, this isn't even as reliable as a RW rag, this is a guy with a site and his biased BS and you find it noteworthy???? And your wikipedia link is? At least his blog had a hyper link to a current poll to back his findings. Your wikipedia page hasn't been updated since 2007. there is a reason colleges don't let you reference wikipedia for school reports. Whine all you want it doesn't change the fact that in Aug 2010 Public Poling Policy, which now does polling for the Daily Kos (a liberal or progressive web site), did a poll in Ohio (the state used to find the counties political pulse) and found that if the elections were held today, Bush would beat Obama 50 to 42. We won't even go into the results for who did a better job handling their Louisiana crisisObama is Bush's best campaigner Quote Why do I waste my time discussing grown up issues with a person who references fringe BS and considers them mainstream? I don't think I even have to comment on this. They don't get anymore to the fringe left than some of your posts....."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #71 September 14, 2010 Quote Truth is, they usually have bean counters tell them what they need to invest to avoid taxation, hence more investment = more growth, less unemployment. As opposed to their simply investing it. Yeah, that's efficient. Pay lawyers and CPAs to tell me how much I can invest to avoid it going to taxes. Quote Wrong, the MC, wherever you place them, pay very little of the taxes too. Right. How about giving them a little more? Quote Wrong, tax cuts means the rich can pull their money out with less tax penalty. High taxes mean mean the rich must reinvest for a writeoff or lose it in teh form of taxation. Now no one likes the idea of having most of their asset value wrapped up in investments, but it beats paying 70% to the gov, paying 28% is worth liquidating and paying the fee. Seems like the most rapid investment in the US occurred in the 19th Century - before income taxes. I am astonished that you view high taxes and lots of tax shelters as a way to spurn investment. Quote The rich aren't here to hire people cause they feel compelled to be a good American, they listen to their bean counters and act accordingly. When taxes are low, liquidate and bring your cash to safety. Under this logic, the rich aren't greedy but would rather take money they made and run. Put it in a bank or something. THat's not greed. Quote People making 55k employ us? Yep. I've employed people and made less than that. I've been the lowest paid person in my business. Quote Taxes don't punish the wealthy, they force then to reinvest their profits like a real American would want to do, right? Look - the reason the middle class doesn't get taxed much is because there are so many of the middle class. And politicians have their rhetoric where the wealthy become targeted. Look back to the populists, etc. Quote The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15% since many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income. [1] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. No elitist sociopaths here, move along. So raising taxes on the wealthy is wonderful. Raising taxes on everybody is horrible. This is because you have no standard. The x to y and it is bad. Do x to z and it is great. I didn't say anything abotu how good or bad it is. I merely applied your metric. Because you have no standards and everything is based upon feeling, you respond in an emotional way. Par for the course. "Sociopath" - a person who operates without feelings for others and manipulates or uses others to get what they want. They have no trouble lying or violating the rights of other people in order to achieve their goals. They do, however, play favorites. I don't argue for increasing taxes on the poor. I'm for lowering taxes for everyone. You want to increase them for some and lower them for others without feeling for the interests of all involved. Raising taxes to manipulate the wealthy into investing is manipulation. Quote Also, you claim the 1986 TRA increasd revs? http://www.marktaw.com/...TheNationalDebt.html GRAPH #2. I don't see it, the graph doesn't really change direction from 1984 to 1988, if anything it dips in 1986 and REVS NEVER CAME CLOSE TO OUTLAYS; THE DEFICIT WAS STILL ON THE TOILET (red line on bottom). Yet another unsubstantiated point from you. Revenues increased. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203 And please do not confused "increased revenues" with "deficit." Revenues never DID come close to outlays. This is why I am saying that ceasing the growth of outlays is the only way to consistently balance the budget. It's why I mentioned "austerity." I'm sure everyone else reading this knows my position - that cutting outlays is the solution that hasn't been tried. Quote Not sure of your point of talking GWB tax cuts in teh 2-3 years preceding the tanking of revs. It kinda supports my case, but tehre was a lot of transition so it's hard to appoint a lot of blame at one element. Not smart to cut taxes amid a war that has coost well over 1 Trillion $ to date. I am not necessarily disagreeing wiht you. I was against the war, too. Quote how brief the success is until it turns into the 2nd worst fiscal disaster we've ever enjoyed? That isn't success and the disaster was more sustained than was the brief growth spurt that was a reaction to all the money floating around. Kinda like winning the lottery vs going to college and getting a career and putting the money together. Right. Much liek we saw in the 1990's-2000. Quote Capital gains taxes often garner policy attention that is disproportionate to their importance in generating federal revenues. One reason is that the realization of gains is very sensitive to capital gains tax rates, leading to speculation that changes in rates--and the alleged failure to take into account their effect on taxpayers' willingness to sell assets--explain how revenue forecasters have been surprised by movements in tax receipts. Another reason is that gains are a way in which earnings are paid to investors, prompting the idea that well-designed changes in the gains tax rate can significantly influence eic growth, with potentially large feedback effeconomcts on revenues. This revenue and tax policy brief outlines the basics of capital gains taxation in the context of estimating individual income tax receipts. This should put to rest how insignificant cap gains tax rates are eitehr way: Individual income tax receipts from capital gains realizations normally make up about 4 percent to 7 percent of individual income tax revenues (see Table 1); they are usually between 2 percent and 3 percent of total receipts. First - it's my opinion and reasonable minds can differ. Therefore, it did not put it to rest. Second - increasing capital investment leads to higher employment and higher incomes, ergo increasing tax revenue. You support doing this through higher taxes, which is, of course, highly inefficient. I stand by my assertion. Others see different factors. Quote And there were no relevant tax changes after 1993, unless you consider changing by 8% the part that accounts for 2-3% of all tax revenue . I'm sure you'll say that. That's like saying if you're chute is loaded 2:1, putting on 2-3% or 5 lbs of fat is going to drastically change flight characteristics. I'm sure you'll say that. Relevant is what YOU consider relevant, right? Who the hell anointed you to determine what is and is not relevant? There is a definite grandiose tinge to your methods - that you speak the truth and others do not know. There are differences in opinions and in personal likes and dislikes that affect these discussions. It'd be swell if you would accept that. Quote How is profit taking reduced under lower taxes; that's when you profit take when the penalty is lessened. Because you can make more money with it. When you know the deck is in your favor, you don't take the money and run. Quote - Then explain how under Eisenhower, we had the cold war, Korean war, nuclear buildup and the debt fell 3 of Eisenhower's 8 years. - Explain how in 1969 when VN spending and CW spending was high with the tax increases right before then that receipts exceeded outlays. - Explain how under Reagan with the same high spending but low taxes outlays hammered receipts and the debt soared. Because Eisenhower was pretty strongly in favor of eliminating dicit spending. Because the Great Society had not yet been envisioned and therefore there was no welfare state. Because the wars on poverty and drugs were not yet implemented. Because defense spending was high and nothing else was. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #72 September 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote There ya GO - Lucky has a groupie now! "You keep using that whord. I do not think it means what you think it means." Whord, or Lucky, or Go? You just add absolutley nothing to the thread. Look at people who make substantive responses and try to be like them. I like cake. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #73 September 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote There ya GO - Lucky has a groupie now! "You keep using that whord. I do not think it means what you think it means." Whord, or Lucky, or Go? You just add absolutley nothing to the thread. Look at people who make substantive responses and try to be like them. You have to have a post worth anything more of a response that I already gave you first.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #74 September 18, 2010 Quote Truth is, they usually have bean counters tell them what they need to invest to avoid taxation, hence more investment = more growth, less unemployment. Quote As opposed to their simply investing it. Yeah, that's efficient. Pay lawyers and CPAs to tell me how much I can invest to avoid it going to taxes. Who brought in efficienty? Not even a good strawman. The very rich have beancounters tell them what to invest, how much etc. That's their right and I would do it too if I were rich. Quote Wrong, the MC, wherever you place them, pay very little of the taxes too. Quote Right. How about giving them a little more? Giving them more what? More tax relief? Collectively the bottom 50% of all taxpayers pay If had been more honest you would have transposd the 2 sites I posted in this passage: - http://en.wikipedia.org/...merican_middle_class - Quote Wrong, tax cuts means the rich can pull their money out with less tax penalty. High taxes mean mean the rich must reinvest for a writeoff or lose it in teh form of taxation. Now no one likes the idea of having most of their asset value wrapped up in investments, but it beats paying 70% to the gov, paying 28% is worth liquidating and paying the fee. Quote Seems like the most rapid investment in the US occurred in the 19th Century - before income taxes. Shit, let's go to the Renesance Era and look at investments then? If we're going to have a rational debate we need to stay contemporary. Let's face it, the military is going to be porked and social svs will be porked; neither side will give and both sides want it all. To think millions of disabled, seniors and others in peril will be cut loose is only real in the sociopathic or hardcore RWer and will never happen, so let's keep our arguments within the bounds of reality. Not to mention I don;t see any support for your assertion. Quote I am astonished that you view high taxes and lots of tax shelters as a way to spurn investment. I am not that astonished that as I proved tons of support for my postion that you don't; why not surprise me? Quote The rich aren't here to hire people cause they feel compelled to be a good American, they listen to their bean counters and act accordingly. When taxes are low, liquidate and bring your cash to safety. Quote Under this logic, the rich aren't greedy but would rather take money they made and run. Put it in a bank or something. THat's not greed. Agreed, I would do the same if I were rich. You need to stop listening to Mike and others, I don;t hate the rich. You keep talking about your system of fairness, I'm talking about what works in the system and i have made my case, I guess you have ytoo, but it comes off as unsibstantiated rhetoric as it doesn't address the workings of the system. Quote People making 55k employ us? Quote Yep. I've employed people and made less than that. I've been the lowest paid person in my business. Yes but your quote that I replied to was this: I'll say again, the poor don't employ us. The middle class, to a large extent, do employ us. So that makes no sense. Actually you're trying to make me, you and everyone MC so you create this concept we're all in it together and that a cut for teh rich is a cut for the poor. Blatant bullshit as my data has shown. Quote Taxes don't punish the wealthy, they force then to reinvest their profits like a real American would want to do, right? Quote Look - the reason the middle class doesn't get taxed much is because there are so many of the middle class. And politicians have their rhetoric where the wealthy become targeted. Look back to the populists, etc. You don't get that data, do you? The reason the MC doesn't get taxes is because THEY DON'T FUCKING HAVE SHIT, the top 20% holds 93% of all cash; show me how they can pay much tax. Quote The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15% since many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income. [1] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. No elitist sociopaths here, move along. Quote So raising taxes on the wealthy is wonderful. Raising taxes on everybody is horrible. This is because you have no standard. The x to y and it is bad. Do x to z and it is great. You sadly dodged the issue. The Fascist Pig you love so much in that 1986 tax reform you love so much RAISED TAXES ON THE BOTTON END AND CUT THEM ONCE AF-UCKING-GAIN FOR THE RICH and you call that grand. Quote I didn't say anything abotu how good or bad it is. I merely applied your metric. Because you have no standards and everything is based upon feeling, you respond in an emotional way. Par for the course. OK, here's my emnotions: The fascist pig chopped taxes from 70% top brkt to 28% in Quote "Sociopath" - a person who operates without feelings for others and manipulates or uses others to get what they want. They have no trouble lying or violating the rights of other people in order to achieve their goals. They do, however, play favorites. Right, and w/o a conscience, you know, as sociopathic Republican/Libertarian does as he sees the poor w/o HC.....sociopath = no conscience. Quote I don't argue for increasing taxes on the poor. I'm for lowering taxes for everyone. You want to increase them for some and lower them for others without feeling for the interests of all involved. Raising taxes to manipulate the wealthy into investing is manipulation. Hahaha, good one. Yea, let's all hang out heads for the millionaires who get their taxes raised 5% in 2 months . Sympathy for the uber rich; only you could bring that in. It will suck if they can only buy the $10M mansion this time . What a joke. BTW, as I've said many times, it's not about the rich and taking their money for the gov, it's about making them reinvest their profits in the game or lose more of them. It works, I've posted a littany of data; it's all there. Quote Also, you claim the 1986 TRA increasd revs? http://www.marktaw.com/...TheNationalDebt.html GRAPH #2. I don't see it, the graph doesn't really change direction from 1984 to 1988, if anything it dips in 1986 and REVS NEVER CAME CLOSE TO OUTLAYS; THE DEFICIT WAS STILL ON THE TOILET (red line on bottom). Yet another unsubstantiated point from you. Quote Revenues increased. [url]http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203">http://www.ntu.org/...ys-income-taxes.html Quote Wrong, tax cuts means the rich can pull their money out with less tax penalty. High taxes mean mean the rich must reinvest for a writeoff or lose it in teh form of taxation. Now no one likes the idea of having most of their asset value wrapped up in investments, but it beats paying 70% to the gov, paying 28% is worth liquidating and paying the fee. ***Seems like the most rapid investment in the US occurred in the 19th Century - before income taxes. Shit, let's go to the Renesance Era and look at investments then? If we're going to have a rational debate we need to stay contemporary. Let's face it, the military is going to be porked and social svs will be porked; neither side will give and both sides want it all. To think millions of disabled, seniors and others in peril will be cut loose is only real in the sociopathic or hardcore RWer and will never happen, so let's keep our arguments within the bounds of reality. Not to mention I don;t see any support for your assertion. Quote I am astonished that you view high taxes and lots of tax shelters as a way to spurn investment. I am not that astonished that as I proved tons of support for my postion that you don't; why not surprise me? Quote The rich aren't here to hire people cause they feel compelled to be a good American, they listen to their bean counters and act accordingly. When taxes are low, liquidate and bring your cash to safety. Quote Under this logic, the rich aren't greedy but would rather take money they made and run. Put it in a bank or something. THat's not greed. Agreed, I would do the same if I were rich. You need to stop listening to Mike and others, I don;t hate the rich. You keep talking about your system of fairness, I'm talking about what works in the system and i have made my case, I guess you have ytoo, but it comes off as unsibstantiated rhetoric as it doesn't address the workings of the system. Quote People making 55k employ us? Quote Yep. I've employed people and made less than that. I've been the lowest paid person in my business. Yes but your quote that I replied to was this: I'll say again, the poor don't employ us. The middle class, to a large extent, do employ us. So that makes no sense. Actually you're trying to make me, you and everyone MC so you create this concept we're all in it together and that a cut for teh rich is a cut for the poor. Blatant bullshit as my data has shown. Quote Taxes don't punish the wealthy, they force then to reinvest their profits like a real American would want to do, right? Quote Look - the reason the middle class doesn't get taxed much is because there are so many of the middle class. And politicians have their rhetoric where the wealthy become targeted. Look back to the populists, etc. You don't get that data, do you? The reason the MC doesn't get taxes is because THEY DON'T FUCKING HAVE SHIT, the top 20% holds 93% of all cash; show me how they can pay much tax. Quote The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15% since many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income. [1] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. No elitist sociopaths here, move along. Quote So raising taxes on the wealthy is wonderful. Raising taxes on everybody is horrible. This is because you have no standard. The x to y and it is bad. Do x to z and it is great. You sadly dodged the issue. The Fascist Pig you love so much in that 1986 tax reform you love so much RAISED TAXES ON THE BOTTON END AND CUT THEM ONCE AF-UCKING-GAIN FOR THE RICH and you call that grand. Quote I didn't say anything abotu how good or bad it is. I merely applied your metric. Because you have no standards and everything is based upon feeling, you respond in an emotional way. Par for the course. OK, here's my emnotions: The fascist pig chopped taxes from 70% top brkt to 28% in Quote "Sociopath" - a person who operates without feelings for others and manipulates or uses others to get what they want. They have no trouble lying or violating the rights of other people in order to achieve their goals. They do, however, play favorites. Right, and w/o a conscience, you know, as sociopathic Republican/Libertarian does as he sees the poor w/o HC.....sociopath = no conscience. Quote I don't argue for increasing taxes on the poor. I'm for lowering taxes for everyone. You want to increase them for some and lower them for others without feeling for the interests of all involved. Raising taxes to manipulate the wealthy into investing is manipulation. Hahaha, good one. Yea, let's all hang out heads for the millionaires who get their taxes raised 5% in 2 months . Sympathy for the uber rich; only you could bring that in. It will suck if they can only buy the $10M mansion this time . What a joke. BTW, as I've said many times, it's not about the rich and taking their money for the gov, it's about making them reinvest their profits in the game or lose more of them. It works, I've posted a littany of data; it's all there. Quote Also, you claim the 1986 TRA increasd revs? http://www.marktaw.com/...TheNationalDebt.html GRAPH #2. I don't see it, the graph doesn't really change direction from 1984 to 1988, if anything it dips in 1986 and REVS NEVER CAME CLOSE TO OUTLAYS; THE DEFICIT WAS STILL ON THE TOILET (red line on bottom). Yet another unsubstantiated point from you. Quote Revenues increased. [url]http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203 There was nothing remarkable or a 5-year shooting up response at that period per your graph. Again, RECEIPTS NEVER EVEN CAME CLOSE TO OUTLAYS, SO YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN. There was no spurt, nothing really changed from previous years or post. Quote And please do not confused "increased revenues" with "deficit." Revenues never DID come close to outlays. This is why I am saying that ceasing the growth of outlays is the only way to consistently balance the budget. It's why I mentioned "austerity." I'm sure everyone else reading this knows my position - that cutting outlays is the solution that hasn't been tried. If your argument is that spending cuts are more important than taxing, explain how during the Eisenhower years that we spent our asses off and we still lowered the debt in 3 years of his 8. In 1969 as taxes were bumped the 2 years before that the debt fell and VN/Cold War spending was high. So explain these, it appears that under taxing we can spend a lot atill cover that and let's be real; spending will never decrease, just move emphasis to military spending, social spending. Quote Not sure of your point of talking GWB tax cuts in teh 2-3 years preceding the tanking of revs. It kinda supports my case, but tehre was a lot of transition so it's hard to appoint a lot of blame at one element. Not smart to cut taxes amid a war that has coost well over 1 Trillion $ to date. Quote I am not necessarily disagreeing wiht you. I was against the war, too. I know, but you're attributing the 2001 tax cut to the temporary spurt in 2004, that was obviously caused by the housing market boom / artificial appreciation / fraudulent borrowing and lending. The 5% cuts necessitated the low int rates as revs then fell, so that was the real evil. Quote how brief the success is until it turns into the 2nd worst fiscal disaster we've ever enjoyed? That isn't success and the disaster was more sustained than was the brief growth spurt that was a reaction to all the money floating around. Kinda like winning the lottery vs going to college and getting a career and putting the money together. Quote Right. Much liek we saw in the 1990's-2000. OH, the end of the Clinton years had a massive crash and the 2nd worst economy n US history, or was it a minor, puny recession that didn't even give us 2 consecutive Q's of neg growth in light of and during 911. Point is SUSTAINABILITY, something any stolen Republicaan success lacks. A repub boom is short, high and followed by a big crash. Quote Capital gains taxes often garner policy attention that is disproportionate to their importance in generating federal revenues. One reason is that the realization of gains is very sensitive to capital gains tax rates, leading to speculation that changes in rates--and the alleged failure to take into account their effect on taxpayers' willingness to sell assets--explain how revenue forecasters have been surprised by movements in tax receipts. Another reason is that gains are a way in which earnings are paid to investors, prompting the idea that well-designed changes in the gains tax rate can significantly influence eic growth, with potentially large feedback effeconomcts on revenues. This revenue and tax policy brief outlines the basics of capital gains taxation in the context of estimating individual income tax receipts. This should put to rest how insignificant cap gains tax rates are eitehr way: Individual income tax receipts from capital gains realizations normally make up about 4 percent to 7 percent of individual income tax revenues (see Table 1); they are usually between 2 percent and 3 percent of total receipts. Quote First - it's my opinion and reasonable minds can differ. Therefore, it did not put it to rest. That's great that it's your opinion and all, it's just that your opinion is wrong; CAPITAL GAINS TAX IS VIRTUALLY IMMEASUREABLE IN THE GRAND SCHEME, THEREFORE THE PUNY 1997 CUT COULDN'T HAVE LED TO ANY INCREASED REVS - SO YOUR THERORY IS THAT THIS CUT CREATED REV IS WRONG. Quote Second - increasing capital investment leads to higher employment and higher incomes, ergo increasing tax revenue. You support doing this through higher taxes, which is, of course, highly inefficient. I stand by my assertion. Others see different factors. In all sincerity I respect your opinion, but the numbers just don't work for you, but as I assumed, your opinion will still be based upon a false premise. I don't see how it's difficult to understand that: - A corporation makes a lot of profit in a year - They consult their bean counters who tell them to invest in a high tax environment, sell in a low tax environment. There's nothing wrong with that and we both agree that tax revs increase and GDP increase under high investment; high investment is more likely under forced times. And people will say it's unAmerican to force commerce. Our most patriotic times, WWI, WWII, Korea, etc were under EXTREMELY HIGH TAXES. Quote And there were no relevant tax changes after 1993, unless you consider changing by 8% the part that accounts for 2-3% of all tax revenue . I'm sure you'll say that. That's like saying if you're chute is loaded 2:1, putting on 2-3% or 5 lbs of fat is going to drastically change flight characteristics. I'm sure you'll say that. Quote Relevant is what YOU consider relevant, right? Who the hell anointed you to determine what is and is not relevant? There is a definite grandiose tinge to your methods - that you speak the truth and others do not know. I see we've diminished to rhetoric. No one annointed me anything, you made a claim that the 96 Cap Gains cuts led to increased revs when clearly they could not have as they account for 2-3% of all annual federal tax revs. You're trying to make something minor into significance. Quote There are differences in opinions and in personal likes and dislikes that affect these discussions. It'd be swell if you would accept that. I can accept that is you an accept that yours is based upon a false premise, mine upon data. Quote How is profit taking reduced under lower taxes; that's when you profit take when the penalty is lessened. Quote Because you can make more money with it. When you know the deck is in your favor, you don't take the money and run. HUH? Maybe in great times like the Clinton years, but those are rare. Your template could work, but as soon as things look grim, profit takers galore. If taxes are high, people would be more likley to profit take and run. Quote - Then explain how under Eisenhower, we had the cold war, Korean war, nuclear buildup and the debt fell 3 of Eisenhower's 8 years. - Explain how in 1969 when VN spending and CW spending was high with the tax increases right before then that receipts exceeded outlays. - Explain how under Reagan with the same high spending but low taxes outlays hammered receipts and the debt soared. Quote Because Eisenhower was pretty strongly in favor of eliminating dicit spending. Because the Great Society had not yet been envisioned and therefore there was no welfare state. Because the wars on poverty and drugs were not yet implemented. Because defense spending was high and nothing else was. Where social spending was lower, military spending was way higher. The nuclear buildup, the Korea War, the conventional war buidup. And SS was implemented then, so there was still that and welfare. Not to mention, we have huge social issues now that we didn't have then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #75 September 18, 2010 Quote the top 20% holds 93% of all cash You keep saying that - going to provide the data at some point? Quote It will suck if they can only buy the $10M mansion this time . You mean the mansion that results in hundreds of jobs for the builders, the suppliers of the materials, etc etc etc, right? Quote OH, the end of the Clinton years had a massive crash and the 2nd worst economy n US history, or was it a minor, puny recession that didn't even give us 2 consecutive Q's of neg growth in light of and during 911. 78% loss of value of the NASDAQ, and 6 trillion monetary loss in the industry, as I recall. Quote Point is SUSTAINABILITY, something any stolen Republicaan success lacks. A repub boom is short, high and followed by a big crash. Like the 3 decades of growth from the Reagan cuts? Yup, that's short alright. Quote Explain how under Reagan with the same high spending but low taxes outlays hammered receipts and the debt soared. Yes, Democratic Congress spending overshadowed receipts - link. Link Quote These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. The graph below illustrates changes in the tax burden during this period. The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988. A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent. Several conclusions follow from these data. First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income. The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases. Tax cuts shift the tax burden onto the higher rates from the lower rates, and cause a reduction in tax avoidance.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
