[quote]futurepharm wrote:
Lowering tax rates DID increase revenues…
Hmmm…
NY Times, too. [/quote]
Correlation does not equal causation. I will continue to argue otherwise.
[quote]futurepharm wrote:
100meters wrote:
But lower than had they not been raised.
If they hadn’t been lowered in the first place, you wouldn’t have had the revenue increase because you wouldn’t have the increase in economic activity.
[/quote]
As always short-term. And again the “benefit” was real GDP of 2.5% which is just pathetic historically speaking. Plus you’ve added the stress of now having to pay for the cuts that provided no stimulus.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
futurepharm wrote:
Lowering tax rates DID increase revenues…
Hmmm…
NY Times, too.
Correlation does not equal causation. I will continue to argue otherwise.[/quote]
Revenues rise when the economy grows. Shocking.
Unfortunately omitted by the whitehouse was what the deficit would have been minus the taxcuts.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/budget_scenarios1-703042.jpg
Again the end result of the tax cuts was the worst case scenario for economic growth (over the long-term) plus far less revenue.
Both are bad.
But yes typical of Republican admins (less growth/less revenue)
It’s really a simple concept, and all you have to do is read any economics textbook to learn it.
If you take money away from citizens, you reduce investment in the economy. For all of you pining away for Clinton era tax rates, let me ask you one thing. Do you want to pay for $4 gas with those paychecks?
For everything that Bush has done wrong, tax cuts are the wrong thing to point at. They increased real GDP and tax revenues. If Congress hadn’t been so fired up to spend all of that money, a lot could have been done to reduce the national debt. But we need Woodstock museums and drug coverage for seniors ( I know, a bad idea from Bush).
Those budget scenarios you just posted are fundamentally stupid.
You can’t pretend that the stimulus that CAUSED the economy can be removed from the equation when computing the results.
It’s like cutting off your arm, then pointing out how much lighter you got, as though you worked out real hard and lost your gut. Sure, you lost pounds, but are you any better off for losing them?
[quote]futurepharm wrote:
Those budget scenarios you just posted are fundamentally stupid.
You can’t pretend that the stimulus that CAUSED the economy can be removed from the equation when computing the results.
It’s like cutting off your arm, then pointing out how much lighter you got, as though you worked out real hard and lost your gut. Sure, you lost pounds, but are you any better off for losing them?
[/quote]
The charts account for the “economic stimulus” But again,the initial tax cuts created less revenue and no growth (i.e. no stimulus). Eventually over time regardless of the tax rate, the economy IS going to improve (in your example 2005)
The point is clearly the tax cuts weren’t worth their enormous costs, because…
…factually, 2.5% real GDP sucks balls.
[quote]futurepharm wrote:
It’s really a simple concept, and all you have to do is read any economics textbook to learn it.
If you take money away from citizens, you reduce investment in the economy. For all of you pining away for Clinton era tax rates, let me ask you one thing. Do you want to pay for $4 gas with those paychecks?
For everything that Bush has done wrong, tax cuts are the wrong thing to point at. They increased real GDP and tax revenues. If Congress hadn’t been so fired up to spend all of that money, a lot could have been done to reduce the national debt. But we need Woodstock museums and drug coverage for seniors ( I know, a bad idea from Bush).
[/quote]
You do get that under Clinton people paid higher taxes AND made more money (than previously). As a bonus: way high revenue and real GDP of 3.5%!
[quote]100meters wrote:
I guess you’re some kind of clown or something, but you’ll notice that no, it doesn’t really say anything about federal taxes
[/quote]
So “Bush tax cuts” referenced in the post isn’t referring to cuts on federal taxes? The tax increase referred to in the post wasn’t referring to an increase in federal taxes? I had no idea that Bush and Obama had control over state taxes! Thanks for clarifying!
[quote]100meters wrote:
but while you are apparently to stupid to realize that even before the “federal income tax” the federal govt. used (yikes!) “taxes” of all sorts to “raise revenue”.
[/quote]
Yep. You know what that means? It means that “the government needs revenues to run” is in fact, as I said before, either logically flawed or a non-sequitor.
If you’re trying to imply that a federal income tax increase (the subject of this thread) is justified “because the government needs revenue”, then it is flawed because our government could function without an income tax entirely, let alone a lower rate, if spending were managed.
And also because a higher rate (or lower rate) does not automatically lead to more revenue (or less).
If you’re just spouting “the government needs revenues to run” just to say it, then it is a non-sequitur because this post is referring to federal income taxes.
Starting to get a little clearer for you?
(And it’s “too”, not “to”. I usually don’t care about such things but it makes you look like an idiot when you misspell a three letter word while trying to insult someone’s intelligence.
[quote]100meters wrote:
They even “raised” them when they needed “additional revenue”. While I suppose we could dramatically raise the taxes on whiskey ala Hamilton, there are probably easier ways given today’s system.
[/quote]
Or maybe we could implement some smart carbon taxes, ala Hamilton. And maybe do that in combination with a drastic cut in spending.
Nope! Gotta increase the federal income tax rate, because “the government need revenue to run.”
[quote]100meters wrote:
But yes, we’ve run on “taxes” for a long time. Hilariously your “federal income tax” canard the actual non-sequitur.
[/quote]
I’ll ask again. What taxes are we talking about then if we are not talking about federal income taxes in this thread? State income tax? Did Bush lower the cigarette tax and that is what Obama is going to let lapse?
If you aren’t talking about federal income taxes, what source of revenue are you talking about?
[quote]100meters wrote:
100meters wrote:
My favorite line of stupidity:
“Has the federal government ever “run” without an income tax? How?”
apparently in Moriarty’s world (somewhere in the magical world of “candyland” I suppose) it ran on: “cutting spending”.
Hmmm…
[/quote]
Actually yeah, that is what I’m saying. I’m saying that government ran without an income tax because it was not a giant entitlement program (what you call “cutting spending”).
The very idea of a federal government that does not function as a massive, income-redistribution driven welfare program (which is was never designed to be) is so foreign to you that it is a “magical candyland”, I suppose.
[quote]100meters wrote:
futurepharm wrote:
How do you explain the fact that the “Bush Tax Cuts” actually increased tax revenues?
But lower than had they not been raised. And of course they have to be paid for( double ouch!). But hey the stimulus they gave! 2.5% real GDP was soooo worth the longterm debt, that now has to be repaid!
Otherwise a good point!
[/quote]
Had they not been raised the economy would have been slower and the government would have raised a higher percentage of a smaller economy.
Sheesh…you get all hung up on details.
It doesn’t really matter who gets into the White House. It’s a plutocracy anyway, and the “representatives” will be serving the interests of their friends (i.e: lobbies). The smart ones among the latter (can you think of any courted by John, Hillary and Barack alike?) traditionally put their money on all the horses and let the idiots cut each other’s throats.
You had a shot with Ron Paul and you bunch blew it. You’ll be dealing with the consequences shortly.
[quote]lixy wrote:
You had a shot with Ron Paul and you bunch blew it. You’ll be dealing with the consequences shortly.[/quote]
Tila Tequila would be a better President.
Some of these responses point out just how economically illiterate this country really is.
The Federal gov has far more money than it needs. Just look at the programs it wastes our money on. Go visit some gov offices in DC or anywhere for that matter. It is a joke. No business could run like that without going broke. And they want more money from me.
As far the 90’s let’s get something straight: the repub congress cut the cap gains tax - the dems were against it - Clinton reluctantly signed it. The repub cong eliminated cap gains on your primary residence up to 500k per spouse if you stay in it for 2 yrs. Again, the dems were against - Clinton reluctantly signed it.
As far as the Clinton economy remember this -
Th Dow lost nearly 30% and the Nasdaq lost 1/2 of its value in Clinton’s last year.
We were entering a recession.
The economy has been quite strong under Bush - the tax cuts indeed did help.
Remember, Bush came in at the beginning of the dot com bust, the corp scandals with restating earnings and then 9/11.
Those were 3 major things to contend with.
Economies go up, economies go down. It is called the business cycle.
When things are good - sometimes supply gets too far ahead and things must catch up.
Low tax rates across the board are a good thing for the economy. The more you tax capital the less capital formation you have. It is not too hard to understand.
This whole tax the rich is getting old. Let me ask you a question.
When was the last time a poor person ever gave you a job??
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Okay one more time for those who are not quite up to date on this Obama character:
Obama has close ties to racists (Wright) and terrorists (Ayers). He has only been a senator for 3 years. He’s THE most liberal Senator in Washington. He’s quite young and inexperienced. And to top it all off he wants to raise taxes on everyone.
What an attractive candidate for President.
Who is stupid enough to vote for this jerk?[/quote]
For the record,I have no dog in this race.
But I have the sneaky feeling that the taller,ever more photogenic Mr Obama will be the leader of the U.S. when all is said and done.
So then the answer to your question will have become clear.
On the bright side,not long to wait.
One more thing. All these democratic town hall meetings and all you hear is - jobs, jobs, jobs. All these midwest towns where the plants or factories have shut down the people they drag in are whining about no jobs in their town.
Hey, I have an idea - instead of whining to some politician - pack your bags and move to a place where there are jobs. There is no constitutional right to a job in your backyard. And Washington does not owe you one. They don’t owe you anything.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Okay one more time for those who are not quite up to date on this Obama character:
Obama has close ties to racists (Wright) and terrorists (Ayers). He has only been a senator for 3 years. He’s THE most liberal Senator in Washington. He’s quite young and inexperienced. And to top it all off he wants to raise taxes on everyone.
What an attractive candidate for President.
Who is stupid enough to vote for this jerk?[/quote]
A big problem is that black high school graduation rates are very low: 24.9% in Detroit, 33% in Cleveland, on and on. To those individuals, the concepts you’re talking about make no sense. They see no connection between lack of education and getting a good job — ‘The white man is holding me down!’. Look how well this concept played out with Pastor Wright at the pulpit. An educated audience would have simply laughed him off the lectern. They see no connection between increased government benefits and declining competitiveness with China, Korea, and so forth.
In short, they think PERCEPTUALLY, not conceptually. They SEE Obama is black, so they vote for him. Obama wins because many black people are ignorant and uneducated.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
But I have the sneaky feeling that the taller,ever more photogenic Mr Obama will be the leader of the U.S. when all is said and done.
[/quote]
This fits with my previous post. Uneducated people don’t understand issues because of the level of awareness at which they function. Obama appeals to those who see a reasonably decent looking guy with a smooth voice and eloquent rhetoric. They vote for him and get conned — Obama would make a great used car salesman or bond merchant.
He’s very good at tricking people who function PERCEPTUALLY.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
But I have the sneaky feeling that the taller,ever more photogenic Mr Obama will be the leader of the U.S. when all is said and done.
This fits with my previous post. Uneducated people don’t understand issues because of the level of awareness at which they function. Obama appeals to those who see a reasonably decent looking guy with a smooth voice and eloquent rhetoric. They vote for him and get conned — Obama would make a great used car salesman or bond merchant.
He’s very good at tricking people who function PERCEPTUALLY.
[/quote]
But you want to separate stupidity into a Black v. White issue,when in reality it is just a universal issue.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
To get elected, Obama (and many others, of course) spout: “We’re only going to tax the rich! They didn’t want a cut anyway!”
Then, there’s a revenue shortfall, and…just maybe…taxes go up for earners of 100K, then 75K, then…
Its the same old story: those who have not want to get from those who have, with a big heavy stick called ‘Government’. Will we ever learn?
I may actually vote Libertarian this year, since ‘None of the Above’ is not an option.[/quote]
What happened to the conservitive Republican. Now they think it means tax cut, Rather than cut spending .