Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and here goes another liberal suggesting that high increases in tax burdeon on the public is good.
Do you understand that if the government is taxing more, then there is less in society to be spent? If high increases are good, then surely you would suggest we have a 100% tax rate right? After all, revenues to the federal government would increase to record levels and we can all celebrate how wonderful the economy is even though you have no money left to eat..
Standard RWN attack. I said no such thing and I don't need you inventing silly strawman attacks in an attempt to defend your indefensible position.
Our tax rates are generally progressive. Even the flat tax propositions are progressive. What we are discussing is how you get revenue to meet expenditures. I would think taxing the upper 5% or so at three times or so the rate of the rest would not cause any great harm.
In no way would I be offended if the gov decided it was time, as it will be in a couple of years, to reign in spending. I would particularly like to see the military/security complex reduced by 5 or 6% per annum for some years. And I think we could usefully get a lot more isolationist.
In constant dollars? No way. It increased 22.04% from 1979 to 1989 in constant 1996 dollars. That was reasonably bad performance. By 91/92 it was down to 10 or 11% over the ten year span. Was a fiscal disaster revenue wise.
It shows that tax cuts made in the 1920's, 1960's, 1980's, and then again in 1986 increased tax revenues, and moved the tax burdeon away from the poor onto the higher income individuals. The same is true under Bush..
Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. 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
The report was written by the Clinton Council of Economic advisers, they would have no need to sugarcoat actions taken by the Republicans, and included data from the IRS. I'm willing to bet they know more about it than you do and they said that the tax cuts were not to blame for revenue decreases, the recession was..
The official Reagan revenue projections immediately following enactment of ERTA did not assume huge revenue increases, and were actually quite close to the CBO revenue projections. Even the Democrat-controlled CBO projected that deficits would fall after the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts. The real problem was a recession that neither CBO nor OMB could foresee. Even so, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989.
And what I've been saying here since day 1, that liberals dont seem to understand..
High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis.
Standard RWN attack. I said no such thing and I don't need you inventing silly strawman attacks in an attempt to defend your indefensible position.
What you clearly suggested was that increased federal revenue = good.. So I asked you how wonderful things would be if we had a 100% tax rate and revenues skyrocketed.. your response now is to attack me, making up all sorts of lies about what I said because I made no such attack against you. I clearly pointed out the flaw in your thinking which disputed the crazyness in liberal thinking that increased federal revenues = economic growth when reality indicates it could be the exact opposite.
Sorry if you didnt like my example which proved you wrong, and it disproves yet another liberal myth that increased federal revenue = economic prosperity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
Our tax rates are generally progressive. Even the flat tax propositions are progressive. What we are discussing is how you get revenue to meet expenditures.
Ahh no.. what we are discussing is who is responsible for federal debt.. Not how to get more revenues to meet the increased growth in government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
I would think taxing the upper 5% or so at three times or so the rate of the rest would not cause any great harm.
I think many in the upper 5% would LOVE to have a tax rate 3x the rest of society.. Considering 47% of americans pay no income tax, and the top 5% pay more than the bottom 95% combined, this would equate to a tax cut on the top 5% of society..
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
In no way would I be offended if the gov decided it was time, as it will be in a couple of years, to reign in spending. I would particularly like to see the military/security complex reduced by 5 or 6% per annum for some years. And I think we could usefully get a lot more isolationist.
Yeah, lets cut spending in a few years..
You do understand that the CBO said that for every dollar taken out of society above a baseline, (Its something like 17.2% of the GDP), results in 3x reduction in the GDP.. right? Or didnt you know this? If you want an increase in the GDP, then you cut spending NOW..
It shows that tax cuts made in the 1920's, 1960's, 1980's, and then again in 1986 increased tax revenues, and moved the tax burdeon away from the poor onto the higher income individuals. The same is true under Bush..
Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. 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
The report was written by the Clinton Council of Economic advisers, they would have no need to sugarcoat actions taken by the Republicans, and included data from the IRS. I'm willing to bet they know more about it than you do and they said that the tax cuts were not to blame for revenue decreases, the recession was..
What was their percentage of income over the period? Don't talk about payments increasing...at what rates did they actually end up paying.
This is not hard stuff. Just list how high their rates actually are...
Quote:
The official Reagan revenue projections immediately following enactment of ERTA did not assume huge revenue increases, and were actually quite close to the CBO revenue projections. Even the Democrat-controlled CBO projected that deficits would fall after the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts. The real problem was a recession that neither CBO nor OMB could foresee. Even so, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989.
And what I've been saying here since day 1, that liberals dont seem to understand..
I don't think you even remotely understand what you are reading. They said that Reagan revenue projections were not overstated. That is not an issue. The question is whether a revenue increase resulted from the tax cuts. It did not. Simple...that tax revenues increase over a 10 year span is a given. Over this 10 year span we had the worst performance ever. So no...the tax cuts decreased revenue. Using raw number in a period of high inflation is merely a way to disquise how bad the numbers were.
Quote:
High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis.
You simply have RWN talking points wedged in your head. None of this analysis we are using is static. It is in fact actuals. You have learned your mantra at Rush's knee and appear unable to stop using it even though it is completely inapplicable.
I certainly agree that high income tax rates are unsustainable. Every one simple quits getting income. You cannot tax at 96%...it does not work. But the world falls in if you go from 35 to 39%? I don't think so. Kennedy and Reagan were correct to chop the top brackets. But that does not say a progressive tax with reasonable progression is unworable.
What was there percentage of income over the period. Don't talk about payments increasing...at what rates did they actually end up paying.
This is not hard stuff. Just list how high there rates actually are...
Marginal rates, effective rates, capital gains rates, rate of income, rate of percentage, what exactly are you looking for that you cant find using a search engine and looking at the federal websites which contain the data?
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
I don't think you even remotely understand what you are reading. They said that Reagan revenue projections were not overstated. That is not an issue. The question is whether a revenue increase resulted from the tax cuts. It did not.
I know very well the issue is whether a revenue increase resulted from the tax cuts.. The report says YES.. Again, not only did it climb, but CLIMBED SHRPLY.. From the report
tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply
Do you somehow think you have more economic experience and knowledge of the tax revenues than the IRS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
Simple...that tax revenues increase over a 10 year span is a given.
Not always..nor is that the topic.. The topic is DEBT..
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
Over this 10 year span we had the worst performance ever. So no...the tax cuts decreased revenue. Using raw number in a period of high inflation is merely a way to disquise how bad the numbers were.
The report comes from the Clinton administration, reporting on the Regan tax cuts.. What incentive would Clinton have to disquise how bad the numbers were? You arent making much sense here, just babbling on with the typical left wing myth because you dont understand how the rich actually earn money or how they are taxed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
You simply have RWN talking points wedged in your head. None of this analysis we are using is static. It is in fact actuals. You have learned your mantra at Rush's knee and appear unable to stop using it even though it is completely inapplicable.
So now the Clinton administration is the mantra of Rush? See you cant even discuss a topic without trying to attack others, and you had the nerve to tell me I was doing that..
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt
I certainly agree that high income tax rates are unsustainable. Every one simple quits getting income. You cannot tax at 96%...it does not work. But the world falls in if you go from 35 to 39%? I don't think so. Kennedy and Reagan were correct to chop the top brackets. But that does not say a progressive tax with reasonable progression is unworable.
I never said we shouldnt have a progress tax with reasonable progression. I'm not sure what you are even now disputing.. Actually at 96% they wouldnt quit getting income, they would just require $1,000 per hour instead of $10 per hour.. which of course increases the cost of everything, milk becomes $250 instead of $2.49 etc.. At some point the costs stabalize but going through the process obviously this isnt a good thing, but this would result in skyrocketing revenues to the government, which would have you claiming the economy was boombing all the while we were suffering massive inflation. You are now the 4th poster this week to try to equate federal revenue to a strong economy inspite of the fact its the opposite. One of those liberal myths the OP was talking about.. All of this of course ignores the fact that the subject is DEBT, not revenues, not deficits, not tax rates..
You can sit here and ignore that tax cuts dont often times increase revenues because they increase the GDP and give investors an incentive to cash out their long term investments (which become taxable), but I invite you to become better educated on how the rich live and invest, and to understand that they are under no obligation to pay a dime in taxes under a high tax rate, and the lower the tax rate, the higher their incentive to pay the tax so they can spend their long term investment profits..
To try to explain this to you using your posting above.
If you tax everyone at 96%, they will stop working, per your statement.. so now turn this into the rich.. If you tax them at 96%, what investments do you think they will cash out and subject themself to paying taxes? NONE.. They dont.. they simply hold onto their investments until the tax rate comes down.. Lower the tax rate, the more they cash out and the more tax revenues the government brings in, which also increases the GDP because they are buying things, be it office buildings, stocks, bonds, new cars, homes etc, all of it boosts the economy because it allows companies to employ more people and pay more salaries which generates yet more tax revenues. The reason why their tax liabilities climbed "sharply" is they cashed out their investments and paid the taxes on them rather than holding onto them thereby paying a higher rate of tax down the road.
You might not understand but before you respond I challenge you to read up on things like 1031's, LIHTCs etc You have to understand that my investment company sell these things to get investors. I can assure you that I get a higher rate of investors cashing out in low tax periods, which generates tax revenues, and a higher rate of investors buying in a high tax period, which generates ZERO tax revenue.
A great summary, with facts and statistics to debunk the favorite liberal narratives they and the MSM like to push. Of course, when you actually look at the numbers, it falls apart like a house of cards.
1. the house of reps writes/starts all spending bills...so IF there was a surplus (came close, but never got a surplus) it would have been newts surplus, not clintons.
2.there never was a surplus though, its a liberal lie
Standard RWN attack. I said no such thing and I don't need you inventing silly strawman attacks in an attempt to defend your indefensible position.
Our tax rates are generally progressive. Even the flat tax propositions are progressive. What we are discussing is how you get revenue to meet expenditures. I would think taxing the upper 5% or so at three times or so the rate of the rest would not cause any great harm.
In no way would I be offended if the gov decided it was time, as it will be in a couple of years, to reign in spending. I would particularly like to see the military/security complex reduced by 5 or 6% per annum for some years. And I think we could usefully get a lot more isolationist.
You have it exactly backwards. How to get expenditures to not go beyond revenues, you must mean.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Absolutely I do. The dem playbook is full of lies and deceit, full of identity politics where the goal is to divide and conquer. They can never be honest with the American people about their true intentions - bigger government , more government control in every aspect of our lives, which means higher taxes and less freedom.
Please do tell us when the allegedly honest Republicans have ever made government smaller. We don't even have to get into their 'family values' lies, just ask ol' Newtie boy
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
