Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-07-2011, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
5,800 posts, read 6,546,496 times
Reputation: 3151

Advertisements

Shorebaby is right again as usual; lots of folks simply cannot comprehend that when you raise taxes, revenue goes down as those folks move their money either overseas, as millions of them have been doing nonstop thanks to Bernanke The Counterfeiter, or shift their money into tax shelters and out of the reach of the IRS.

Why is that so hard to comprehend for some of you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-07-2011, 09:12 AM
 
27,625 posts, read 21,053,594 times
Reputation: 11092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marv101 View Post
Shorebaby is right again as usual; lots of folks simply cannot comprehend that when you raise taxes, revenue goes down as those folks move their money either overseas, as millions of them have been doing nonstop thanks to Bernanke The Counterfeiter, or shift their money into tax shelters and out of the reach of the IRS.

Why is that so hard to comprehend for some of you?

Too bad there is not something that can be done about that.

Wait! There ****ing is!

Closing loopholes that allow billions in tax dollars to slip through the ... and reduce the incentives to send U.S. jobs and money offshore

Guest Column –
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 10:26 AM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
8,182 posts, read 9,180,653 times
Reputation: 3632
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
If you expect the deficit to shrink merely on spending cuts, you will have to get rid of all entitlements. Voters are not going to have that. What we need are tax increases. This country needs revenue!!!!! Stop listening to these economists who are on the Koch Brothers pay rolls. These think tanks are funded by corporate interest.

Where will all this revenue come from? We will spend $6.2 trillion on all levels of government this year, $3.8 Trillion in just interest on all public an private debt. Just a 2% increase in interest rates adds $1 trillion more in interest payments.

There is not a lot of money left over.

Stop listening to Koch and Soros, you are all being conned by elitist control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 10:27 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,923,822 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
Too bad there is not something that can be done about that.

Wait! There ****ing is!

Closing loopholes that allow billions in tax dollars to slip through the ... and reduce the incentives to send U.S. jobs and money offshore

Guest Column –
Actually closing loopholes only applies to people who actually are within your jurisdiction. Companies that leave, owe NOTHING.

Btw, the deficits are TRILLIONS, and you want to discuss .1% of it? ooh brother, where did you go to school to learn math?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Flippin AR
5,513 posts, read 5,225,721 times
Reputation: 6242
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
If you expect the deficit to shrink merely on spending cuts, you will have to get rid of all entitlements. Voters are not going to have that. What we need are tax increases. This country needs revenue!!!!! Stop listening to these economists who are on the Koch Brothers pay rolls. These think tanks are funded by corporate interest.
We could easily balance the budget without increasing taxes. The three big budget items are Offense (called Defense, but wrongly), Social Security, and Medicare. Which of these is a total waste, since we have open borders and don't go after illegal immigration at all? That's right: Offense. If we almost entirely did away with the ridiculously bloated Offense budget, and stopped arming the world and then waging war everywhere to keep the Military Industrial Empire fat and happy, we'd have plenty to pay for Social Security and Medicare.

How can anyone still support wasting more money on our military than all the other nations put together? It is justified by the excuse of terrorism, but by constantly starting new wars, all we do is incite terrorism by proving their point: we are a bully nation, arrogant, vicious, and dangerous, as well as narcissistic and paternalistic. The world will never be at peace while we're arming it, and we are by far the largest arms supplier in the world, at over $8.5 trillion a year. Arms industry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And you'd think we'd have learned by now that invading foreign nations to give them peace and stability has NEVER worked--not a single time!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 11:28 AM
 
27,625 posts, read 21,053,594 times
Reputation: 11092
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Actually closing loopholes only applies to people who actually are within your jurisdiction. Companies that leave, owe NOTHING.

Btw, the deficits are TRILLIONS, and you want to discuss .1% of it? ooh brother, where did you go to school to learn math?
What about the other possible response to threats? Government could make a different policy choice, define differently what is "best for us all". In other words, it could persevere in the face of business threats, and to do so, it could counter-threaten the corporations. When major corporations threaten to cut or relocate production abroad in response to changes in their taxes and subsidies, or demands to cut their prices or serious enforcement of environmental protection rules, the US government could promise retaliation. Here's a brief and partial list of how it might do that (with illustrative examples for the energy and pharmaceutical industries):

Inform such threatening businesses that the US government will shift its purchases to other enterprises.

Inform them that top officials will tour the US to urge citizens to follow the government's example and shift their purchases as well.

Inform them that the government will proceed to finance and organise state-operated companies to compete directly with threatening businesses.

Immediately and strictly enforce all applicable rules governing health and safety conditions for workers, environmental protection laws, equal employment and advancement opportunity, etc.

Present and promote passage of new laws governing enterprise relocation (giving local, regional and national authorities power of veto over corporate relocation decisions).

Purchase energy and pharmaceutical outputs in bulk for mass resale to the US public, passing on all the savings from bulk purchases.

Seize assets of enterprises that seek to evade or frustrate increased taxes or reduced subsidies.
Laws enabling such actions either already exist in the US or could be enacted. In other countries today, existing models of such laws have performed well, often for many years. These could be used and adjusted for US conditions.

Of course, a much better basis than threat and counter-threat is available for sharing the costs of government between individuals and businesses. That basis would be achieved by a transition to...

The Great Corporate Tax Swindle

Last edited by sickofnyc; 08-07-2011 at 11:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 12:09 PM
 
58,659 posts, read 26,945,161 times
Reputation: 14143
Quote:
Originally Posted by DifferentDrum View Post
The people who create jobs are sitting on trillions in cash, but are not engaged in innovation or job creation- what do you not get about that?

How many years have the tax cuts been in effect? 10 years? How much 'certainty' do businesses need?

Is Joe Blow NEVER going to buy a house, or a car, or start a business, or change jobs, or start a family, because he's not 'certain' how his life is going to play out?? Puhleeze.

It is simply not the nature of things in this world to be set in stone and CERTAIN forever. So it's a really pathetic excuse- especially after several years with the tax cuts in place.

The problem is, there are not enough customers, and like it or not, there is obviously nobody to create customers other than the government. Private business is waiting for Godot to appear in the guise of 'certainty'. They are cowards- very, very wealthy cowards who you choose to defend.
first, your ten year assumption is wrong. revenues went UP after the Bush tax cuts went into effect.

Second, if the people with money are sitting on their money now, what do you think they will do if you increase their taxes?

Look up what happened when the "luxury" tax was enacted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 12:26 PM
 
58,659 posts, read 26,945,161 times
Reputation: 14143
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Lexus View Post
Great to read the view of someone who is among the most enlightened. The Conservative nonsense derives from a history of failure, deceptive marketing, and embellishing of any bad news that they caused while Obama is in office. I find their emphasis on the deficit to be a hollow one since they were unconcerned with it while Bush was running it up.

The American public is too smart though, and sees through their crap. As Bush showed, focusing just on spending cuts domestically doesn't work. Tax increases, especially on those who unfairly benefited under Bush, are vital.
The ultimate liberal thought, " Tax increases, especially on those who unfairly benefited under Bush, are vital."

Sorry to burst your bubble but, the Bush tax cuts were across the board. EVERYBODY who payed taxes got a cut.

By the way, what makes you the decision maker as to who deserves to keep the money they earned and who doesn't. Sounds very elitist to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 12:38 PM
 
58,659 posts, read 26,945,161 times
Reputation: 14143
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001 View Post
I support regulation because I do not trust businesses to do the right thing. Their history shows they will cut whatever corner they can, expose workers to unsafe conditions, dump toxins wherever they can hide them, force people to work fewer hours so they don't have to extend benefits, destroy unions for employees wanting to hold them accountable to existing laws, etc. I care more that this is a good society for citizens, i.e., living breathing human beings, than for pieces of paper called corporations. I don't care that this idea is bad for business. Business either follows the rules or it doesn't exist. I won't yield in hard times and I still assert that ordinary people are capable of creating jobs for themselves. We haven't always had centralized businesses and huge corporations. People used their talents to find work and were mostly self-employed. I see no reason why that same thing can't be done now, or have the corporations managed to destroy our American ingenuity and monopolized our talents?

Granted, I'm not in favor of regulations just for the sake of regulation. They must have a solid reason for being in place. But, I basically hold businesses in contempt. They have to prove they are worth trusting. Why do I hold this view? Because they do the same thing to me as an employee. It makes sense that I take a defensive posture.

Obviously, in the age old struggle between management and the workers, I will side with the workers. And until I hear viable solutions from a management that I can trust (rather than complaints about how much they're being forced to do the right thing, boo hoo), I will remain on that side. Why would I slit my own throat by relenting?
You have been watching too many anti-business movies and TV shows.

A little fact I am sure you are not aware of, "PONTE VEDRA BEACH, Fla. -- The PGA TOUR announced Monday that its combined charitable contributions from tournaments on the PGA TOUR, Champions Tour and Nationwide Tour came to $108 million for 2009.With this announcement, the TOUR's all-time total is approaching $1.5 billion. Despite the continued impact of a severely depressed economy, eight tournaments generated more than $4 million, two more than 2008 when the TOUR announced a record $124 million had been raised".

They are able to raise this much money because of the partnership with BUSINESSES.

Business is NOT the evil monster you have come to hate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 12:51 PM
 
Location: San Jose
1,862 posts, read 2,379,695 times
Reputation: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Tax increases do NOT increase revenues. Where on gods earth did you get your education from? Ask for a refund. The ONLY thing that grows revenues is a GDP increase and broadening the tax base.

Do you now support tax increases on the middle class and those in poverty?

As for your "spending cuts" comments, there have been NO cuts. Do you even know this? Continue on with your hate thread though, blaming everyone else for lefties not knowing basic economics.
You know, not all economists agree with you. As a matter of fact, quite a few disagree.

From Hey Mitch McConnell, Bush Economists Said Tax Cuts Did Grow the Deficit - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic

1) The Council of Economic Advisers' Report to the President (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy04/pdf/2003_erp.pdf - broken link), 2003: "Although the economy grows in response to tax reductions (because of higher consumption in the short run and improved incentives in the long run), it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity."

2) The chair of CEA from 2003-2005, Greg Mankiw: "Some supply-siders like to claim that the distortionary effect of taxes is so large that increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. Like most economists, I don't find that conclusion credible for most tax hikes, and I doubt Mr. Paulson does either."

3) He's right! Hank Paulson, Bush's last Treasury Secretary, doesn't: "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves."

4) That opinion was shared by Andrew Samwick, Chief Economist on Council of Economic Advisers, 2003-2004: "No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset [the Bush tax cuts] more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one."...

5) ... and Edward Lazear, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in 2007: "I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:24 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top