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 08-09-2011, 12:09 PM
 
20,408 posts, read 12,314,159 times
Reputation: 10196

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb View Post
Bush revenue increases were generated by raising payroll taxes.. which bugs me so damn much. Raise taxes on labor so you can lower taxes on capital.

About growth, sure -- I get that. I also get that the Bush tax cuts are unrealistically low and need to be raised to the levels our taxes were the last time we had a balanced budget.
You do realize that the last time we had something close to a balanced budget was during the period of the "internet bubble"

basically during a period of false growth....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2011, 12:11 PM
 
12,997 posts, read 13,599,285 times
Reputation: 11187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Or just cut spending. There is no need to raise taxes.
You really can't get there with spending cuts alone. Or maybe *you* can... depending on what you want to cut. If you haven't played around with this yet, you should... it's fun and informative.

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 12:13 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,350,624 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
ALL income should be taxed. Why would the poor have income that isnt taxable? This one sentence RIGHT HERE, explains heritages point, that we have non stop lefties who think that the bottom 50%, should be allowed to have income that isnt taxable, and we can continue to pile on the top, even though all of the wealth of the top combined, would hardly put a dent in the problems we face today.

ALL DISPOSABLE income should be taxed. Do you really want to tax income below, say, the poverty line?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 12:15 PM
 
10,854 posts, read 9,277,535 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heritage Member View Post
Tax RATES do not need to be raised. Tax RATES need to be LOWERED and then loopholes and deductions need to be eliminated. This is something that is doable, as republicans will agree to it and responsible democrats like Joe Manchin will agree to it.

You are absolutely correct that you can tax the so-called rich all you want and it won't be enough. But it makes for good vilification for the left to use, doesn't it.
The irony here was during the negotiations that resulted in the recent debt reduction deal closing loopholes and reducing deductions was proposed by President Obama and the Republicans REFUSED any and all such proposals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 12:21 PM
 
12,997 posts, read 13,599,285 times
Reputation: 11187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
You do realize that the last time we had something close to a balanced budget was during the period of the "internet bubble"

basically during a period of false growth....
Really??? Ferd, can we do something really unique for a change and not insult each other's intelligence? Of course I know that. I also know that the 90s was the last time both parties were serious about fiscal responsibility. The Republicans were more so, but the Democrats (Clinton's wing at least) got on board as well. In the Bush era, fiscal responsibility was largely tossed out the window. The Republicans are very disingenuous on this issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,897,850 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
You do realize that the last time we had something close to a balanced budget was during the period of the "internet bubble"

basically during a period of false growth....
Actually, that's incorrect for the following reason, the internet bubble collapsed in 1999-2000. Yet, 2001 was a surplus year, precisely because the Clinton tax-rates were still in place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb View Post
The Republicans were more so, but the Democrats (Clinton's wing at least) got on board as well. In the Bush era, fiscal responsibility was largely tossed out the window. The Republicans are very disingenuous on this issue.
Where is the evidence Republicans were more serious? They were against raising taxes and predicted doing so would be bad for the economy. They were wrong. Not a single Republican voted for the tax increase.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 12:25 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,918,160 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Actually, that's incorrect for the following reason, the internet bubble collapsed in 1999-2000. Yet, 2001 was a surplus year, precisely because the Clinton tax-rates were still in place.Where is the evidence Republicans were more serious? They were against raising taxes and predicted doing so would be bad for the economy. They were wrong.

Actually, wasn't it because he borrowed from intra-gov funds to pay down public debt which gives the illusion of such for public debt when one ignores intra-gov debt?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,897,850 times
Reputation: 5661
The point of this thread is to further the discredited theory that tax-cuts pay for themselves. Paul Krugman and others discredited that meme but this one is a zombie meme, no matter how many times you kill it, it still rises again:

Quote:
July 13, 2010, 7:14 pm
Invincible Ignorance

Just in case you had some lingering notion that anyone in the Republican party was fiscally responsible, Mitch McConnell has weighed in in support of Jon Kyl:

Quote:
[T]here’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.
In a way you have to wonder what point there even is in trying to argue here. But anyway, look: it’s been a long time since Morning in America. We’ve now been through two two-term administrations, one of which raised taxes, the other of which cut them. Which looks like it presided over a more vibrant economy?



And who in their right mind would describe the Bush economy as “vibrant”, anyway? Even during the peak of the housing bubble, it never achieved the kind of job growth that was routine in the Clinton years.

Oh, and as for revenue: we have a growing economy, which means that revenue tends, other things equal, to rise over time. But here’s what real federal revenue looked like since 1992:



Rapid, steady growth in the Clinton years; much less thereafter, even if you stop the clock just before the housing bubble burst.

In short, the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves has no empirical support. And yet the GOP leadership — which claims to be oh so worried about the deficit — is willing to stake America’s solvency on its belief that tax cuts are free.

Update: Also, for those readers who complain that I’m too partisan, that I should admit that there are two sides to the issues, this is a prime example of my problem. How am I supposed to pretend that these are serious people? The facts really do have a well-known liberal bias.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 12:33 PM
 
12,997 posts, read 13,599,285 times
Reputation: 11187
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Actually, that's incorrect for the following reason, the internet bubble collapsed in 1999-2000. Yet, 2001 was a surplus year, precisely because the Clinton tax-rates were still in place.Where is the evidence Republicans were more serious? They were against raising taxes and predicted doing so would be bad for the economy. They were wrong. Not a single Republican voted for the tax increase.
I remember those times quite well. It was Ross Perot who actually got the conversation moving fast, with the Republicans giving some lip service to his ideas and the Democrats less so. When the Democrats won everything, they didn't tackle the debt problem. They worked on health care and DADT. When the Republicans took Congress in 1994, Clinton got the word that the American people were serious about the budget, and he changed course in light of that.

I agree with you that Republicans are a huge part of the problem with their tax cuts. They like hokey analogies when it comes to the budget. Well, they are analogous to the guy who needs to pay off his debt, so he cuts way back on spending, but then cuts the hours we works by 25 percent too. Stupid. Raise taxes, cut spending, pay off the debt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 12:34 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,350,624 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senshi
Random Thoughts of a Crazy Liberal: Who Pays the Most in Taxes?


You should have stopped embarassing yourself again by simply not linking to that link. We are discussing FEDERAL taxes. Sales, excise, property taxes are STATE. Do you not understand the different branches of government and need to return to school to become better educated on american civics? Clearly the blogger you linked to has to.

(jumping into middle of fire)

I support taxes which are in aggregate flat on all disposable income. YOU are discussing federal taxes. The other poster's reference to STATE taxes is relevant to a discussion of aggregate taxes.

Specifically, I view the generally (somewhat) regressive nature of state taxes as supporting generally (somewhat) progressive federal taxes.

In a world of flat state taxes, federal taxes should also be flat, but state taxes aren't flat.
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 10:20 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