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.
If all that mattered is how much income went up for the federal govenrment, then you would support tax rates of 100% and then celebrate how the federal revenues jumped 500% while the economy crashed and you had no money to eat
Reading is fundamental. In my post regarding tax revenue and government spending the cutting government spending was PART of the problem.
You don't look more closely at how poorly the rate of federal tax revenue increased during the Bush 43 Administration then you have your head in the sand. In a HEALTHY national economy the growth of tax revenue is a by product of strong economic growth. If you look at the information that I put out TAX REVENUE GROWTH WAS STRONGEST WHEN THE ECONOMY WAS THE HEALTHIEST.
The Republican Party has convinced its faithful that tax cuts lead to a healthy economy. Yet the Kennedy-Johnson and Clinton Administrations HAD
HIGHER AVERAGE ANNUAL GDP GROWTH,
HIGHER AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENTAGE INCREASES IN REAL PRIVATE FIXED INVESTMENT
HIGHER GROWTH IN FEDERAL TAX REVENUE
DECREASES IN THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS LIVING BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL
All of this was achieved at high tax rates than we have today.
Tax cuts are "sugar highs" and their effects are short term. If you do the research the information is all there. The only reason to ignore the information is:
If you are an ideologue that is so committed to your ideas you won't change them even if the information CLEARLY SHOWS they don't work.
You are among the wealthy or corporate interests that really don't give a damn about other Americans as long as your financial interests are served by the federal government.
You lack the intelligence to understand exactly what is going on and how it affects you.
Last edited by JazzyTallGuy; 12-02-2010 at 09:57 AM..
Spending that wasn't PAID for - that wasn't even on the books - the unfunded Bush wars,
Spending increases were not paid for true, but they are not paid for now, nor have they EVER been paid for. Right now you celebrate these deficits (as liberals do) and suddenly only care about the few years the GOP had control, while ignoring the fact that the GOP held congress for EIGHT out of 40 years, and 4 of them led to "balanced" budgets. Where are you crying for the other 32 years without balanced budgets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene
coupled with the unfunded Bush tax cuts, were economically disastrous.
WRONG, the tax cuts in 2003 were completely paid for by employing 10,200,000 individuals over a 4 year period and DOUBLING the income received by capital gains taxes. Why do you continue to repeat the same old garbage over and over especially when I posted graphs proving you are wrong? Its like you have the inability to understand that more people working = more taxes being paid, even when I post it right there in pretty pictures
Between May 1999 and May 2009, employment in the private sector sector only rose by 1.1%, by far the lowest 10-year increase in the post-depression period.
It’s impossible to overstate how bad this is. Basically speaking, the private sector job machine has almost completely stalled over the past ten years.
As a direct result of the tax cuts enacted since 2001, the Tax Policy Center found that in 2007:
Households in the bottom fifth of the income spectrum received tax cuts averaging $29, which raised their after-tax incomes by an average of 0.4 percent.
Those in the middle fifth received tax cuts averaging $760, which raised their after-tax incomes by an average of 2.4 percent.
The top 1 percent of households received tax cuts averaging $41,077, which raised their after-tax incomes by an average of 5.0 percent.
Within the top 1 percent, those with incomes exceeding $1 million received tax cuts averaging $114,000, which raised their after-tax incomes by an average of 5.7 percent.
Once again you are taking facts out of place and counting the years the Democrats held Congress and lead us into an economic disaster. I dont give a rats patute that the rich get larger tax cuts in $ figures than the poor because any idiot knows that the more someone pays, the more their cuts would be.. My 7 year old could explain that to you.. so why is it difficult for you to understand?
The Republican Party has convinced its faithful that tax cuts lead to a healthy economy. Yet the Kennedy-Johnson and Clinton Administrations HAD
HIGHER AVERAGE ANNUAL GDP GROWTH,
HIGHER AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENTAGE INCREASES IN REAL PRIVATE FIXED INVESTMENT
HIGHER GROWTH IN FEDERAL TAX REVENUE
DECREASES IN THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS LIVING BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL
All of this was achieved at high tax rates than we have today.
Tax cuts are "sugar highs" and their effects are short term. .
you fail to mention that OTHER taxes have come and inceased in their place
you fail to mention that SPENDING has increase much, much, more than taxes have gone down
the fact is from federal income tax we take in about 1 trillion...then about 700 billion from wage fees (SS/medicare tax),, then about 800 billion from corporate tax......that's about 2.5 trillion.....yet we spend 3.5 trillion
you would have to double taxes. just to even break even...then what Dc will spend more...forgetaboutit
The deficits were due to increased SPENDING.. Not a lack of revenue
You will see revenues dropping, and after the 2003 tax cuts revenues increased
Its not a lack of revenue to blame for deficits, its SPENDING.. Federal spending has DOUBLED in 10 years..
Granting big tax cuts in a time of increased expenses isn't wise policy.
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have "increased revenues." He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues. That’s highly misleading.
In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product.
It’s unclear how much of the growth can be attributed to the tax cuts. Capital gains tax receipts did increase greatly from 2003 to 2006, but the CBO estimates that they will level off and decrease in the next few years. The growth overwhelmingly resulted from a sharp rise in corporate tax receipts, the cause of which is a topic of debate.
Reading is fundamental is said in my post regarding tax revenue and government spending the cutting government spending was PART of the problem.
Government didnt spend the cutting of revenues, government revenues INCREASED due to the tax cuts.. The problem is they spent MORE than the increased revenues. Government spending has bee doubling every 10 years. Tell me what we have to show for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy
You don't look more closely at how poorly the rate of federal tax revenue increased during the Bush 43 Administration then you have your head in the sand.
Because government growth is counter productive to the nation. Again, thats basic elementary math. If the government revenue grows it means there is less money in society to be spent... If you continue to ask for government growth and then pretend that the size of growth is positive then again, you should be asking for a 100% tax rate, and then celebrating the economic prosperity in america even though you have NOTHING to eat..
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy
In a HEALTHY national economy the growth of tax revenue is a by product of strong economic growth. If you look at the information that I put out TAX REVENUE GROWTH WAS STRONGEST WHEN THE ECONOMY WAS THE HEALTHIEST.
Thats not at all correct because it ignores the tax rates and the economic effects of those tax rates. Again, if you had a 100% tax rate, the tax revenue would be fantastic, around $13T a year, and you think this would mean a strong economy even though people have no money to eat
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy
The Republican Party has convinced its faithful that tax cuts lead to a healthy economy.
And by some fantasy land you have been led to believe that increasing revenues to the federal government leads to economic prosperity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy
Yet the Kennedy-Johnson and Clinton Administrations HAD
HIGHER AVERAGE ANNUAL GDP GROWTH,
HIGHER AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENTAGE INCREASES IN REAL PRIVATE FIXED INVESTMENT
HIGHER GROWTH IN FEDERAL TAX REVENUE
DECREASES IN THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS LIVING BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL
All of this was achieved at high tax rates than we have today.
Thats because they CUT SPENDING.. When you CUT SPENDING, you are no longer removing money from society which yields increased investments which yields increased tax revenues due to increased profits. But you want the opposite, increased federal spending, which is what happened under Bush, and by your own admission, is counter productive to the items listed here and why the Obama spending plan is a complete failure and was destine to be one from the beginning..
You dont take money out of the economy to boost the economy.. Thats just silly, but thats what happened under Bush, and despite the wonderful benefits which happened due to the tax cuts, this was downplayed due to the continuing spending increases..
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy
Tax cuts are "sugar highs" and their effects are short term. If you do the research the information is all there. The only reason to ignore the information is:
If you are an ideologue that is so committed to your ideas you won't change them even if the information CLEARLY SHOWS they don't work.
Yes, tax cuts can be sugar highs, especially when they are planned to be temporary.. Which indeed is what Bushs tax cuts were. When they began to get close to expiring, people changed their investment habbits to reflect future tax ramifications.. Anyone with half a brain can analyze that if taxes will change, that the effect will be those who pay taxes will change as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy
You are among the wealthy or corporate interests that really don't give a damn about other Americans as long as your financial interests are served by the federal government.
I have stated numerous times that I dont pay taxes, and havent paid them for nearly 10 years.. Its because of the methods I have taken to avoid taxes that I can tell you first hand that you can increase taxes to 100% on the wealthy and it wont increase federal revenues. All it will do is allow people like me a reason to not cash out our investments and roll them over to new tax free investment mechanisms (like 1031 tax exchanges) which will yield ZERO tax revenues and allow us to grow our wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy
You lack the intelligence to understand exactly what is going on and how it affects you.
On the contrary, I fully understand that with higher tax rates = higher incentives to continue to grow wealth tax free and with lower tax rates = a much greater incentive to cash out ones wealth to spend and invest..
You seem to not understand that we tax profits.. and wealth can grow TAX FREE in america until its SPENT.. You keep asking for higher taxes on the wealthy which INCREASES their wealth because they simply keep them in tax exempt investments..
Granting big tax cuts in a time of increased expenses isn't wise policy.
You got that backwards.. Increasing spending MORE than increased revenues isnt wise policy, but you celebrate it taking place under Obama
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade52
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have "increased revenues." He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues. That’s highly misleading.
In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product.
It’s unclear how much of the growth can be attributed to the tax cuts. Capital gains tax receipts did increase greatly from 2003 to 2006, but the CBO estimates that they will level off and decrease in the next few years. The growth overwhelmingly resulted from a sharp rise in corporate tax receipts, the cause of which is a topic of debate.
The CBO was also surprised that tax cuts created increased revenues, they were also suprised that the TARP only cost $25B, there are lots of things the CBO get "surprised" over because by the CBO admission, their calculations avoid changing actions by consumers to reflect the changes made by government. They can only calculate if consumers continue to act in their current manner and we all know consumers change to reflect governmental changes. Taxes go up, government removes money from the economy, people tighten their belt and stop spending.. Its these reactions that can not be properly calculated, and the CBO will properly admit the reason why their calculations are often wrong..
You seem to not understand that we tax profits.. and wealth can grow TAX FREE in america until its SPENT.. You keep asking for higher taxes on the wealthy which INCREASES their wealth because they simply keep them in tax exempt investments..
Seems like an easy solution. Take one for the team and ****. What do the Democrats have to gain by stalling? Make the tax cuts permanent and they could move on to their favorite issues like gays in the military and the dream act.
Because there was no money there for the so-called "cuts" when they were new. The Bush "tax cuts" were accomplished with borrowed money, and that is the only way they can continue. There is not enough revenue coming in to pay the country's bills as it is.
If anyone was truly serious about financial responsibility in Washington, the cuts would have ended long ago. If they continue, it will mean that those who have the power to stop them don't think that deficits matter in the least.
Because there was no money there for the so-called "cuts" when they were new. The Bush "tax cuts" were accomplished with borrowed money, and that is the only way they can continue. There is not enough revenue coming in to pay the country's bills as it is.
If anyone was truly serious about financial responsibility in Washington, the cuts would have ended long ago. If they continue, it will mean that those who have the power to stop them don't think that deficits matter in the least.
No they were not.. tax cuts do not take place with borrowed money.. Its SPENDING which takes place with borrowed money.. Again, the 2003 tax cuts INCREASED revenues, it DOUBLED capital gains tax revenues, its SPENDING which increased far more than the income which took place with borrowed money..
A comparison would be borrowing against your mortgage on your home and going out and buying a new car with the money. You would say that the borrowing against the mortgage was the cause of the debt but thats not true.. Its wasting that borrowed money on the car which caused your debt problems. If you borrowed the money and sat the money in a bank, your networth would not change to be negative. If you used it to buy an investment property your net worth wouldnt again change to be negative, it would actually increase. its the SPENDING of the borrowed money on a depreciating asset with negative returns which is the problem.. and thats exactly what the government does time and time again..
Or if I just received a $1 pay raise, (because the tax cuts increased revenues) and I go out and I sell my $100K home that I barely could afford and buy a $1,000,000 home I'm in for future economic problems would you not agree? Again its not the income which is the problem, its the SPENDING..
Its no wonder Americans are in such bad financial shape when they dont understand this crap..
Last edited by pghquest; 12-02-2010 at 10:46 AM..
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.
