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.
Relevant to a faulty belief system? Yes. Relevant to the actual known facts? No.
I go to great lengths to properly state supportable facts. If you think I am not representing facts you are free to disprove what I write. Merely claiming "you're wrong," proves nothing.
I go to great lengths to properly state supportable facts. If you think I am not representing facts you are free to disprove what I write.
I have. Many times. Like I said, you have to want to know the truth to be open to it.
And you go to great lengths to post biased propaganda, not verifiable relevant facts. In another thread, you repeatedly confused income with wealth. They're not the same. Many high income earners are not wealthy, and many wealthy do not have high incomes.
You seem to get easily confused. Perhaps that's why you have a hard time finding and understanding relevant facts.
I have. Many times. Like I said, you have to want to know the truth to be open to it.
And you go to great lengths to post biased propaganda, not verifiable relevant facts. In another thread, you repeatedly confused income with wealth. They're not the same. Many high income earners are not wealthy, and many wealthy do not have high incomes.
You seem to get easily confused. Perhaps that's why you have a hard time finding and understanding relevant facts.
You make that assertion but don't provide any data. It is somewhat preposterous to say high income earners are not wealthy. Wealth is accumulated earnings. One can't accumulate wealth without it coming from earnings. Even if it was inherited, for the year it was, income was high.
Besides, I don't believe I confused the two as you claim and the point was minor, in any case.
Your main contention is that cutting taxes creates more economic activity and increases government revenue. Those believes are unfounded in evidence.
You make that assertion but don't provide any data.
Incorrect. I'll post it again. The top 1%'s share of the wealth (total net worth; assets minus liabilities) has declined from its high in 1995. Clinton's policies favored the top 1%, Bush's did not.
One thing we should realise from this recession is future liabilties have a hge impact o investment and enployers hiring new employees.We also see even individuals reacting to what they see in reducing debt and savings.Allone really has to do is look at the mounting debt still growing ;the fact that business has made major shifts to contimue to make profits tot eh degree that mnay are making profits;that governamnt has policies that will stop savinsg growth and that eventually inflation is likely to skyrocket when Fed raises rates.
Your main contention is that cutting taxes creates more economic activity and increases government revenue. Those believes are unfounded in evidence.
You must be young. The fact that cutting taxes creates more economic activity and increases government revenue has been known for a l-o-n-g time.
From the BIPARTISAN Joint Economic Committee...
Quote:
Conclusion
The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is disproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago.
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform (http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm - broken link)
The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms.
Heat cannot be transfer from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact of thermodynamics, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.
The Universe will attain absolute zero when all energy and matter is randomly distributed across space. The current temperature of empty space in the Universe is about 2.7 Kelvins.
You must be young. The fact that cutting taxes creates more economic activity and increases government revenue has been known for a l-o-n-g time.
From Ezra Klein (McConnell: 'No evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue' - broken link):
Quote:
There are fiscal theories that I disagree with, and that I think are cruel, and that make me upset. But very few actually make me sad. Sen. Mitch McConnell, however, hit my sore spot today. "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue," he told Brian Beutler of TPMDC. "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 other words, this is why Republicans don't think tax cuts need to be paid for. They pay for themselves.
Why does this make me sad? Because it's hard to see the country prospering when one of its two major political parties is this economically illiterate. McConnell isn't some backbencher. He's Senate minority leader. And he thinks there's "no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue."
There's an ontological question here about what, exactly, McConnell considers to be "evidence." But how about the Congressional Budget Office's estimations? "The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs." How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."
On Reagan's tax-cuts, as I've shown before, revenue dropped after Reagan's tax-cuts. If revenues rose after his tax-cut, then why did Reagan need to reverse course and increase taxes so many times?
Quote:
Bruce Bartlett on Tax Increases & Reagan on NRO Financial (http://old.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp - broken link)
In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.
In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.
In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.
I don't know what you are talking about in 1982. That was a period of high interest rates and savings and loans were prohibited to loan at greater than some percentage -- and that was below the rate they had to borrow.
If you were talking about the savings and loan scandal, that was when Congress changed the law to allow savings and loans, which are owned by depositors, to become commercial banks. Unscrupulous bankers fudged the books to make it look like the banks were more valuable than they really were so they could make a bundle on the stock sale. That doesn't prove the regulations were at fault, that proves the new regulations and law wasn't tough enough.
in other words, regulations need to be very tight or the free-marketeers will find loopholes to exploit. Just imagine what they would do if there were no regulations, as some here say!
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
you might want to read liar's poker by michael lewis to see where the government came in.
the government literally creates the playing field.
ask yourself, where is the punishment of the bad guys? the corruption is AT THE TOP, and the foxes are still in the henhouse.
Read up on the Latin America Debt Crisis, we bailed out the banks (as usual).
Liar's Poker is a great start, then the Big Short. Also the Black Swan by Nassim Taleb will help.
Regulations are how they game the system, we need to forget regulations and add back risk and liability.
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.
