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 07-15-2011, 08:53 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,084 posts, read 12,034,407 times
Reputation: 4125

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
The deficit rose because we started deficit spending on a regular basis in the 80's. In other words, we went crazy with credit both privately and in government. We started the bad habit of spending money we didn't have.

When dealing w/ debt - there are two parts, revenues and expenditures. Both play a part in the equation.
No, it was supply side economics.

Quote:
The problem with the Republican implementation of Reaganomics was that it reduced taxes on the wealthy, shifting more of the tax load onto the overburdened middle class, a perversion of the economic theories of the early French economist Jean-Louis Say.

Trickle-down theory was in fact an economic theory dredged up from the dustbin of history originally called "horse-and-sparrow theory." It was postulated thusly: "If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."

Horse-and-sparrow was in practice during the 1890s, a decade that saw two banking crises.
You know you were on the back end of the laffer curve, even by the theorist's own definition, when you cut taxes and revenue starts to go down. Clinton raised the tax rates, the economy boomed and revenues increased...Bush cut them and revenues decreased, the deficit shot up, and the economy tanked. History FTW.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-15-2011, 09:07 AM
 
Location: The Silver State (from the UK)
4,664 posts, read 8,231,096 times
Reputation: 2862
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
You and many others do not understand that taxation alone does not factor into where resources end up. Whether the rich are taxed at 28% to 70%, the only effects are the rich keeps their money, or the government takes the money. That's all taxes can effect.

If the rich keep their money, it will be spent on luxuries (benefiting the people involved in those products), or a business (benefiting employees), or put in a bank or invested (benefiting people who work in those institutions). And of course, they are looking to increase their own bottom line, which is fine.

The top 1% already pays 30%-40% of all tax revenues and 50% pay nothing. It's already unfair for them.

If the government gets their money, they are responsible for how it is distributed. So if the rich are getting richer, maybe it's how the government is distributing the tax revenues.

Oh, so somebody making $250,000 per year gets a tax cut and uses the extra money to buy a new Mercedes - that benefits everybody more than putting that extra money into education or paying down the deficit how???

I'm not advocating taxing people to death, but you are not thinking of society as a whole. The wealthy jobs exist not because of the individual but because of the society they exist in - America was created by the middle/lower class - not by multi-millionaires.

Fairness - diminishing marginal utility means you can tax higher the more money you make. Corporate tax loopholes should also be closed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2011, 09:50 AM
 
2,028 posts, read 1,885,164 times
Reputation: 1001
Quote:
Originally Posted by BirchBarlow View Post
We all know that the higher taxes are, the less productive the wealthy will be. We also know that cutting taxes increases revenue. So if we're serious about this debt problem why not cut spending AND taxes? If we cut taxes, more economic activity will take place meaning more taxable income.


Eliminate corporate taxes (corporate shareholders already pay personal income taxes, so why should they be double taxed, not to mention the fact that most corporate taxes are simply passed onto consumers.)

Eliminate capital gains taxes (why should people be punished for taking a risk?)

Eliminate payroll taxes

Eliminate all loopholes and deductions.

Institute a flat 15% income tax for all individuals.
The problem with much this solution is half of the country will be for it, and half against. I agree with the flat tax portion.

The best solution is for everyone to pay a low flat federal rate, and have the higher tax rate discussion at the state level. This way, liberals and conservatives can raise or lower taxes at the state level to their heart's content and fund their favorite programs without having this ongoing national fight.

At this point, it's really no use to try and convince people which tax policy is best. It's time for us to compete against each other and prove it without imposing it on the entire nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2011, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,767,183 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
If we want to raise revenue, why not CUT taxes?

An idea put to effect in 2001, to pay off all debt by 2010 and have a thriving economy by the end of it. It worked, no?

Heritage Foundation (April 2001): The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2011, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,823,173 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by BirchBarlow View Post
We all know that the higher taxes are, the less productive the wealthy will be. We also know that cutting taxes increases revenue. So if we're serious about this debt problem why not cut spending AND taxes? If we cut taxes, more economic activity will take place meaning more taxable income.


Eliminate corporate taxes (corporate shareholders already pay personal income taxes, so why should they be double taxed, not to mention the fact that most corporate taxes are simply passed onto consumers.)

Eliminate capital gains taxes (why should people be punished for taking a risk?)

Eliminate payroll taxes

Eliminate all loopholes and deductions.

Institute a flat 15% income tax for all individuals.
What? Allow the Middle Class to only pay what the wealthy pay? Are you completely nuts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2011, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,767,183 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
What? Allow the Middle Class to only pay what the wealthy pay? Are you completely nuts?
What kind of question is that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2011, 10:20 AM
 
7,214 posts, read 9,375,282 times
Reputation: 7802
Trickle down economics is a total joke that has been disproven over the last 30 years. That some Americans continue to buy into this charade foisted on them by the Republicans is quite disgusting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2011, 10:39 AM
 
48,505 posts, read 96,675,147 times
Reputation: 18304
The real cause of deficit spending is from wantig too mauch and being able to politcally get it. Its the same reason for people having credit problems now.Trickle down is what others supporting others is. Only those who own their own company is not trickle down. Trickle down by wealth sharig thru politcsa is trckle down but it means more and more are purelyu consumig and not contribution anyhting to increase wealth.Its what Greece is facig now and we are headed towards. It has conseqaueces when the welth no longer equals that which is needed, We are fast approaching that.It also means more will be in the lower income levels'driving not poverty but actual larger difference in wealth.Too many depednent on too few is the result.We see the result now. Mnay of our social problems are a result in edcuation being not valued;anti-social behaviour;the lowest income areas being the worse for crime and disputes amoung people having nothing else in their lifes but time.Prodcution based on not what a perosn creates and can trade results in such things as more lving on credit we see now. That results in what we how see happening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2011, 10:41 AM
 
45,400 posts, read 26,983,057 times
Reputation: 23761
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound View Post
Let's talk about this link from RationalWIKI.

Supply side economics — also known as "trickle down" economics,[1] or "voodoo" economics,[2] and sometimes "Reaganomics" — is based on the Laffer curves, and excites fiscal conservatives more than sex.

Really?? - So much for rational thought.

The basic idea is that when taxes are too high, people refuse to engage in economic activity.

It's not that they refuse, but there is less money for them TO engage in economic activity.

They assume that lower taxes can actually increase government revenues in the long run, because the surplus income from an expanding economy is supposed to make up for the immediate effects of tax cuts.

That is correct. An expanding economy generates more taxes through more people employed paying payroll taxes, and people making more money and paying more income taxes, and more sales taxes.

Again, there are other factors that play into tax revenues received. And I do believe there is a optimal tax rate to maximize revenues. We just can't cut taxes to 0%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound View Post
You know you were on the back end of the laffer curve, even by the theorist's own definition, when you cut taxes and revenue starts to go down. Clinton raised the tax rates, the economy boomed and revenues increased...Bush cut them and revenues decreased, the deficit shot up, and the economy tanked. History FTW.
It is not wise to simply say Clinton raised rates, and Bush lowered rates and those actions ALONE affected tax revenues.

Since you want to focus on tax revenues, I will dig up a tax revenue history for discussion. However, the issue today is out of control government spending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2011, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,767,183 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
Again, there are other factors that play into tax revenues received. And I do believe there is a optimal tax rate to maximize revenues. We just can't cut taxes to 0%.
But you do believe that tax cuts will always raise revenue, essentially agreeing with the OP? Or, do you disagree, leaving the idea open that it can potentially reduce revenue?
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 07:33 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