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.
You've got to learn to ignore these idiot posts by Socialists that want to convince everyone how we would be So Much Better Off if you'll just allow us to take ALL of your money and spend it as we see fit!
These people are COMMUNISTS and there isn't any way that you will ever convince them that .. What is yours .. Isn't also Theirs!
They don't know or do the math.
They go and search out whatever site looks like it agrees with them and then expect that the rest of us will follow!
NOT ONE of them has ever been much above middle-class .. unless they've figured out how to get some poor sucker to Give them their money!
This person is a case study of what overexpsoure to talk radio leads to.
Had we moved to cut spensing like the germans did we would proably be in a similar postion and certainly not facig such steep cuts .Raing tax would only mean that the democrats would ahve spent more as always.
of INDIVIDUAL income tax in 2000 was 1.13 trillion
............................. and in 2007 was 1.36 trillion...
total from CORPORATE taxes in 2000 235 billion
................................ and in 2007 395 billion......
total from employement tax (payroll(ss/medicare) in 2000 639 billion
.................................................. .......... and in 2007 849 billion..........
Had we moved to cut spensing like the germans did we would proably be in a similar postion and certainly not facig such steep cuts .Raing tax would only mean that the democrats would ahve spent more as always.
The two prominent eras of economic growth, first under Reagan and second under Clinton, didn't rely on spending cuts. They relied on pragmatism. While deficits rose dramatically under Reagan, things would have been worse if he were as ideological as the republicans today. And during Clinton years, spending increased, albeit slowly, about 10% over eight years, but pragmatism led to a tax revenue increase of over 60%, eliminating the deficit.
Then came the ideology based idiocy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi
Lighten up! What did you lose your thumbs? (Dick Van Dyke Show reference)
I have posted how to do the calculations, if you can't wait do a search.
Yeah, a math of "convenience". If it really gets you, and you feel the need to start a thread on this topic/discuss every few days, perhaps you should do the math for the years I've brought up in the past and have done so here? Or, does it make for an inconvenience to push for the ideological grounds that you must run around?
Don't worry, if you can't do it for any reason, I will try to find the time to do a complete analysis that can be shared here.
The two prominent eras of economic growth, first under Reagan and second under Clinton, didn't rely on spending cuts. They relied on pragmatism. While deficits rose dramatically under Reagan, things would have been worse if he were as ideological as the republicans today. And during Clinton years, spending increased, albeit slowly, about 10% over eight years, but pragmatism led to a tax revenue increase of over 60%, eliminating the deficit.
Then came the ideology based idiocy.
Yeah, a math of "convenience". If it really gets you, and you feel the need to start a thread on this topic/discuss every few days, perhaps you should do the math for the years I've brought up in the past and have done so here? Or, does it make for an inconvenience to push for the ideological grounds that you must run around?
Don't worry, if you can't do it for any reason, I will try to find the time to do a complete analysis that can be shared here.
Are you saying I never posted 2000-2002 data?
Can't you have a normal discussion, does some conspiracy have to hang on every thread? On a rare occasion I actually look forward to your input but you look to find enemies all too often. If you don't like my posts "every other day", don't reply, create your own.
What threads about this have I created every other day? The 2009 numbers were just posted to the IRS stats site 3 days ago.
What ideological grounds? You mean that both sides are wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost Ahem, this is the post I had originally responded to...
And elaborated on it. Your claim on incomes dropping doesn't requiring data on every single year. If it did, you would have used it in your argument as well. The argument you made was a drop in income (and we still haven't discussed why such prolonged drop in income, if that was really the case). Never mind, that we're technically talking about individual income while population (hence tax payer count) grew as it should during the years.
Lazy writting on my part. I did wrap it up correctly at the end of that post
"Please show how a small percentage point decrease is solely responsible for several hundred billion in revenue fluctuations."
Tax cuts don't answer why income fluctuate by over 26% for the HIE to the down as of 02 and didn't get back to 00 levels until 2004. They don't explain the drop after 2007. My point was we had the a drop of $400,000 billion in revenue between 07-10, the tax rates were the same, what dropped was INCOME that was available to be taxed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost Poor assumptions. I see only right wingers making the case for one or the other, as convenient. In reality, we need more than "tinkering", we need a more pragmatic approach.
Right wingers think tax cuts are their salvation, left wing thinks tax increases are. I have said repeatedly, neither would have the desired affect.
I feel we need to be laser like and focus on those who screw us and not catch those who saved, invested, stayed out of debt and ended up with a lot of money. Lumping all high income and wealthy people together is not factual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost I doubt it. The economy was left to the stray dogs.
We would have still had wars, spending, a housing bubble etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost I don't like to call it the internet bubble. It villifies what has become a part and parcel of our lives, and will continue to grow. Now, "speculation" is a whole different story, the key to disaster when left unchecked. No?
I agree, I would call it a positive bubble, one that brought about massive infrastructure very fast, with little long term damage as the bubble popped.
Yes, unchecked as in not making people and companies be responsible for their actions. Financial companies should have one dollar of capital for every dollar at risk. We need malice in the bonus system for financial firms and the government should stay out of providing incentives for housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost If you want to focus on 2001-2002, as opposed to 2006 and 2007, sure. But, it must also be noted that not only did the incomes drop in those two years, the numbers also declined (many slid from top 5% to top 10%). What might be interesting to note is that the share of federal income tax contributed by the bottom 50% grew in those two years as usually seen in recession years.
But things get more interesting in 2004 following the second wave of tax cuts (JGTRRA, 2003). The incomes show an increase compared to 2002 (AGI for top 5% was back to $2.3T) but income tax revenue was lower than 1998 (when the AGI for the group was $1.8T).
I am not ignoring 06/07, it helps to make my point regarding 2010, incomes and revenue fluctuations trump the tax cuts over time. Yes, the number of million plus tax returns dropped dramatically after 2000. This is my point about the shot-gun approach to taxing "the rich". Sure you get a piece of Trump but the guy cashing out his options after years of hard work gets plastered.
As I said, tax cuts did help to keep the peak lower but it still does not explain the whole decade, only income fluctuation among the HIE does. If we decide to add a higher tax burdon on the HIE, the revenue fluctuations will be even greater. A higher tax and percentage of the tax burden on the rich will do nothing to the systemic inefficacies of our system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost Don't look for copies, look for trends, economic policies preceding, during and following key events. I do.
We are nothing like the past, for every similar policy there is a completely different counteractive policy or trend in place.
The only self similar trends are demographics, especially the family cycle and the innovation cycles. They far overpower policy.
You need to read some Nassim Taleb to clear our some of the hindsight bias you have, I try to but it is hard to give up on.
I will be nice and give you a little advice since you are new here. There are about 25 versions of you, they all sound and think exactly like you, they read from the same playbook, they quote the same daily talking points, they call people the same names, in other words they are cheerleaders for their team. The right has about 25 that do the same exact cheers but for the other team.
You may, if you are so inclined and have the capacity, find that I am the opposite of a swing voter, I am extremely consistent in ALL areas of politics. Unlike most, I do my own research and base my beliefs on a very rational consistent belief and understanding.
My focus here is not engage in playbook rhetoric, the left/right parroting, rinse and repeat debates that go on here. I enjoy digging deeper into a topic, find the true essence of the problem and seek voluntary solutions.
My theme is consistent, end crony corporatist control, tax the government granted and protected privileged elite, return the excess to the people, give people more power and control over their own lives.
If you are the type that will engage in meaningful debate, I look forward to it. If you are just another parrot chanting your teams cheers, I wish you good luck and enjoy your time here, I won't be engaging you other than an occasional jab at your cheers.
I will give you advice since my IQ is probably much higher than yours: don't give me advice.
I will give you advice since my IQ is probably much higher than yours: don't give me advice.
That is the best you can do? I need to trust my instincts.
Pollie want a cracker?
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.
Let me get some work done, be back soon.
