So much for the idea that DEM = Poor, REP = Rich (insurance, companies)
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.
Umm, do you realize that in your effort to support the claim that "tax cuts increase revenues" you posted an article that shows the Federal Gov't went from surplus to deficit immediately following GW Bush's tax cuts (you even highlighted the quote)? When even "The Heritage Foundation" provides evidence to the contrary, I think the argument is lost.
Dude, I seriously did not give you negative point, and I have never given one to anyone at all. Don't be paranoid. And I just turn to this page, haven't had the time to read that tax post.
I understand your need to believe I would do that though.
Ok that's cool. You didn't seem to be the type to do something irrational like that so I was surprised.
I am going to be reporting this to a moderator anyways. Because that is an abuse of the negative rep point. It's supposed to be used for derogatory or offensive posts.
Umm, do you realize that in your effort to support the claim that "tax cuts increase revenues" you posted an article that shows the Federal Gov't went from surplus to deficit immediately following GW Bush's tax cuts (you even highlighted the quote)? When even "The Heritage Foundation" provides evidence to the contrary, I think the argument is lost.
Did you read the second more CURRENT link showing a decrease in the deficit?
Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 9, 2006
WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.
White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.
Last edited by American_Libertarian; 09-02-2007 at 12:00 AM..
Well, we are kinda getting off topic an onto a tax thing, so I'll try to make this short and with a (possible) red/blue tie in, but lets not go back and forth too much or a mod will shut down the thread.
Sure, I saw the 2006 article about the deficit being smaller because of higher than expected tax revenues, but that is (in my opinion) flawed logic. Bush started with a surplus ($100-200 billion I think) and turned it into a deficit of around $400 billion (even more if you take into account Social Security surplus and the "off budget" stuff like the $100 billion or so "supplemental" military spending each year). If he shrinks the deficit from 400 to 200, that doesn't change the fact that we still have a deficit. The vast majority of the deficit is due to the loss of revenue from tax cuts... the rest is added military spending, scheduled increases in stuff like SS, and spending approved by the Republican Congress and President (not that the current Dems won't increase spending, just that they really haven't had a chance to yet).
Please don't blame the deficit on the "recession" or 9-11. If I remember correctly, the economy dipped in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2001 by (I think) around 1% each. Since then we have had solidly positive growth, and several quarters with growth of 3% or more, which means that any one of those "good" quarters wiped out the loss of both bad ones and gave us plenty more growth on top of that. The site wasn't working last time I tried, but http://www.budgetsim.org/nbs/ let you play with the federal budget numbers to try and balance things. The last time I tried it, removing Bush's tax cuts and eliminating spending in Iraq gave you a thin budget surplus (I know it won't be that simple, but I give it as an example).
Also, I think that Bush has been deliberately inflating his deficit numbers so he can later claim credit for lowering them (he did this even when he set the record for highest deficit in a single year). The white house numbers have tended to be higher than other gov't agencies as well as objective independent sources. If you didn't catch all the political smoke and mirrors, then it does look like an impressive improvement.
The Cato Institute did a study once on the giving patterns of wealthy Republicans versus wealthy Democrats. Not suprisingly, wealthy Republicans don't give as much as wealthy Democrats.
Since I live in California, which is supposedly "socialist" if you ask a lot of conservatives, I've come to believe that a lot of the wealthy Democrats around here *like* to give because they see the benefits of giving (this includes giving in the form of taxes). We have a lot of nice things around here -- nice parks, nice recreation areas, nice events, nice industries, nice environment -- just a lot of nice things you can physically touch and see. From what I've seen, and I've travelled quite a bit, California just has a lot of nice things. We only have nice things because people share.
I know you are probably saying "Yeah, right" but look at these gifts I can think of off the top of my head: Barbra Streisand gave 50,000 acres in Malibu to the state to create a park, William Randolph Hearst left Hearst Castle to the state of California, DW Griffith donated the land for Griffith Park to the city of Los Angeles, JP Getty left the Getty Art Museum. Wealthy celebrities get behind all kinds of causes like animal rescue and the environment and even Darfur. It means something here to be generous and being generous includes paying taxes and paying employees reasonable salaries! (Celebrities who don't want to pay taxes usually move to Florida -- like OJ Simpson and Rush Limbaugh.)
He! I just realized I didn't touch on the original post much -- but I believe California has a better economy and higher wages because we do offer a nice place to do business. Lots of companies are headquartered here when they could go elsewhere and pay less in taxes. We also offer areas where a lot of people want to live (Marin County, Beverly Hills, etc.).
I think I read a study a year or so ago that said that Los Angeles County had the largest number of millionaires in the United States -- and you know those people could live anywhere but choose to live here with the high taxes and everything else.
I am not sure of the relevance of tax cuts. Tax cuts increase or decrease, blue states still not getting what they pay out and red states still getting more than they pay out. Why shouldn't states get back in federal spending as close as to what they pay out in taxes, red and blue? I am not saying dollar for dollar, cause yes, we have to take into account some cars using roads of other states, but some red states using up to 200% in federal spending of what they pay out, and blue states losing up to 38%?
What is unfair about wanting blue states to get back in federal funding what they pay out in taxes, and curbing red states' federal spending to what they pay out in taxes. Why should they be subsidized so much?
I am not sure of the relevance of tax cuts. Tax cuts increase or decrease, blue states still not getting what they pay out and red states still getting more than they pay out. Why shouldn't states get back in federal spending as close as to what they pay out in taxes, red and blue? I am not saying dollar for dollar, cause yes, we have to take into account some cars using roads of other states, but some red states using up to 200% in federal spending of what they pay out, and blue states losing up to 38%?
What is unfair about wanting blue states to get back in federal funding what they pay out in taxes, and curbing red states' federal spending to what they pay out in taxes. Why should they be subsidized so much?
By your logic New Orleans owes the Federal Government money. They need to give back their Federal Funding for the Katrina Disaster then right?
I guess individuals need to start paying a HIgher Federal Tax Rate in Lousisiana, since they are a Red State and needed Federal assistance???
Your logic doesn't fly.
All Americans drive down major interstates that cross "red or blue states" and they all receive Federal funding to maintain this infrastructure that is actually used by all Americans.
Every individual in a "Blue State" or "Red State" pays the exact same Federal Tax rate according to their income level.
The only difference is the blue states have higher federal tax revenues because they have more people living in their states.
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.
