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.
I have to say that it's amusing when in one post you say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidkitty
Oh look 3 articles from right wing leading people and or policy institutions claiming cutting taxes increases revenue. Now of course they are not biased at all are they?
and in your next post you quote a leading left wing group.
Not withstanding any perceived bias by either source the facts remain in the data; revenues did in fact rise and an increased percentage of said revenue was paid by the wealthy.
In the analysis within your cite, the increased revenues are deemed to be caused by increased corporate tax payments. Assuming this is true,
where do you suppose the funding required to increase corporate production came from? Or for that matter the money required to purchase said increased production?
Could it be that by leaving money in the pockets of the public that a significant increase in economic activity occurred? Perhaps due to tax cuts?
Can you perhaps provide data or cites that support the concept of increased revenue and economic activity because of tax increases? Not to mention the wealthy paying an increased percentage of Federal income tax revenues..................
Is that a good thing? Taking more money from the people, just for the sake of taking more money? I'm sure the statists would be all in favor of that, less money in our pockets, and more for them to spend. Oh look!!! Another crony of the president needs $500 million of our income, oh goody.
to reduce the percentage of Federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50%!
" The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988. "
If it were up to me, I'd just tax inheritence 100 percent and call it a day, Dano. I wouldn't tax income at all.
Actually, I'd trade a rise of the highest tax rate to 40% (from 35%) and have no inheritance tax. Once you are dead, who wants to write a check to the Treasury just because you died? The livign are taxed enough. Don't tax them because someone died and the money transfers ownership.
DUH, not sure what talking point the OP is pushing tonite, but when the top earners earn most of the money they pay most of the taxes. I'm guessing the OP want to taxes food stamps, aid to dependent children and social security as hard as possible. That'll fix them poor, disabled and elderly people. Let's take formula out of newborns' mouths so the uber wealthy can buy bigger sail boats.
Nice try. I think there's a little confusion about the difference between data and projections. The information I provided is based upon performance data; the CBO is a projection based with numerous caveats. The track record for CBO estimates is poor at best.
Find any data that indicates that tax increases provide the same effects as tax cuts?
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.
Citing data from the federal government available for you to use to disprove their thesis?
