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.
Obama's goal isn't to raise revenue, it is (and this is the most important thing you'll read today), to PUNISH SUCCESS and the SUCCESSFUL. It is the American version of giving intellectuals the Pol Pot Treatment.
Punish the successful and a Pol Pot reference? Really?
There are very few deductions now. In the past, for example, ALL Interest was deductable, not just home Interest (Mortgage), and many, many others. Rates were exchanged for deductions.
In 1939 the tax code was about 500 pages. Today it is 70,000 pages. Mitt Romney deducted $77,000 for his dancing horse. I rest my case.
Back then, businesses could treat themselves to steak dinners and prostitutes and site it off at 100%. They used to do the same with new furniture. Worked well until the Japanese ate our lunch.
These graphs show that, under both Republican President Calvin Coolidge and Democratic President John F. Kennedy, high-income people paid more tax revenues into the federal treasury after tax rates went down than they did before.
There is nothing mysterious about this. At high tax rates, vast sums of money disappear into tax shelters at home or is shipped overseas.
At lower tax rates, that money comes out of hiding and goes into the American economy, creating jobs, rising output and rising incomes.
Under these conditions, higher tax revenues can be collected by the government, even though tax rates are lower.
Indeed, high income people not only end up paying more taxes, but a higher share of all taxes, under these conditions.
--------------------------------------
The fact that tax increases on the rich as an actual solution to the financial problems is a collective indictment of the people of the country and our understanding of economics. Either that or we are just not interested in fixing the finances - and just want to get even with the rich people.
What it does is reduce their buying power to keep them from more rent seeking. When a rich person decides to buy up all the blue berry pie in town, its not good for other people who want blueberry pie.
What a nice swindle. How lucky the serfs were to have all those noble investors in the past.
I think that you failed to look at the end of your graph. The economy was going south again in 1939-1940. It was only the advent of WW2, not FDR that saved the US economy. I really enjoy the selective presentation of data to falsely "prove a point". Why not show the whole graph, MTA?
Now a 15% VAT only initially slows spending, due to higher prices. A VAT tax allows tapping into the entire US economic activity, which is the only way to generate the "revenue" that is needed. That, of course, would have to be coupled with fiscal restraint, such that only very modest spending cuts would be required. Certainly draconian cuts in the current economy would be disasterous. However, Obama needs to understand as well that increased taxes on business, increased regulations, and Obamacare are job killers which will keep the economy weak. I really don't think he cares.
There was a recession starting in 1937, when FDR listened to Republicans and pulled back the New Deal.
But the argument that it wasn't FDR's New Deal that stopped the Depression, but it was World War II, is an absurd argument. It's an admission that massive government spending, such as WWII, boosts GDP.
The era of strong unions, high minimum wages, high top marginal tax rates, high regulation, etc. was also a period of rapid growth and rising living standards. That doesn’t prove causation; it does disprove the widespread dogma, as those above, that these things are always economically devastating. And it’s telling that so many on the right have airbrushed the whole postwar generation out of history.
There was a recession starting in 1937, when FDR listened to Republicans and pulled back the New Deal.
But the argument that it wasn't FDR's New Deal that stopped the Depression, but it was World War II, is an absurd argument. It's an admission that massive government spending, such as WWII, boosts GDP.
The era of strong unions, high minimum wages, high top marginal tax rates, high regulation, etc. was also a period of rapid growth and rising living standards. That doesn’t prove causation; it does disprove the widespread dogma, as those above, that these things are always economically devastating. And it’s telling that so many on the right have airbrushed the whole postwar generation out of history.
Hitler proved it well before that. He built that war machine with industrial finance, not land ponzi like we do now.
understand that by law the CBO cannot factor in behavior changes due to higher or lower tax rates, they must use a static economic model.
only AFTER the capital gains tax was LOWERED.
WRONG, The deficits got smaller immediately after the 1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act.
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.
