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.
Listening to the Democrats discuss the need to raise taxes because of the Bush tax cuts, you'd be led to believe that the government doesn't have enough money on which to operate and taxes need to be raised dramatically; and that anyone making more than $150,000 isn't paying his or her fair share.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]The truth is that revenues since the Bush tax cuts are the highest they've ever been at $1.945 trillion, or 7.5 percent more than 2006. Individual taxes alone are at $885 billion, or plus 11 percent, while corporate taxes are up 12 percent.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]As for the people making more than $150,000, the upper 5 percent of the wage earners are paying more than 60 percent of all taxes being paid.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]The last time tax rates were raised to 37 percent and higher for the upper income producers, the economy went flat with almost zero increase in real revenues. Why does this happen? Increased taxes are a disincentive to work.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]When people have the opportunity to keep more of their money, they work longer and harder to earn more, which in turn increases the amount of taxes being paid, which increases the revenue stream.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]President John F. Kennedy, who also used a tax cut to stimulate the economy, understood this economic principle, so why don't the current Democratic presidential aspirants?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Some government programs have become the "bread and circuses" of the old Roman Empire days and are used to buy votes, not to help the country. Can we really afford to have more government?
Unfortunately, I don't have time to back this up with data while I'm at work, but tax cuts are not done in a static environment. There are two other things at play that cause revenues to grow, population growth and inflation. It's been a while since I've looked at the numbers, but revenue growth during the Bush administration has grown at some of the lowest levels in our modern history.
It is for this reason that I can only laugh at those whose economic knowledge has yet to surpass the level of a caveman a few weeks into Econ 101. "Tax cuts good." "Tax increase bad."
It's truly a shame that we operate on such childish economic notions. I mean, I can't blame you, we've operated on such foolish rhetoric out of one party for the last 8 years. But that doesn't change the fact that its bullsh*t. Dive beneath the surface of the arguments you've presented, and you'll understand that.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to back this up with data while I'm at work, but tax cuts are not done in a static environment. There are two other things at play that cause revenues to grow, population growth and inflation. It's been a while since I've looked at the numbers, but revenue growth during the Bush administration has grown at some of the lowest levels in our modern history.
It is for this reason that I can only laugh at those whose economic knowledge has yet to surpass the level of a caveman a few weeks into Econ 101. "Tax cuts good." "Tax increase bad."
It's truly a shame that we operate on such childish economic notions. I mean, I can't blame you, we've operated on such foolish rhetoric out of one party for the last 8 years. But that doesn't change the fact that its bullsh*t. Dive beneath the surface of the arguments you've presented, and you'll understand that.
You can not deny that revenues to the government is at an ALL TIME HIGH..
What your obviously fail to understand is that if you allow people to keep more, they spend more, the more they spend, the more sales tax revenues is generated, the more the money circulates, the more people that are employed, the more employment taxes are raised.
Glad you outright called it bs, right after you admitted that you cant be bothered to even consider the facts at hand. Thanks for atleast admitting your closed mind to the facts.
You can not deny that revenues to the government is at an ALL TIME HIGH..
What your obviously fail to understand is that if you allow people to keep more, they spend more, the more they spend, the more sales tax revenues is generated, the more the money circulates, the more people that are employed, the more employment taxes are raised.
Glad you outright called it bs, right after you admitted that you cant be bothered to even consider the facts at hand. Thanks for atleast admitting your closed mind to the facts.
Yes, I do understand the logic behind tax cuts. And I'm not saying tax cuts can't be used as a short term economic boost. However, I'm not sure you read my post before punching out a kneejerk response. I'm not denying that government revenues are at an all time high. Government revenues always grow, due to some of the factors I listed. What I am saying is, had the Gore tax plan gone into effect in 2001 and not the Bush plan, we would have much more revenue than we currently do.
And by claiming I admitted that I "can't be bothered to even consider the facts at hand", you are truly twisting my words around. I've considered this many times, and probably at a calmer and more rational level than you have. You are not the first person to make these claims. And just because I'm at work and cannot search through the figures I'd like to present, does not mean anything except I'm at work and I can't search for the figures I'd like to present.
Ok, I was just watching "Forbes on Fox".. comment was made and I was floored because of the amount of credit they gave the democrats, and their knowledge of the American tax policy.
What was stated is
"Absolutely you do not put in a tax hike" due to the bad economy and
"The people who advise the Democrats on tax policy, you can fit what they know up the left nose of a bumblebee"
Wow, its so tough to see Fox give the Democrats this much credit.
What I am saying is, had the Gore tax plan gone into effect in 2001 and not the Bush plan, we would have much more revenue than we currently do.
And this fact is based upon?
Considering that Gore wants to spend more money on the "environment" then Bush spent on the war, are you going to admit then that the debt would be higher under Gore then Bush?
"How much will it cost to address man-made global warming? First, Yale economist William Nordhaus estimates that the Gore's proposals would reduce climate change damages by $12 trillion, but at a cost of nearly $34 trillion. Not a very good deal."
Considering that Gore wants to spend more money on the "environment" then Bush spent on the war, are you going to admit then that the debt would be higher under Gore then Bush?
"How much will it cost to address man-made global warming? First, Yale economist William Nordhaus estimates that the Gore's proposals would reduce climate change damages by $12 trillion, but at a cost of nearly $34 trillion. Not a very good deal."
Just about every economic analysis outside of the Heritage Institute. The magical claim that you can have your cake and eat it too is just that. There is a declining rate of return on these things, which is why you may be able to increase revenues by temporary, targeted tax cuts. But to make the claim that the Bush tax cuts have done that is ridiculous.
And I made no claims regarding anything about Gore besides his tax cuts, so that's irrelevant. If you'd like, we can use McCain's tax plan in 2000, back when he still had a brain that produced statements other than RNC talking points.
Just about every economic analysis outside of the Heritage Institute. The magical claim that you can have your cake and eat it too is just that. There is a declining rate of return on these things, which is why you may be able to increase revenues by temporary, targeted tax cuts. But to make the claim that the Bush tax cuts have done that is ridiculous.
And I made no claims regarding anything about Gore besides his tax cuts, so that's irrelevant. If you'd like, we can use McCain's tax plan in 2000, back when he still had a brain that produced statements other than RNC talking points.
So your stating that the revenues increasing to the federal government, in one of the worse economies in a long time is due to other factors, not related to the taxcut.. Please list some of these other "factors" that you would like to credit. (at least you didnt deny that revenue went up.. 1 point for that)
Also state where you get the fact that revenues would have also gone up under Gore. I can say that revenues would go up under Mickey Mouse, doesnt make it true.
And finally, how convenient to not to want to talk about the debt under Gore, but since that is not the topic of discussion, and would be totally speculation, I will give you a pass on that. Funny that you seem so pleased in speculating revenues under gore, but dont want to talk about spending.
So your stating that the revenues increasing to the federal government, in one of the worse economies in a long time is due to other factors, not related to the taxcut.. Please list some of these other "factors" that you would like to credit. (at least you didnt deny that revenue went up.. 1 point for that)
Also state where you get the fact that revenues would have also gone up under Gore. I can say that revenues would go up under Mickey Mouse, doesnt make it true.
And finally, how convenient to not to want to talk about the debt under Gore, but since that is not the topic of discussion, and would be totally speculation, I will give you a pass on that. Funny that you seem so pleased in speculating revenues under gore, but dont want to talk about spending.
Until you read my posts completely, I'm not sure there's much value in me taking the time to respond to you. I've already answered your first question. Look through the revenue charts the last 80 years. That is one way I feel confident saying tax revenues would have grown under Gore. Another way would be to acknowledge the fact that Gore did not plan on reducing nearly as much revenue through tax cuts as Bush. And as one who believes in common sense and empirical data, I don't fall for the fanciful claim that 3-1=6, and thus tax cuts pay for themselves1!!!!1!!!
Finally, I wish to avoid discussing Gore's spending because, for one, I'd like to stay on topic, which is why I nominated McCain's plan as an alternative, and two because the two topics really are divorced from each other. I haven't mentioned Bush's extreme increase in military spending for a reason. It's irrelevent. But if you must know, since Gore would have entered the president under a divided government, I feel comfortable in my belief that spending and government growth would have remained closer to the 90's model, than the extreme spending and government growth we've experienced under modern day GOP control.
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.
