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 gone over this a million times with pghquest. Tax-cuts do not grow the economy. One would think the Bush years was ample evidence of this. But no, pghquest just keeps repeating the zombie lie.
you can go over it 5 million times, you repeating a lie, doesnt make it the truth. The bush tax years grew during the tax cuts just like they grew the economy under clinton.
if you want to pretend that tax cuts are responsbile for the economic crash under Bush then anything you say can be just dicounted as ridiciulous..
1. you aren't paying property taxes...as a renter you are helping pay the owners property taxes
2. I pay 12k in property taxes for my tiny 1400sf house on a tiny 60x100 lot....its actually two taxes..county(the smaller one) is covering police and libraries, etc...town (the big one) is covering the cost of schools.... 3. what makes you think its inflated(not saying it is or not)
The school property tax rate was 4x the school property tax rate on the owner-occupied home next door, because I lived in a rental property. That was more than $1,000 a year in inflated property tax.
The school property tax rate was 4x the school property tax rate on the owner-occupied home next door, because I lived in a rental property. That was more than $1,000 a year in inflated property tax.
And yet you didnt make any effort to buy that property, if I recall, which you lived in for 13 + years.
Boo hoo. Yes, I guess announcing layoffs to increase stock prices, and therefore increase compensation is working hard.
you don't seem to totally understand how the system works.Again, I will ask: why would anyone work to achieve success if they are just giving it back to those who for whatever reason, usually caused by lack of education or lack of work ethics? The government already has too many give aways.
So you want to punish success. As do these so-called 52% BS.
And this is the first place your position falls apart. It's not about punishing anyone or anything. It's about responsibility, and the more success you obtain as a result of a system, the more responsibility you have to put back into it. This country spends massive amounts of money on infrastructure (airports, interstates, freeways, sea ports, military...etc) that benefit the rich at exponentially higher levels than they benefit the poor. It's time for the rich to assume a bigger share of the burden.
Quote:
So you advocate socialism.
So you think taxes = socialism?
Quote:
Hint, the rich already pay the majority of the taxes while the poor pay none.
That's because the poor--almost by definition--are putting every penny they have back into the economy through consumer spending.
how does allowing me to keep my money, transfer money to your pocket.. Ooh thats right, because I'll spend that money, thus creating a job that maybe one day, you'll fill if you ever decide to stop flipping burgers.
This principle is best illustrated at the state or local level, since state and local governments must spend within their means.
In the early 1990s, there was a school district in Michigan - this one, a retirement destination - where voters repeatedly rejected school millages, leading to the early closure of schools when the funds ran out.
The legislature came to the rescue, quickly repealing all local school operating taxes, and promising a funding replacement by the start of the next school year.
A bipartisan plan emerged, which included a school property tax of 14 mills on all taxable property -considerably lower than the rate most school districts levied before the repeal.
But that plan was abandoned in favor of a Republican plan for a school tax of 6 mills on all taxable property, plus an additional 18 mills (24 total) on 'non-homestead' property, including second homes, rental property, retail, commercial, and industrial property.
In this case, homeowners got a tax break (6 mills), paid for by redistributing income from non-homestead taxpayers (24 mills) to homeowners.
you don't seem to totally understand how the system works.Again, I will ask: why would anyone work to achieve success if they are just giving it back to those who for whatever reason, usually caused by lack of education or lack of work ethics? The government already has too many give aways.
Taxpayers paid out 110 billion in Corporate welfare in 2014, that is more than was spent on SNAP and rental housing assistance for the poor, so maybe it's time to quit talking about the 'lack of work ethics' of the poor and shift the argument to the real problem - why in this supposed 'free market' we continue to provide subsidies to corporations, particularly those which earn a profit. They are the real welfare queens. I'm sorry for those of you who fell for the big right wing lie.
And yet you didnt make any effort to buy that property, if I recall, which you lived in for 13 + years.
WHY?
??? I was making $10K-$15K at the time. The house in which I lived - a SFR which had been split into two units (downstairs and an upstairs walkup) was worth $150K - $200K.
HowTF was I ever going to finance that?
Not to mention the owner had lived in the home until retirement, was enjoying the rental income, and had no intention of ever selling, as her plan was to leave the property to her kids with a huge step-up in tax basis.
Which is the exact opposite of what you just said in the paragraph above which is high taxes then equate to reinvestments because high taxes, if what you just said is true, means people reinvest their money rather than pay taxes on it.
You have been suggesting that higher taxes on the rich would discourage investment. If you accept and believe that, than if we look at the last two the business cycles (90s,00s): Higher taxes on the rich actually led to far stronger investment in the economy than lower taxes on the rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
All of it of course is nonsense, since the federal governments tax income runs about 18% of GDP regardless of the tax rate.. A fact you continue to ignore..
sure..
Quote:
In recent decades the federal tax take has generally fluctuated between 17 and 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). By 2000, however, total federal tax receipts had reached 20.9 percent of GDP, their highest level since 1970 and matched only in 1944, when the federal government collected 20.9 percent of GDP in taxes at the height of fighting World War II. By 2004, however, federal tax receipts had fallen to 16.3 percent of GDP, which is not only the lowest level since 1970, but the lowest since 1959.
Quote:
Most of the decline in the ratio of federal tax revenue to GDP can be traced to the individual income tax. From 1970 to 2000 these taxes were typically in the range of 8 to 9 percent of GDP. In 2000 individual income taxes were 10.3 percent of GDP, their highest level ever. By 2004 individual income taxes had dropped to 7.0 percent of GDP, their lowest level since 1951. Total federal tax revenue declined by 4.6 percent of GDP from 2000 to 2004; of that total, 3.3 percentage points, or almost three-quarters, was due to the decline in individual income tax revenue.
FEDERAL SPENDING has doubled.. Thats not even taking into account your claim that tax cuts are spending. If that was true, spending would TRIPLED...
The most embarassing part of you not raising your hand is that you somehow believe that tax cuts, which grew the economy thus increased revenues, are somehow responsible for lower revenues..
Explain to me how allowing someone to keep their money, crashes economies stephen.. How old are you?
Tax cuts are indirect spending. The government gives it out in hopes of boosting revenues from increased economic activity to offset the loss of revenue that would have been generated had the taxes not been cut. It does not raise revenues. The economic effects of the Bush tax cuts offset only 7% of its initial cost, and 10% of the long run cost. Again, not effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
you can go over it 5 million times, you repeating a lie, doesnt make it the truth. The bush tax years grew during the tax cuts just like they grew the economy under clinton.
if you want to pretend that tax cuts are responsbile for the economic crash under Bush then anything you say can be just dicounted as ridiciulous..
If the tax cuts would not have been enacted, or would have someway, somehow been offset, we would have had a surplus in 2007.
But yes, I guess there was some growth
Total Real Per-Capita Revenue Growth in 22 Quarters after the Last Business Cycle Peak
2001-2007 Business Cycle (Following Tax Cuts) = 1.7%
Average for All Previous Post-World War II Business Cycles = 12.0%
1990s Business Cycle (Following Tax Increases) = 16.2%
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.
