The Barbarian
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,265
- Reaction score
- 277
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Still trying to defend the tax cuts for the rich?
You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Your point is irrelevant to the discussion of tax rates. GDP has gone up through history irregardless of tax rates, so naturally revenues will be higher due to that alone. Now, if you can prove that the revenues wouldn't have been even higher without the tax cuts, it would be relevant.
Tax revenues increased because Reagan raised Federal taxes at least 6 times, and then there were the huge capital gains from the wave of LBO's and mergers, i.e. Wall Street junk bond fever, and a real estate bubble. It had squat to with Reagan's tax cuts, and much more to do with Paul Volcker's Fed policies, which are worthy of a thread all by themselves
laughs .. well the same can be said about your statement ... can you prove they would have been higher if they weren't cut ?? if you can your posts would be relevant ....
Good gawd you use some real winners to try and prove your point ..
On Faith Panelists Blog: The rich benefit from society and should give back - Starhawk
Starhawk is a prominent voice in modern Wiccan spirituality and cofounder of reclaiming.org, an activist branch of modern Pagan religion
not a single fact given there what so ever .. just a pagan witch's thoughts ..
Urbanomics: How the rich and poor benefit from government
This site is a blog, author unknown …. and shows a circle graph with no numbers as far as actual usage or dollars ..
Raise taxes on the rich | Marketplace From American Public Media
another site that says absolutely nothing .. but goes back to the ranting and raving of how the 80's was America's death ..
If thats the best you can produce you have less than nothing .
But just for the sake of fun .. lets post some facts .. lets us walmart use of our road ways
Semi's average about 9 miles per gal (fact)
Walmart has a fleet of semi's that number 7,200 (fact)
each truck averages about 2000 miles per week (fact)
federal tax on a gallon of diesel fuel is 24.4 cents (fact)
now you can do the math .. I have already …. and that will work out to just over 2 million dollars walmart pays the federal government to use the road ways …. and another 2 million dollars they pay the states on fuel taxes.
So besides all the other taxes paid, they pay an addition 4 million dollars to use our roads via the fuel taxes. The average person pays 225 dollars … so walmart pays as much as 17,777 people to use there road ways. Next time you are out driving .. let me know when you count 17,000 cars before seeing a walmart truck on the road .
Not sure about you .. . but to rational people .. it seems they are paying more then fair share for using the highways, in just fuel taxes alone.
But hey maybe that Wiccan witch put a spell on you and told you her opinions were fact ..
You missed the point. Those were just the first few sites in a search. Go back to corporate welfare. Go back to bailouts. Go back breaks. Then continue on to use of courts, benefiting from an educated work force, and continue on. And try to come up with a comparison that is in someway equal.
Links already given:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-33.pdf
Corporate Welfare | OurFuture.org
Distribution of wealth? A pittance for poor, Corporate Welfare should offend more | redblueamerica.com
9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes
9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes
This post is slightly off topic from the current discussion in this thread,but it is relevant and it's something I've been wondering. The more conservative posters have argued that it isn't right to tax the rich, because they earned it and the rich shouldn't have to give up their money. However the right-wing are also the group that likes to talk the most about patriotism and how much they love their country and honor the sacrifice of the men in uniform.
My question is why can't we ask the rich to sacrifice some of their wealth for the good of the country they claim to love so much? The country needs more revenue and the working class doesn't have the means to provide so why don't the patriotic rich of America agree to have their taxes raised for the good of the country? This is a very emotional based argument I'll admit, I just find it strange that the group that talks the most about patriotism is unwilling to ask the rich to pay more for the good of the country they love. Perhaps Jefferson was right when he said "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."
You missed the point. Those were just the first few sites in a search. Go back to corporate welfare. Go back to bailouts. Go back breaks. Then continue on to use of courts, benefiting from an educated work force, and continue on. And try to come up with a comparison that is in someway equal.
Links already given:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-33.pdf
Corporate Welfare | OurFuture.org
Distribution of wealth? A pittance for poor, Corporate Welfare should offend more | redblueamerica.com
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
okay so you are admitting that you were wrong about the highway usage .... so we can eliminate that one .... right ?
Assuming you can eliminate that one which you can't. You still have the others to deal with. I'm assuming you decided to instead focus on the one he omitted simply because you don't have an answer, but if you do then by all means correct me.okay so you are admitting that you were wrong about the highway usage .... so we can eliminate that one .... right ?
NO.
They don't deserve our help or votes.
Why should we vote to help the rich person who neither knows nor cares about you???
They buy the better food and clothes. They live high on the hog. They have huge houses. They have the better cars. They DON'T DESERVE OUR HELP.
They're proud, selfish, and materialistic. They deserve greater taxes.
No, I am NOT playing Devil's Advocate on this issue.
___
I don't like how proud, selfish, and vain rich people can be. Don't even dare to think the rich don't primarily embody these behaviors. Those people don't deserve their mansions and expensive houses.
I'm still conservative in the social sector and the belief in working had to earn money... but that was warped and perverted into CEOs earning obscene bonuses and the rich living lavishly; well above what is necessary.
There should be a cap on total wage. Bring it down. Business profits should not be used for personal gratification. It's materialism at its finest.
They live in such posh houses and live so far above people who are struggling. How can a conservative who can barely pay for insurance have the audacity to vote for the rich and wealthy... to enrich them further... while you take further cuts and suffer?
Many perverted conservatives and Republicans actually dare to use the Bible to support their vain and materialistic lifestyle.
Are you broke? Were your benefits cut? Lost your insurance? How could you vote for Republicans who vote to further enrich the poor????
If you're frugal and you work for what you earn, then I have no problem so long as you don't spend money on things you don't need, like a Hummer or a huge house. It's obscene, materialistic decadence. Get them to understand by taxing them painfully.
___
Simply put, we're suffering while we cut their taxes. It is injustice.
okay so you are admitting that you were wrong about the highway usage .... so we can eliminate that one .... right ?
We could also look at the other means of transportation. For instance I'd be very interested to see how much air shipping has helped business, because the airports they fly into are ran by the government and the air traffic controllers are government employees.From all my reading, the interstate highway system was put in to benefit industry and the economy primarily, and the benefit has been huge. Here is a 2006 report on the economic benefits of the system:
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
SYSTEM
Key findings
include the following:
"Industry Costs: Interstate highway investments have lowered production and distribution
costs in virtually every industry sector. Cost elasticities – the percentage change in industry
costs for a given percentage change in highway capital -- for each of the 35 industry sectors
indicated that an increase in highway capital reduced costs in all but three industry sectors.
On average, U.S. industries realized production and distribution cost savings averaging 24
cents annually for each dollar invested in the non-local road system.
Productivity: The term refers to the value of output per dollar of input for all factors of
production. Interstate highway investments have made significant contributions to U.S.
productivity growth, but the magnitude of the impacts have declined over time. During the
1950s, highway network investments’ contribution to annual productivity growth was 31
percent; it averaged 25 percent in the 60s; by the 1980s, it contributed 7 percent to U.S.
productivity growth in the 1980s.
Net Social Rate of Return: This term refers to the net benefits to private industries (net of
depreciation of highway capital stock) that share use of the public highway or non-local road
network. The term “social” refers to the fact that the highway network is a shared
investment by all industries in the economy. Net rate of social return on highway capital was
about 35% in the 1950s and 60s; it declined to about 10% in the 1980s, or just about equal
to rates of return on private capital. Nonetheless, the overall contribution to social welfare
from Interstate highway investment has been enormous over the life cycle of the interstate
system."
NO.
They don't deserve our help or votes.
Why should we vote to help the rich person who neither knows nor cares about you???
They buy the better food and clothes. They live high on the hog. They have huge houses. They have the better cars. They DON'T DESERVE OUR HELP.
They're proud, selfish, and materialistic. They deserve greater taxes.
No, I am NOT playing Devil's Advocate on this issue.
___
I don't like how proud, selfish, and vain rich people can be. Don't even dare to think the rich don't primarily embody these behaviors. Those people don't deserve their mansions and expensive houses.
I'm still conservative in the social sector and the belief in working had to earn money... but that was warped and perverted into CEOs earning obscene bonuses and the rich living lavishly; well above what is necessary.
There should be a cap on total wage. Bring it down. Business profits should not be used for personal gratification. It's materialism at its finest.
They live in such posh houses and live so far above people who are struggling. How can a conservative who can barely pay for insurance have the audacity to vote for the rich and wealthy... to enrich them further... while you take further cuts and suffer?
Many perverted conservatives and Republicans actually dare to use the Bible to support their vain and materialistic lifestyle.
Are you broke? Were your benefits cut? Lost your insurance? How could you vote for Republicans who vote to further enrich the poor????
If you're frugal and you work for what you earn, then I have no problem so long as you don't spend money on things you don't need, like a Hummer or a huge house. It's obscene, materialistic decadence. Get them to understand by taxing them painfully.
___
Simply put, we're suffering while we cut their taxes. It is injustice.
You missed the point. Those were just the first few sites in a search. Go back to corporate welfare. Go back to bailouts. Go back breaks. Then continue on to use of courts, benefiting from an educated work force, and continue on. And try to come up with a comparison that is in someway equal.
Links already given:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-33.pdf
Corporate Welfare | OurFuture.org
Distribution of wealth? A pittance for poor, Corporate Welfare should offend more | redblueamerica.com
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
"In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding."
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
:sun
I'll be as stupid as you are .. prove what they are saying . . I want to see the actual numbers of what our tax revenue would have been without the cuts ..
but I do agree we can't have both .. so cut the damn spending because like it or not . .tax revenue went up from 2003 to 2007
I'll be as stupid as you are .. prove what they are saying . . I want to see the actual numbers of what our tax revenue would have been without the cuts ..
but I do agree we can't have both .. so cut the damn spending because like it or not . .tax revenue went up from 2003 to 2007
Well damn now I'm confused .. . Catawba keep telling me that it was all those tax cuts for the rich that Reagan gave that caused all our troubles ... now you are saying that Reagan raised taxes ?? (psss I know he did but don't tell catawba)
Why is it that you moron always seem to stop the calander in 2007?? You all know it is 2011 not don't you?? What you think the Bush economy ended a year before he left office and 2 years before his final budge ended?? The tax cuts were a major reason for the crash in 2008.. I know.. You are going to say that was the housing bubble that crashed.. Perhaps.. Do you know what the number one reason that people can't pay their morgage is?? Losing their jobs.. With the tax cuts for the rich, and deregulation, companies all over the U.S. out sourced millions of jobs to cheaper labor.. Not one job was created here due to the tax cuts.. It has been estimated that Bush lost 8 million jobs during the economic melt down.. Well?? How about those tax cuts??
I don't think Cata is the one that is stupid.. Especially when you are dumb enough to point out that tax revenue increased from 2003 to 2007.. I mean how lame can you be?? Bush was in office until Jan of 2009.. Bush's last budget was also all of 2009.. So all that spending you think Obama did?? That was Bush.. Bush addes some stuff to the budget that wasn't there before to inflate the deficit.. Two wars, his perscription drug plan, and a few other things..
The tax cuts cost this nation about $320 billion a year.. Or nearly a third of the deficit.. And even though the revenue went up in the years you mentioned, we still lost money.. That is a mathmatical fact.. We lost money because the growth was smaller than it could have been.. I know that is probably a hard concept for you to understand.. It has been estimated that first 10 years of the tax cuts will cost this nation $3.4 trillion or their abouts.. Estimates vary.. In either case, Bush's tax cuts cost this nation far more than Obama's medical reform..
But the over all issue here is simple and one that is either willfully ignored or ignorantly missed by conservatives.. The economy sucks right now.. Instead of trying to cut spending to pay for the tax cuts.. Why not just repeal the tax cuts?? Think of it.. $320 billion a year taken off the deficit for just letting the tax cuts expire.. And remember.. The rich were much better off during the Clinton years than they were with Bush..
Where are the jobs?? This tax cut was about creating jobs.. Where are the jobs.. You can shove the tax revenue where the sun don't shine.. Where are the jobs!!
If you know he increased some Federal taxes then you know he lowered capital gains taxes, and aren't really ''confused'. Following on Carter's cuts in capital gains, it amounted to a steep reduction in taxes for financial speculation as opposed to business and industrial investment, and yes, it has caused a lot of trouble.
Why is it that you moron always seem to stop the calander in 2007?? You all know it is 2011 not don't you?? What you think the Bush economy ended a year before he left office and 2 years before his final budge ended?? The tax cuts were a major reason for the crash in 2008.. I know.. You are going to say that was the housing bubble that crashed.. Perhaps.. Do you know what the number one reason that people can't pay their morgage is?? Losing their jobs.. With the tax cuts for the rich, and deregulation, companies all over the U.S. out sourced millions of jobs to cheaper labor.. Not one job was created here due to the tax cuts.. It has been estimated that Bush lost 8 million jobs during the economic melt down.. Well?? How about those tax cuts??
I don't think Cata is the one that is stupid.. Especially when you are dumb enough to point out that tax revenue increased from 2003 to 2007.. I mean how lame can you be?? Bush was in office until Jan of 2009.. Bush's last budget was also all of 2009.. So all that spending you think Obama did?? That was Bush.. Bush addes some stuff to the budget that wasn't there before to inflate the deficit.. Two wars, his perscription drug plan, and a few other things..
The tax cuts cost this nation about $320 billion a year.. Or nearly a third of the deficit.. And even though the revenue went up in the years you mentioned, we still lost money.. That is a mathmatical fact.. We lost money because the growth was smaller than it could have been.. I know that is probably a hard concept for you to understand.. It has been estimated that first 10 years of the tax cuts will cost this nation $3.4 trillion or their abouts.. Estimates vary.. In either case, Bush's tax cuts cost this nation far more than Obama's medical reform..
But the over all issue here is simple and one that is either willfully ignored or ignorantly missed by conservatives.. The economy sucks right now.. Instead of trying to cut spending to pay for the tax cuts.. Why not just repeal the tax cuts?? Think of it.. $320 billion a year taken off the deficit for just letting the tax cuts expire.. And remember.. The rich were much better off during the Clinton years than they were with Bush..
Where are the jobs?? This tax cut was about creating jobs.. Where are the jobs.. You can shove the tax revenue where the sun don't shine.. Where are the jobs!!
But not because of the tax cuts. That is what Bush's economic adviser tried to get across to him, that revenues would have gone up even more without the tax cuts, just as they did during the Clinton tax increase. I am satisfied with the combined authoritative position on this from the The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist.
If you can find more authoritative sources than these to refute their position, please post them on up.
Even common sense tells us it took 30 years of too much spending and too much in tax cuts to create our debt, and it is going to take 30 years of increased taxes and cutting spending to solve it.
Just raising taxes, or just cutting spending is not going to enable us to both pay down our debt and repay the money taken from the SS trust funds for General Fund use.
It is going to take a balanced approach, just as the majority of voters say needs to happen. :sun
you know what ... .we almost agree ... the only difference is .. you want the tax increases first ... . and I want the spending cuts first .. I've heard this story line for 30 years . we are going to get our fiscal house in order ... . we are going to cut spending .. and for 30 years it hasn't happened .. So now myself and many other Americans are saying .. show me you can rein in the spending, show me you are will to fix broken programs and make them less exspenive and more efficient, show me that you are willing to revise SS and Medicare to ensure that future generations will have them .. do that .. show me progress in that direction .. and I will be all for tax hikes to help get us out of this mess .. because we do agree on that part of it .. spending cuts alone will not get us out of this mess.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?