• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"I Want your Money, Obamanomics" Coming Soon to a Theater near you

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Any serious effort will include budget cuts and tax increases. Anything else will be ineffective.
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
105,028
Reaction score
9,712
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Any serious effort will include budget cuts and tax increases. Anything else will be ineffective.


LOL, there you go again, tax increases always increase govt. revenue because we all know that people spend more when they have less income to spend because they are paying higher taxes! Do you realize how foolish that is? Again you ignore human behavior. I am still waiting for anyone to explain to me why govt. income tax revenue went up AFTER the Reagan and GW Bush tax rate cuts? And before you go to Clinton you better find out what the economic growth and revenue record was for 1993-94 and what the GOP Congress did to the Clinton tax increases.

The solution is to cut spending and cut taxes, The growth in govt. revenue will increase jobs thus taxpayers and increase corporate profits due to consumer spending. Both income and corporate tax revenues then go up.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
LOL, there you go again, tax increases always increase govt. revenue because we all know that people spend more when they have less income to spend because they are paying higher taxes! Do you realize how foolish that is? Again you ignore human behavior. I am still waiting for anyone to explain to me why govt. income tax revenue went up AFTER the Reagan and GW Bush tax rate cuts? And before you go to Clinton you better find out what the economic growth and revenue record was for 1993-94 and what the GOP Congress did to the Clinton tax increases.

The solution is to cut spending and cut taxes, The growth in govt. revenue will increase jobs thus taxpayers and increase corporate profits due to consumer spending. Both income and corporate tax revenues then go up.
Absolutes are seldom correct. Beware of anyone saying ALWAYS.

But, any serious effort will include both budget cuts an tax increases. I see no way around that. And I think it is foolish to believe otherwise.
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
105,028
Reaction score
9,712
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Absolutes are seldom correct. Beware of anyone saying ALWAYS.

But, any serious effort will include both budget cuts an tax increases. I see no way around that. And I think it is foolish to believe otherwise.
I asked you a question as to how tax increases affect your take home pay and thus your spending. You continue to act like a liberal and ignore your own human behavior.

LIberals make wild predictions that when you raise taxes human behavior will remain the same and that will thus generate more tax revenue. That is a lie because when you raise taxes our consumer driven economy is affected. Peoplle don't spend because they have less take home pay thus consumer spending, 2/3 of GDP, drops. Right now we have 16 million unemployed Americans and thus people paying less in taxes than normal thus a drop in income tax revenue. Increases in consumer spending creates demand and thus more taxpayers. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I asked you a question as to how tax increases affect your take home pay and thus your spending. You continue to act like a liberal and ignore your own human behavior.

LIberals make wild predictions that when you raise taxes human behavior will remain the same and that will thus generate more tax revenue. That is a lie because when you raise taxes our consumer driven economy is affected. Peoplle don't spend because they have less take home pay thus consumer spending, 2/3 of GDP, drops. Right now we have 16 million unemployed Americans and thus people paying less in taxes than normal thus a drop in income tax revenue. Increases in consumer spending creates demand and thus more taxpayers. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Me personally, not much at all. I take out extra taxes and don't miss it at all. But that really isn't the point. The point is the deficit will not go away without both cuttispending and raising taxes. So, put aside your emotional appeal and look at it logically. When you spend, you have to have revenue. When your indebt, you have to make more and cut spending. This is not that complicated.
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
105,028
Reaction score
9,712
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Me personally, not much at all. I take out extra taxes and don't miss it at all. But that really isn't the point. The point is the deficit will not go away without both cuttispending and raising taxes. So, put aside your emotional appeal and look at it logically. When you spend, you have to have revenue. When your indebt, you have to make more and cut spending. This is not that complicated.
Nice diversion and typically liberal. You believe that when taxes go up that economic activity grows? You really are out of touch with reality. It is economic activity that creates jobs and right now 16 million Americans don't have one. Until the unemployment problem is addressed there never will be enough revenue to fund this govt. Cutting spending and cutting taxes is the answer, It will put people back to work because of economic activity growth. You simply cannot address reality.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Nice diversion and typically liberal. You believe that when taxes go up that economic activity grows? You really are out of touch with reality. It is economic activity that creates jobs and right now 16 million Americans don't have one. Until the unemployment problem is addressed there never will be enough revenue to fund this govt. Cutting spending and cutting taxes is the answer, It will put people back to work because of economic activity growth. You simply cannot address reality.
I believe taxes have no effect on the economy at all. We have seen econmic good times with and without a high tax base, and we've seen economic hard times with and without a high tax base. Taxes really mean very little to the economy, factually.
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
105,028
Reaction score
9,712
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I believe taxes have no effect on the economy at all. We have seen econmic good times with and without a high tax base, and we've seen economic hard times with and without a high tax base. Taxes really mean very little to the economy, factually.
You really are very naive and cannot believe you are saying that. Great idea for you, instead of taking a pay raiset then have the company send your raise to the govt. to fund whatever they see fit. Anyone that believes that take home pay doesn't matter doesn't have a lot of credibility. It is take home pay that drives consumer spending for without where would the money come from? I cannot believe you are this poorly informed. wonder how many here support your position that taxes don't matter to take home pay and what people spend?
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Absolutes are seldom correct. Beware of anyone saying ALWAYS.

But, any serious effort will include both budget cuts an tax increases. I see no way around that. And I think it is foolish to believe otherwise.
And you base this on what? History? History is not on your side, common sense is not on your side. Tax Increases have short term rises and long term declines as those activities taxed either go away (business move overseas for example), people find ways around the taxes or the taxed activity declines and loses it's revenue value.

Tax cuts on the other hand spur economic activity as people are more willing to partake in activities that profit them... is that the problem you have with tax cuts? People get more profit? Did I just stumble on to a liberal "Truth"? Tax cuts mean people keep and earn more money...

Boggles the mind how people like you function in this world. Envy, Jealousy and flawed economic theory are a dangerous combination.
 

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
This says it all and yet we have obama supporters today in denial and still fainting at the sight and sounds of "their" President. Pay Attention and stop running from reality.

Breitbart.tv » ‘I Want Your Money’; New Film Skewers Obamanomics

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
Gee, I wonder if the far-righties will be able to deconstruct this flick the way they go after Moore...

I've seen some clips from it and it looks like more of a re-write of Reaganomics.

What was the highest income tax bracket under Reagan? Anyone? Anyone? (40% and he still ran a deficit)

Maybe the gold standard should be Clinton? He's the only one who figured out how to come out ahead...
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
And you base this on what? History? History is not on your side, common sense is not on your side. Tax Increases have short term rises and long term declines as those activities taxed either go away (business move overseas for example), people find ways around the taxes or the taxed activity declines and loses it's revenue value.

Tax cuts on the other hand spur economic activity as people are more willing to partake in activities that profit them... is that the problem you have with tax cuts? People get more profit? Did I just stumble on to a liberal "Truth"? Tax cuts mean people keep and earn more money...

Boggles the mind how people like you function in this world. Envy, Jealousy and flawed economic theory are a dangerous combination.
Look at the bigger picture. Our national debt never gets paid down. Ever. It only goes up....more spending. Why is our government allowed to have an "unamortized home equity loan?" That's, in essence, what it is, you know. I take out a mortgage on my home and just keep borrowing more and more against it. Never paying down the principle. Ever. Who would loan you money like that? The answer is not a soul. We are a fiscal mess. Spending restraint and higher taxes are the only way to get us on solid footing again. To hell what it does to the short- medium-term economy. Too bad so sad. The bigger picture?? The sky is going to fall unless we tackle this real issue.
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
105,028
Reaction score
9,712
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Gee, I wonder if the far-righties will be able to deconstruct this flick the way they go after Moore...

I've seen some clips from it and it looks like more of a re-write of Reaganomics.

What was the highest income tax bracket under Reagan? Anyone? Anyone? (40% and he still ran a deficit)

Maybe the gold standard should be Clinton? He's the only one who figured out how to come out ahead...
Why don't you stop making a fool out of yourself, take a civics and an economic class instead of buying what you are told. You and so many others have Reagan Derangement Syndrome and that destroys your credibility. BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury Data refutes your statements just like they refute your claim that Clinton had a surplus. There was a PROJECTED surplus just like Obama projects 4% economic growth. Both are wrong. Clinton used SS funds to show a surplus ONE Year, 76 billion dollars, but that is a false surplus because it took money from SS fund that will be needed down the road. That is what liberals do, steal from tomorrow to make today look better.

What you and others seem to not understand and appear to be brainwashed. We have a private sector, consumer generated economy. The Reagan record is quite clear, doubling of govt. revenue including doubling income tax revenue AFTER his 25% tax cut, doubling GDP, and creating 18 million new jobs-new taxpayers that helped create that income tax growth.

So there is no re-write of Reaganomics as the results are there in the non partisan sites, My bet is you never visited these sites thus you buy what you are told by those who have an agenda. What is yours?
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
105,028
Reaction score
9,712
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Look at the bigger picture. Our national debt never gets paid down. Ever. It only goes up....more spending. Why is our government allowed to have an "unamortized home equity loan?" That's, in essence, what it is, you know. I take out a mortgage on my home and just keep borrowing more and more against it. Never paying down the principle. Ever. Who would loan you money like that? The answer is not a soul. We are a fiscal mess. Spending restraint and higher taxes are the only way to get us on solid footing again. To hell what it does to the short- medium-term economy. Too bad so sad. The bigger picture?? The sky is going to fall unless we tackle this real issue.
Do you think higher taxes are going to help employ any of the 16 million unemployed people now? How much tax revenue is being generated from the unemployed? The answer is cutting spending and cutting taxes so the consumer can create demand for new jobs and thus new taxpayers. JFK knew it, Reagan knew it, and so did GW Bush. It wasn't tax cuts that created debt it was govt. spending. No one claiming that tax cuts caused the deficits can explain to me how govt income tax revenue grew AFTER those tax cuts. Too many take projections as fact, just like Boo does. He claims that raising taxes grows govt. revenue when the reality is raising taxes changes human behavior and slows consumer spending and economic growth. Both affects personal income and corporate taxes.
 

prrriiide

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
202
Reaction score
97
Location
Knoxvega$, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I will trust a former Fed Chairman, a former (Reagan) Budget Director, and two former Treasury Secretaries:

Raise taxes now -- the elders of the economy say so

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- First it was Greenspan. Now one by one other elders of the economy are speaking out against deficits, and they're making the surprising argument for higher taxes.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan was first and has taken the most extreme position, arguing that all of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 should be allowed to expire.

Greenspan, no fan of big government and an initial backer of the Bush tax cuts, allows that higher taxes now could lead to slower economic growth, but has said that chipping away at the deficit is more important.

Joining him -- at varying degrees -- are David Stockman, former budget director in the Reagan White House, and former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Paul O'Neil.

The White House and most Democrats have argued for keeping the tax cuts in place for most households, but letting them expire for those earnings more than $250,000, about 2% of the country.

Extending the tax cuts for everyone would cost the government $3.7 trillion over 10 years. Taxing the high-earners would get back about $700 billion of that.

David Stockman joins Greenspan at the far end, saying the nation can't afford to extend the tax cuts now. "You have to pay your bills. I say we can't afford the Bush tax cuts," Stockman told NPR this weekend.

On CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS this weekend, Rubin who worked in the Clinton White House, and Paul O'Neil, who worked for George W. Bush, also talked about the need for higher taxes.

Rubin supports the White House position of extending cuts for most households, yet raising them on the wealthy. Simply, he worries about raising taxes too broadly while the economic recovery is still shaky.

That said, he is also a proponent of the estate tax, which expired this year, and is slated to return to 2001 levels -- a $1 million exemption and 55% top rate.

Said Rubin: "I would put an estate tax in place right now, immediately. I would increase the tax on the higher brackets."

O'Neil said one reason he was fired as Treasury Secretary was his take on tax cuts: "I was strongly opposed to the Bush tax cuts in 2003. I didn't think we could afford another tax cut."

The issue now is not the Bush tax cuts, said O'Neil, who doesn't think the economy is in terrible shape. Rather, it's the need for fundamental tax reform, preferably one that is much simpler and emphasizes investment and growth over immediate consumption.

"If we let the Bush tax cuts expire, it's still the same stupid tax system."
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
105,028
Reaction score
9,712
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I will trust a former Fed Chairman, a former (Reagan) Budget Director, and two former Treasury Secretaries:

Raise taxes now -- the elders of the economy say so
So then you don't trust yourself to spend more of your own money? Think that raising taxes is going to creaate jobs for the 16 million unemployed? I just don't get it, why do you have a problem keeping more of your own money and why is it you have a problem understanding a consumer driven economy and the affects taxes have on that economy? I don't care what economists say because economists are like mathmaticians they ignore human behavior.

There is no cost of a tax cut because it isn't the government's money. I am still waiting for you and anyone else to explain why govt. revenue grew AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? What you don't seem to understand is that when people have more of their money they spend it, save it, invest it, or pay down debt all of which help grow the economy and create jobs. If you raise taxes your take home pay drops as does ever taxpayer. People with less money don't have money to spend.That slows economic growth and doesn't generate the revenue that economists claim tax increases cause.

This really is frustrating that I have to explain to adults the benefits of keeping your own money instead of sending it to D.C. to waste.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You really are very naive and cannot believe you are saying that. Great idea for you, instead of taking a pay raiset then have the company send your raise to the govt. to fund whatever they see fit. Anyone that believes that take home pay doesn't matter doesn't have a lot of credibility. It is take home pay that drives consumer spending for without where would the money come from? I cannot believe you are this poorly informed. wonder how many here support your position that taxes don't matter to take home pay and what people spend?
History supports what I'm saying. Again, we've had good economic times with a high tax base and without. And we've had bad economic times with a low tax base and without. That is where you should focus your argument. ;)


Going back three decades, the five years of greatest GDP growth -- 1983-1984, and 1997-1999 -- occurred in years where the top marginal rate was 50% and 39.6%, respectively. Today it is 35%.

What does this prove? Nothing, is an acceptable answer. You could say that exceptional growth in the early 1980s was primarily a product of monetary easing after a Fed-induced recession. You could say that growth in the late nineties was the result of a tech boom, or bubble, that had little to do with fiddling with the marginal rates. You could say it's folly to consider top marginal rates in a vacuum, because average effective tax rates -- which include cap gains and dividend taxes -- are a better measure of tax burden. Twenty years of tax rates and economic growth offer a wide range of interpretation. But there is one thing you absolutely cannot say. You absolutely cannot say that recent history "proves" that higher marginal income tax rates destroy wealth and weaken the economy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...how-that-higher-taxes-hurt-the-economy/60240/
 
Last edited:

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
105,028
Reaction score
9,712
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
History supports what I'm saying. Again, we've had good economic times with a high tax base and without. And we've had bad economic times with a low tax base and without. That is where you should focus your argument. ;)
The problem you have with your argument is the one thing that never changes, people keeping more of their money makes them less dependent on the govt. and that irritates liberals. Still waiting for you to explain how jobs are created when people have less take home pay due to higher taxes? 16 million Americans unemployed, what is your solution to getting them back to work?
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The problem you have with your argument is the one thing that never changes, people keeping more of their money makes them less dependent on the govt. and that irritates liberals. Still waiting for you to explain how jobs are created when people have less take home pay due to higher taxes? 16 million Americans unemployed, what is your solution to getting them back to work?
I'm no more dependent today than I have ever been, and won't be with more taxes. And frankly, we are the government. We can chage it without firing a single shot.

The mistake you're making is that the government can get them back to work or that tax cuts will get them back to work. neither will. The economy is dependent on many other factors, and as this passes, people will return to work. Stimulus has been used to put money at the bottom, and unemployment has been used to keep people afloat, and spending. But ultimately, we simply have to ride it out.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Do you think higher taxes are going to help employ any of the 16 million unemployed people now? How much tax revenue is being generated from the unemployed? The answer is cutting spending and cutting taxes so the consumer can create demand for new jobs and thus new taxpayers. JFK knew it, Reagan knew it, and so did GW Bush. It wasn't tax cuts that created debt it was govt. spending. No one claiming that tax cuts caused the deficits can explain to me how govt income tax revenue grew AFTER those tax cuts. Too many take projections as fact, just like Boo does. He claims that raising taxes grows govt. revenue when the reality is raising taxes changes human behavior and slows consumer spending and economic growth. Both affects personal income and corporate taxes.
Conservative, the BIGGER picture. I don't dispute that, in the short-term, tax cuts will stimulate the economy.
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
105,028
Reaction score
9,712
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm no more dependent today than I have ever been, and won't be with more taxes. And frankly, we are the government. We can chage it without firing a single shot.

The mistake you're making is that the government can get them back to work or that tax cuts will get them back to work. neither will. The economy is dependent on many other factors, and as this passes, people will return to work. Stimulus has been used to put money at the bottom, and unemployment has been used to keep people afloat, and spending. But ultimately, we simply have to ride it out.
Yes, we are the govt. but the problem is less than 50% of the people take part and actually vote.

I posted yesterday how naive you are regarding taxes and you ignored it. Your statement was so out of touch with reality that I don't blame you from running from it. In Lieu of a pay increase have your company send that raise to the govt. so they can do all that good you seem to believe they do. Still waiting for you to explain how higher taxes put 16 million people back to work? You seem very naive when it comes to spending your own money and the affects that has on economic growth and employment.
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
105,028
Reaction score
9,712
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Conservative, the BIGGER picture. I don't dispute that, in the short-term, tax cuts will stimulate the economy.
The problem is what govt. does with the increased tax revenue that tax cuts generate and that is the bigger picture. The solution is cutting spending and taxes at the same time, but that isn't going to happen when you have career politicians whose sole jobs is to get re-elected and bring pork home to their district. So what do politicians do, call tax cuts an expense to make people feel guilty about keeping more of what they earn!
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes, we are the govt. but the problem is less than 50% of the people take part and actually vote.

I posted yesterday how naive you are regarding taxes and you ignored it. Your statement was so out of touch with reality that I don't blame you from running from it. In Lieu of a pay increase have your company send that raise to the govt. so they can do all that good you seem to believe they do. Still waiting for you to explain how higher taxes put 16 million people back to work? You seem very naive when it comes to spending your own money and the affects that has on economic growth and employment.
Yes, and they should become more involved, more educated, more part of governing.

I ignore all silly insults. They are not really worth responding to. We can choose to pay our bills, taxes, and do our work with our money.

However, insults aside, you've continued to skip the point:

Going back three decades, the five years of greatest GDP growth -- 1983-1984, and 1997-1999 -- occurred in years where the top marginal rate was 50% and 39.6%, respectively. Today it is 35%.

What does this prove? Nothing, is an acceptable answer. You could say that exceptional growth in the early 1980s was primarily a product of monetary easing after a Fed-induced recession. You could say that growth in the late nineties was the result of a tech boom, or bubble, that had little to do with fiddling with the marginal rates. You could say it's folly to consider top marginal rates in a vacuum, because average effective tax rates -- which include cap gains and dividend taxes -- are a better measure of tax burden. Twenty years of tax rates and economic growth offer a wide range of interpretation. But there is one thing you absolutely cannot say. You absolutely cannot say that recent history "proves" that higher marginal income tax rates destroy wealth and weaken the economy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...economy/60240/
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
105,028
Reaction score
9,712
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Boo Radley;1058909118]Yes, and they should become more involved, more educated, more part of governing.

I ignore all silly insults. They are not really worth responding to. We can choose to pay our bills, taxes, and do our work with our money.

However, insults aside, you've continued to skip the point:

Going back three decades, the five years of greatest GDP growth -- 1983-1984, and 1997-1999 -- occurred in years where the top marginal rate was 50% and 39.6%, respectively. Today it is 35%.
What this ignores is the growth over WHAT? If you have zero economic growth this year and next year it is 100 that is massive in your world but puny in the real world. You ignore the conditions of both the late 70's/early 80's and then the dot.com boom on the late 90's. those factors contributed to the economic growth you say was great.

Further you ignore the make up of our GDP today vs. then and how taxes affect that GDP. Learn the components and then get back to me.

What does this prove? Nothing, is an acceptable answer. You could say that exceptional growth in the early 1980s was primarily a product of monetary easing after a Fed-induced recession. You could say that growth in the late nineties was the result of a tech boom, or bubble, that had little to do with fiddling with the marginal rates. You could say it's folly to consider top marginal rates in a vacuum, because average effective tax rates -- which include cap gains and dividend taxes -- are a better measure of tax burden. Twenty years of tax rates and economic growth offer a wide range of interpretation. But there is one thing you absolutely cannot say. You absolutely cannot say that recent history "proves" that higher marginal income tax rates destroy wealth and weaken the economy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...economy/60240/
[/QUOTE]


What you ignore and will always ignore is the benefits that tax rate cuts have on the American consumer, obviously not you but a large majority. More spendable income is going to put people back to work, happens every time. Based upon the components of GDP and their contribution, I can without a doubt claim that higher marginal rates destroy wealth and weaken the economy. The economy is always changing. To understand economic growth you need to understand the components and obviously you don't. Further you continue to ignore we have 16 million unemployed workers today and higher tax rates do nothing to put them back to work.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You have to show the benefits and not just state they re there. The numbers show nothing clear, which is what I'm arguing. Tax cuts seem to have no major effect. Again, that is the history.
 
Top Bottom