• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Stimulus Boosted Jobs in 2nd Quarter, CBO Says

1. no one's a liberal, there aren't any

2. if tax increases on the rich are so right and required, why did the party presently and temporarily in power punt?

Congress Punts on Taxes - WSJ.com
 
I am stating that tax increases will force people to change behavior. If Federal Taxes go up the rich will find states that do not have state income taxes and move their operations there affecting state budgets and revenue, just like they have done in Maryland and NY now. Human behavior always trumps your textbook education.

Nothing you have posted shows that the reason revenues fell in Maryland or New York were because of state taxes. It's mere speculation on your part. However, we do know for certain that the reason tax revenues fell in those states is because incomes have fallen during the recession.

To prove your theory, you need to show that these tax payers left the state. Can you prove it? My money is on the recession the chief cause.
 
Nothing you have posted shows that the reason revenues fell in Maryland or New York were because of state taxes. It's mere speculation on your part. However, we do know for certain that the reason tax revenues fell in those states is because incomes have fallen during the recession.

To prove your theory, you need to show that these tax payers left the state. Can you prove it? My money is on the recession the chief cause.

If you read the article it referenced the rich not all people and it is easy to determine by looking at tax returns whether the revenue for the rich increased or decreased and it is obvious that the rich people didn't get rich by doing stupid things like willingly paying higher taxes. that is the point that your textbook education will not teach you, personal behavior determines what people who can afford to move actually do.

The Maryland millionaires tax has been in effect for 10 years, long before this recession and the numbers are quite telling but obviously nothing is going to change your mind. Rich people are going to lie down and take tax increases. There is a reason people are moving to TX whether you want to accept it or not and that reason is taxes and cost of living.
 
If you read the article it referenced the rich not all people and it is easy to determine by looking at tax returns whether the revenue for the rich increased or decreased and it is obvious that the rich people didn't get rich by doing stupid things like willingly paying higher taxes.

I understand that; however the incomes of "rich people" go down in recessions as well. Or are you trying to say that the wealthy do not have income sensitivity regarding financial recession?

that is the point that your textbook education will not teach you, personal behavior determines what people who can afford to move actually do.

Another personal reference. Is it too much to ask for you to address my statements, and not your obsession with my education, political lean, etc...?

The Maryland millionaires tax has been in effect for 10 years, long before this recession and the numbers are quite telling but obviously nothing is going to change your mind. Rich people are going to lie down and take tax increases. There is a reason people are moving to TX whether you want to accept it or not and that reason is taxes and cost of living.

And as your article states, the tax revenue from those earning $1 million or more fell in 2009. Ironically, their tax revenue from high income earners fell during a recession.

Was that partially to blame for the tax increase? Perhaps. But not anywhere in terms of scale when a financial recession hits the country.
 
1. no one's a liberal, there aren't any

2. if tax increases on the rich are so right and required, why did the party presently and temporarily in power punt?

Congress Punts on Taxes - WSJ.com

I am not for any sort of tax increases during a recession such as this. Once a recovery is established, a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts will be in order. The two cannot be mutually exclusive when reducing the deficit.
 
that is the point that your textbook education will not teach you, personal behavior determines what people who can afford to move actually do..

Human behavior always trumps your textbook education.

Liberals like you have a problem, you use textbook rhetoric trying to trump human behavior. Never going to work but it does make you look foolish.

Liberal elites always point to textbook definitions while ignoring actual results and personal behavior.

Reasoning to a liberal apparently means listening to the elite economists and ignoring their record.

These are the various ad hominem's used by conservative since noon central time. Such talk adds immeasurable depth to the discussion.
 
I understand that; however the incomes of "rich people" go down in recessions as well. Or are you trying to say that the wealthy do not have income sensitivity regarding financial recession?



Another personal reference. Is it too much to ask for you to address my statements, and not your obsession with my education, political lean, etc...?



And as your article states, the tax revenue from those earning $1 million or more fell in 2009. Ironically, their tax revenue from high income earners fell during a recession.

Was that partially to blame for the tax increase? Perhaps. But not anywhere in terms of scale when a financial recession hits the country.

I am done addressing anything you ever post. I saw your comments "in the basement" and that shows just what kind of person you really are. I have no interest in dealing with anyone like you.
 
I am done addressing anything you ever post. I saw your comments "in the basement" and that shows just what kind of person you really are. I have no interest in dealing with anyone like you.

Correction. You're tired of him (and everyone else) asking you to prove your claims with something other then "I say so." The fundamental flaw in your entire reasoning is that basically everything you argue is begging the question. So you tend to have serious hissy fits (see your back to back temp suspensions) when people ask you to prove your base assumptions, which as we all know, you never do.

Simple, you don't like us asking you to argue in a honest fashion that first does not assume all of your assumptions are true. A reason why you have come out so heavily against using linear regression to prove that your arguments are true regarding raw data.

Linear regression would actually allow you to hold one factor constant and indeed show that the results you claim are the outcome of that factor you are talking about. Citing raw data without such statistical backup is a sign of severe debate deficiency.
 
Back
Top Bottom