- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Then we better do something about the "moocher" people in the red states.
When, exactly does lower rates mean more revenue for the government?
While running for president in 1980, George H. W. Bush called the claim that cutting taxes on rich people will create enough economic activity that revenues will actually rise, “voodoo economic policy.” Under Reagan, he cut taxes and revenue slumped -- so much that he had to raise taxes (I mean introduce "revenue enhancers.")
Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich. Republicans predicted disaster, but instead the economy boomed, creating more jobs than under Reagan and much more revenue. GW Bush slashed taxes and revenue, adjusted for inflation and population growth, never attained 2000 levels and economic and job growth was under-par. Yet, conservatives clench the discredited theory with both hands.
Then we better do something about the "moocher" people in the red states.
that is less objectionable but capital gains should be very lightly taxed. But then again, I oppose the concept of income taxes to start with
You still didn't answer the quest about when did lowering tax rates causally result in more revenue?interesting historical revisionism but clinton benefitted from two things
belt tightening fortune 500 companies and others did under Bush that resulted in more efficiencies and profit margins a few years later
dot com bubble. Clinton benefitted from good timing that prevented his tax hikes from depressing the economy.
you also labor under the delusion that the government having more money to waste is a good thing.
I find that hard to believe. Didn't Trump brag about exploiting loopholes, that made him "smart", on national television, inside of a year ago?
You still didn't answer the quest about when did lowering tax rates causally result in more revenue?
OutliersWhen did OR, NY or NM become red states?
I disagree.
It is ridiculous that capital gains are taxed less than income.
And I am an investor - so almost all of my income comes from capital gains.
You know full well that the truly wealthy make almost all of their income through capital gains. It is just not right that they can pay no tax (if they work it right) on astounding amounts of capital income.
Everyone above the poverty line should pay their fair share - no matter how they make it. And tax revenues should be much smaller (fat chance of that).
For the record...I am also strongly for eliminating corporate tax completely...it is - in essence - just a double tax as the costs are just passed on by the corporations.
Already addressed Reagan. He lowered taxes -- revenue fell and stayed down with the economy. Then, in 1983, the Fed lowered interest rates and everything revived. That was causal. The tax-cuts were not.check out the Kennedy and Reagan administrations
not true. sometimes a lower rate means more revenue for the government. you pretend that tax raises or decreases have no other impact on the economy. Thus you are wrong
Already addressed Reagan. He lowered taxes -- revenue fell and stayed down with the economy. Then, in 1983, the Fed lowered interest rates and everything revived. That was causal. The tax-cuts were not.
Kennedy lowered rates from 91% (over the rate that economists believe is a disincentive) down to 70%. Are you advocating going back to a 70% top rate? Let's do it!
Its isnt. Its about 20-30% depending on who you consider RICH.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/f.../49440-Distribution-of-Income-and-Taxes-2.pdf
page 9
Then we better do something about the "moocher" people in the red states.
the rich are way overtaxed.
even if capital gains were taxed at 5%, the really rich would still pay far far far more than their fair share no matter how that term is OBJECTIVELY defined
It's my view that any burst in consumption at the lower end, is offset by missed revenue on high income earners. This chart shows that people taking home high incomes, do not spend extra money, or reinvest it in the economy, like we are led to believe. If people continue to lie to the American public, by telling them that tax cuts on high incomes are spent or reinvested in the economy, it won't be long before people stop believing them.
View attachment 67216723
After Reagan's '81 tax bill, he then raised taxes, when revenue did not match expectations. If tax cuts generated revenue, then Reagan wouldn't have needed to raise taxes to capture any revenue at all. But, tax cuts do not increase revenue, they have the common sense effect. Lower the tax rate, lower the revenue.
So would you propose the Feds follow the example of California and continually raise taxes on the rich to cover spending?
In 2015, @ 5,600 people in California provided @ 30% of the tax revenue generated. That's among a working population of roughly 17 million.
Trump promises to close those loopholes.
I would propose cuts to defense, hikes in capital gains, raising the cap on taxable income, single-payer, state-paid tuition, and ending the war on drugs.
Well, I guess paying for all that is for someone else to figure out.
To add to that, taking less from someone isn't giving them anything.
Revenue is our money. Choosing what we do with it, is a group effort. If we choose as a society to invest in education and healthcare, it will payout dividends.
If you want to play that card.. Who pays for the bomb we drop on the Middle East? Just like you disdain paying for someone else's healthcare, I disdain paying for someone else's war.
<snip>
So, when Donald Trump and the rest of them, tell you that they are cutting taxes for you, you'll know they are lying to you. They're cutting taxes for the rich. That is who benefits here. The Republican never introduces legislation that does not include a major win for high income earners. That is a requisite of every piece of legislation. Look at the AHCA. They outright lied to you about the AHCA and disguised tax cuts for the rich, in warm and fuzzy language, like "access" and "choice".
Yes it is
a tax cut is a free pay raise just like any other handout.
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?