The downtrodden rich should start their own civil rights movement. "Don't tax me, dude!" :neener
More brain dead supply side talking points :roll:
There are two sides to a budget. You learn that in week one of any basic accounting or bookkeeping course. Perhaps some attended a school where they could not afford to include all the information needed so the part about INCOME was cut out?
How about revenue increases from import duties on Chinese goods?It's the same thing. And they are needed.
How about revenue increases from import duties on Chinese goods?
theft is a bunch of people who don't pay taxes getting together and jacking up the taxes on a minority that already pays a huge share of the taxes
You're preaching to the choir, pard. At no time did I suggest that we should abolish taxes. I don't even know where you're going with this.
Strawmen may be fun to argue, but doing so isn't a terribly strong signal of competence. No one is arguing that we shouldn't increase revenue - we are arguing about how to go about it.
more specifically, you are advocating a method that has been demonstrated on multiple occasions not to actually - you know - work.
you won't get more revenue by jacking up nominal rates. you get more revenue by increasing growth and getting people back to work. and you will never get enough revenue to fund the federal government at it's current size.
No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession.
[emphasis added by bubba]Strawmen may be fun to argue, but doing so isn't a terribly strong signal of competence. No one is arguing that we shouldn't increase revenue - we are arguing about how to go about it.
more specifically, you are advocating a method that has been demonstrated on multiple occasions not to actually - you know - work.
you won't get more revenue by jacking up nominal rates. you get more revenue by increasing growth and getting people back to work. and you will never get enough revenue to fund the federal government at it's current size.
[emphasis added by bubba]
let's do the math
larger coefficient multiplied times the taxable income > smaller coefficient multiplied times the taxable income
plug in some numbers and see for yourself that your assertion is very wrong
Taxable income is a variable, not a constant, and is directly influenced by the coefficient.
show me the formula which defines this relationship
i look forward to seeing it
No, nor does any one claim that. However, cutting spending also will have a negative effect on the economy, the deeper the cut, the more negative the effect. And of course getting both sides to agree what is wasteful is not going to happen easily. Let me give you an example: how much of our military spending is wasteful? Some of it certainly is. But how much?
Are you denying the relationship or simply asking for a definition because you realize that it would take a team of doctorate mathematicians and economists a hundred years to write it all down and a thousand to solve it?
I guess I'm trying to determine if you really believe income levels aren't affected by tax levels. Your equation implied that a variable was a constant to make your point. Are you familiar with the fallacy of single cause?
Taxable income is a variable, not a constant, and is directly influenced by the coefficient.
[...] The Democrats refuse to cut any social programs. [...]
I challenge you to present evidence proving your claim in bold.By the way, Republicans offered $640 billion in spending cuts that Democrats and Republicans both liked as a start in negotiations and Democrats ignored it because it didn't include tax hikes. I challenge anyone to present me with evidence, aside from Harry Reid's seance over Kennedy's grave, that Democrats wanted anything but failure for this committee.
November 11, 2011: Democrats agree to Republicans’ top lines including just $400 billion in revenues and $875 billion in spending cuts, but refuse to accept the GOP’s tax cut for the rich. Republicans reject it and make their final offer: $640 billion in spending cuts and $3 billion in revenues.
Republicans Won?t Compromise on Taxes: A Timeline
My point is that it seems obvious to me that everybody has to take off his ideological blinders, if we're interested in a compromise. Just like Democrats have to realize that a success isn't possible without cutting spending (including the social systems), Republicans have to lay off the "taxes are theft!"-rhetoric, and take taxes for what they are: A necessity to increase revenues and reduce the deficit.
Of course I wasn't in the room when the talks failed, but based on what I read, I see the problem is on both sides. Each side had their "holy cows" they refused to touch. For Democrats, it was raising the retirement age or cutting healthcare subsidies, for Republicans, it was raising taxes. And now, both sides play the blame game, instead of getting their act together and actually do something for the country (and future generations).
It seems both Dems and Reps were more interested in abusing these talks for the 2012 campaign, than in actually finding a solution.
[emphasis added by bubba]
let's do the math
larger coefficient multiplied times the taxable income > smaller coefficient multiplied times the taxable income
plug in some numbers and see for yourself that your assertion is very wrong
only asking for any proof available to defend the position that you staked out. this one:
what i see is your assertion that there is a DIRECT influence of taxable income
and i want to see what that direct influence consists of
it's apparent you haven't a clue what that might be, indicating you were posting about that which you do not understand
the point i made was to show that the other forum member was wrong in asserting that a higher nominal tax rate would not result in additional tax revenues
it will
here's an example:
$1 taxed at a rate of 10% results in $0.10 tax revenues
that same $1 taxed at 20% results in $0.20 tax revenues
notice how the higher tax rate yielded higher tax revenues
try it for yourself with other taxable incomes and a variety of tax rates. it will always hold true
your turn to (try to) prove me wrong
I say we let the Libbos raise taxes. It'll be a total failure at creating more revenue and a grand success at harming the economy and will insure their defeat next year.
The only problem is, Republicans aren't saying that. All we are saying, is that let's stop stifling job creation and create more revenue that way, before we go off half-cocked and raise everyone's taxes, during a depression. Basically, instead of more taxes, we create more tax payers.
I say we let the Libbos raise taxes. It'll be a total failure at creating more revenue....
They already started that by their cheating trade methods. This is just return fire. Or you can choose to continue being a Chinese suckup.Yes start a trade war with your biggest creditor. Sounds like a plan.
[emphasis added by bubba]
let's do the math
larger coefficient multiplied times the taxable income > smaller coefficient multiplied times the taxable income
plug in some numbers and see for yourself that your assertion is very wrong
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?