• 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!

We have a Spending Problem, NOT a tax revenue problem

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,904
Reaction score
72,550
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I wonder if they would respond to hiring incentives. Bringing the jobs back home incentives.
demand has to increase for a manufacturer to need more labor. same with service based industries
 

BDBoop

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
9,800
Reaction score
2,719
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I would give them as many tax cuts as they want if they had some kind of a quota to return American jobs here.
ZOMG, QFT. And more letters as well.
 

BDBoop

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
9,800
Reaction score
2,719
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Unfortunately for most fake conservatives I actually think for myself. I don't just listen to sound bites. I live in one of, if not the most so called liberal states in the country. Let me tell you a little story about how smart they are regarding taxes.

In 1978 they added a constitutional amendment to limit tax increases on property taxes. They sold this bill of goods to the people under the deception of keeping taxes low for the elderly and of course tax cuts. Now unlike your rampling about increase in taxes curbing economic growth, there is a direct correlation between the decline of the California school system and Prop13. What is really ironic is for the people that spout they are saving tax dollars by not paying maybe 2,000 more a year in taxes are paying 10,000/yr to send their kids to private schools. Who's the real conservative now....
Who indeed. Welcome aboard! To what do we owe the honor of your presence?
 

Thunder

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
31,089
Reaction score
4,384
Location
The greatest city on Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
well this forum is full of fake libertarians who are really socialists so it makes sense we have a conservative who thinks the government should get more and more money.
a crytpo-Socialist posing as a Libertarian?

wow, that's a pretty paranoid statement.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,904
Reaction score
72,550
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Unfortunately for most fake conservatives I actually think for myself. I don't just listen to sound bites. I live in one of, if not the most so called liberal states in the country. Let me tell you a little story about how smart they are regarding taxes.

In 1978 they added a constitutional amendment to limit tax increases on property taxes. They sold this bill of goods to the people under the deception of keeping taxes low for the elderly and of course tax cuts. Now unlike your rampling about increase in taxes curbing economic growth, there is a direct correlation between the decline of the California school system and Prop13. What is really ironic is for the people that spout they are saving tax dollars by not paying maybe 2,000 more a year in taxes are paying 10,000/yr to send their kids to private schools. Who's the real conservative now....
real conservatives think government is way too big and throwing money at that cancer is a really bad idea
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,904
Reaction score
72,550
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
a crytpo-Socialist posing as a Libertarian?

wow, that's a pretty paranoid statement.
there are several socialists who claim to be libertarian on DP.
 

Thunder

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
31,089
Reaction score
4,384
Location
The greatest city on Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
real conservatives think government is way too big and throwing money at that cancer is a really bad idea
One could argue that a "real" conservative would also be against tax-breaks that corporations and wealthy people don't need.

So, when a real conservative comes to this forum, please let us know.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,904
Reaction score
72,550
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
One could argue that a "real" conservative would also be against tax-breaks that corporations and wealthy people don't need.

So, when a real conservative comes to this forum, please let us know.
where do you get off saying people don't need tax breaks? Do you claim that if someone has any discretionary income they don't need it? Should a rich person pull his kids out of a private school so to pay a big increase in taxes? limit himself to one car? the fact is the rich pay far more taxes than they should rather than what they could pay in addition
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,904
Reaction score
72,550
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
really? folks who claim to be Libertarian but actually support Socialist economic, social, and foreign policies?

prove it...cause honestly it sounds darn paranoid.
You have only been here less than a month but we have "libertarians" who want more taxes and more government.
 

Realitybites

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
15
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
real conservatives think government is way too big and throwing money at that cancer is a really bad idea
No, that is what people in recent years have been brainwashed to believe. You probably also think that the conservative party was started and ends with the Republicans.
 

Donc

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,783
Reaction score
2,582
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
no one I am aware of has been able to prove that the tex hikes lead to increased economic activity. MOst attribute it to the massive corporate belt tightening under Bush I that lead to increased efficiency and the dot com expansion

To me this is pretty conclusive proof.

When Clinton took office on Jan. of 1993, unemployment was “109725,” at the beginning of his second term it was “124358”. Feb of 1993 he said in a speech on the tube that he would reduce the deficit.

Stage left, the “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993”,much to the chagrin of the republicans(nary a vote from the Reps) in both houses. It cut taxes for millions low-income families, made tax cuts available for a majority of small businesses, raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers.


He managed to do that with almost a fifty, fifty split (Rep/Dem) in congress and the dotcom bubble in its infancy. One could almost say that the “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 “with its aid to small businesses, could have been a jump start for the dotcom boom on the horizon…but of course I wont say that. :mrgreen:
 

Realitybites

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
15
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
To me this is pretty conclusive proof.

When Clinton took office on Jan. of 1993, unemployment was “109725,” at the beginning of his second term it was “124358”. Feb of 1993 he said in a speech on the tube that he would reduce the deficit.

Stage left, the “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993”,much to the chagrin of the republicans(nary a vote from the Reps) in both houses. It cut taxes for millions low-income families, made tax cuts available for a majority of small businesses, raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers.


He managed to do that with almost a fifty, fifty split (Rep/Dem) in congress and the dotcom bubble in its infancy. One could almost say that the “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 “with its aid to small businesses, could have been a jump start for the dotcom boom on the horizon…but of course I wont say that. :mrgreen:
Yeah, you can't say that because it wasn't the jump start. The jump start of the dot com boom and the housing boom had nothing to do with the middle-class or small business. It can be traced back to a manipulation of the stock market.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,842
Reaction score
32,520
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is this thing called "context". If you look at the context of his statement, it is clear that one way it is accurate, one way completely not.
:shrug: if you wish to say so, that is fine. the fact remains his post left that as a fully legitimate reply.

you know how we always talk about how pols have lost control when they start complaining about the questions they receive, when the narrative becomes the story-about-the-story? yeah, here.

I was talking the change in the "share" of taxes paid by the wealthy. They pay a larger share now, because their income has gone up faster(ie, their income has gone up vs rest of incomes being mostly stagnant). Again, this is clear if you look at context instead of assuming.
their income has indeed gone up at a faster rate than others - which is the trend as societies advance. however, this has occurred even as we have altered our tax code to lift the burden from the middle class and place more of it on our higher earners. the "their income has advanced" argument would imply a 1-to-1 growth result. For example: "The top 10% used to make 25% of the income and pay 25% of the tax burden, now they make 45% of the income and pay 45% of the tax burden. As their income grows, so does their portion of the tax bill." But that is not what has happened. Their share of the national tax burden has accelerated much faster than their share of the national income. The top 1% of Americans now pay more in taxes than the bottom 95%:


As you can see, the top 1% are paying 40.5% of the tax burden... but they are only doing it on around 22.5% of the national income.

ergo, it is not a one-to-one growth ratio that we would see were the only factor that of increasing top incomes. the fact that we have deliberately shifted much of our tax burden off of our middle class and onto the wealthy accelerates that trend and is responsible for the disparity in comparative rates of growth.

So, in the context of the discussion of our "shortfall" (ref: OP), our problem is not that we don't tax the rich - it's that we seek to avoid taxing the (voting) middle class, while still giving them lots of goodies.

now, in a discussion of revenue; we have some historical constants. Observe what happens to tax revenue as tax rates jump around wildly:



Tax Revenue seems to come in relatively independent of tax rates - usually at around an average of 19% of GDP. We saw a slight increase in collections after multiple tax cuts:



...but not enough to really push us too far out of bounds of that historical average of around 19%.

what DID finally push us out of that historical average was a massive increase in the size of Government. Government does not tax itself quite as enthusiastically as it taxes labor, investment, and production - and so as Government rises as a percent of GDP, tax revenues fall as a percentage of GDP. So, in the last couple of years, we have seen Government increase from about 20 to about 24.5% of GDP , and we have seen Revenue fall from about 19 to about 15.5% of GDP.



SO, when discussing the need to get revenues to match expenditures, it becomes evident that:

1. Rates do not powerfully directly effect revenue - GDP and the relative size of Government do.
2. If you want to increase revenues, therefore, you have to increase GDP
3. If you want to increase revenues as a percent of GDP, you have to reduce the size of government relative to GDP.
4. Rates do not seem to have a powerful direct effect on revenue - but they do on growth. Raising rates is thus more likely to reduce growth, thereby reducing revenue off of what you would have otherwise collected.


If you want to get revenues to match expenditures, therefore, you have to grow GDP and reduce government relative to it. Raising tax rates is more likely to be counterproductive than it is neutral, and is exceedingly unlikely to move those two lines closer together.
 
Last edited:

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,744
Reaction score
28,330
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have evidence that the economy grows when taxes are cut and that increases tax revenues. This may or may not happen and the timing is not consistent. What were the tax receipts in 1980-the last year of the Carter regime versus 1983?


btw you have no argument unless you can prove that tax hikes lead to more revenue and we still have arguments against that EVEN IF YOU CAN prove your claim
Strike One: - you have no evidence that you can prove that tax cuts lead to increased revenues. All you have is coincidence that depends on your belief system for a possible wishful thinking type of excuse.
Strike Two: - you announce in advance that even if PB can prove that tax hikes lead to more revenue it does not matter to you anyways because we have that belief system to fall back on anyways.
Strike Three: - it is obvious that facts mean nothing to you and everyone would be wise to flush your stuff where it belongs

You are officially OUT.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,744
Reaction score
28,330
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You have only been here less than a month but we have "libertarians" who want more taxes and more government.
And this violates your position as Official Lew Rockwell Fan Club President & Authority on All Things Libertarian?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,904
Reaction score
72,550
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No, that is what people in recent years have been brainwashed to believe. You probably also think that the conservative party was started and ends with the Republicans.
YOu would be wrong again

what was the last name you posted under on this board?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,904
Reaction score
72,550
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
And this violates your position as Official Lew Rockwell Fan Club President & Authority on All Things Libertarian?
You apparently know more about the Lew Rockwell fan club than I do. but pretending to be a libertarian while demanding more death taxes or income taxes is a joke
 

Donc

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,783
Reaction score
2,582
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Yeah, you can't say that because it wasn't the jump start. The jump start of the dot com boom and the housing boom had nothing to do with the middle-class or small business. It can be traced back to a manipulation of the stock market.

This is an interesting theory "It can be traced back to a manipulation of the stock market."Do you happen to have a link to anything that i could read about it?:2wave:
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,904
Reaction score
72,550
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Strike One: - you have no evidence that you can prove that tax cuts lead to increased revenues. All you have is coincidence that depends on your belief system for a possible wishful thinking type of excuse.
Strike Two: - you announce in advance that even if PB can prove that tax hikes lead to more revenue it does not matter to you anyways because we have that belief system to fall back on anyways.
Strike Three: - it is obvious that facts mean nothing to you and everyone would be wise to flush your stuff where it belongs

You are officially OUT.

I am officially out? LOL this is coming from a guy who has been suspended how many times?

and we all know what you truly believe Haymarket

the rich need to crawl to you on their knees begging you not to confiscate all their wealth
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,744
Reaction score
28,330
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You apparently know more about the Lew Rockwell fan club than I do. but pretending to be a libertarian while demanding more death taxes or income taxes is a joke
Actually my knowledge is based on the firm belief in knowing your enemy at least as well as his allies do. Over a decade of battling libertarians on other boards will do that to you.

And you are certainly not the first libertarian Turtle to come up with your own Official Test & Standard to administer to allow yourself to sit in judgment over others who self identify as libertarian. Those type of cat fights are entertaining.
 

Realitybites

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
15
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is an interesting theory "It can be traced back to a manipulation of the stock market."Do you happen to have a link to anything that i could read about it?:2wave:
Here is just one, which actually points out faults with both the government and the derivatives market.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672965066989281.html

Do your do deligence and you will see the government did not jump start the housing boom, unless you believe they forced banks to take no money down mortgages and traders to trade those derivatives as low risk.

You can also rent or view the "Inside Job" for a quick summary of the housing bubble. You can then verify the truth of what they state in the documentary. You have a computer do a search.

Either way in both cases, whether it is the dot com bubble or the housing bubble they both come down to greed and almost no one is innocent...

Don't tell me... you were making $60,000 supporting a family of 4 and thought you could have a 500,000 house...

Here is another link that gives an overview of how we got into the housing bubble which in turn drove the economy. If you ask me to prove that through link then you really do not understand economics or you are just trolling.

http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/...ou-access-to-1-3-billion-in-unpaid-principal/

http://efinancedirectory.com/articles/Top_10_Reasons_Why_We_Are_In_a_Housing_Bubble.html
 
Last edited:

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
240,904
Reaction score
72,550
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Actually my knowledge is based on the firm belief in knowing your enemy at least as well as his allies do. Over a decade of battling libertarians on other boards will do that to you.

And you are certainly not the first libertarian Turtle to come up with your own Official Test & Standard to administer to allow yourself to sit in judgment over others who self identify as libertarian. Those type of cat fights are entertaining.

enemies? cat fights?


 

Donc

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,783
Reaction score
2,582
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Realitybites

Either way in both cases, whether it is the dot com bubble or the housing bubble they both come down to greed and almost no one is innocent...


My point when I said this “the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 “with its aid to small businesses, could have been a jump start for the dotcom boom “was that it could have aided small dotcom entrepreneurs.

Also it was a preemptive rebuttal of what would have surely would have followed; the famed “the Clinton administration was propped up by the dotcom bubble. “:roll:
 

Realitybites

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
15
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
My point when I said this “the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 “with its aid to small businesses, could have been a jump start for the dotcom boom “was that it could have aided small dotcom entrepreneurs.

Also it was a preemptive rebuttal of what would have surely would have followed; the famed “the Clinton administration was propped up by the dotcom bubble. “:roll:
That's my point. The Clinton and Bush administrations were propped up by bubbles not tax cuts.
 
Top Bottom