We have a Spending Problem, NOT a tax revenue problem

[Gargantuan]

Can't deny the fact taht the CBO says the Bush tax cuts are contributing 500 billion+ to the deficit every 10 years.

 

[TurtleDude]

from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

this is the essense of the graduated income tax. this is why Reagen and Bush raised taxes on the wealthy.

oh, and btw, if a millionaire suddenly becomes dirt poor, he is welcome to go on unemployment insurance, Welfare, and Medicaid. its his right as an American citizen.

Reagan raised taxes on the wealthy?????

progressive taxes work for politicians because the many have more votes than those who have to pay most of the taxes

don't start arguing its some sort of God Ordained bit of goodliness. Its a way to buy votes

 

[TurtleDude]

Can't deny the fact taht the CBO says the Bush tax cuts are contributing 500 billion+ to the deficit every 10 years.

cannot deny that is based on all the idiotic spending continuing

a bit different argument

 

[Gargantuan]

cannot deny that is based on all the idiotic spending continuing

a bit different argument

Nope. Just the tax cuts.

Ezra Klein - CBO: Extending the Bush tax cuts will hurt the economy, reduce incomes

\CBO: Extending Tax Cuts Could Have Huge Debt Impact

 

[TurtleDude]

It seems to me the ignorant ones are those who believe the bull**** you just posted...

Tax Revenue:

1989: $0.99T
1990: $1.03T
1991: $1.06T
1992: $1.09T
1993: $1.15T
1994: $1.26T
1995: $1.35T
1996: $1.45T
1997: $1.58T
1998: $1.72T
1999: $1.83T
2000: $2.03T
2001: Bush cuts taxes
2001: $1.99T
2002: $1.85T
2003: $1.78T
2004: $1.88T

taxpolicycenter.org​

Some further corrections to your post...

It was GHW Bush who imposed a luxury tax in 1990 ... tax revenues increased after that as well ...

Clinton repealed Bush's luxury tax in 1993 on all high-priced luxury items except for cars.

Tax revenue increased every year under Clinton.

According to my Conservative-toEnglish dictionary, I just committed a "diversion."

Yawn, you forget 9-1-1 and the main tax cuts were in 2003 weren't they

I realize that people like you love tax hikes on anyone who makes more than you do but what caused revenues to go up under Clinton was the dot com bubble

that hyper grew the economy and tax revenues when up

 

[Gargantuan]

Not really.. the bubble started in 96 or 97 and the revenues were going up since 93.

 

[The Giant Noodle]

Reagan raised taxes on the wealthy?????

ACtually yes he did. Especially in his 2nd term.

 

[TurtleDude]

Nope. Just the tax cuts.

Ezra Klein - CBO: Extending the Bush tax cuts will hurt the economy, reduce incomes

\CBO: Extending Tax Cuts Could Have Huge Debt Impact

tax cuts cost nothing

spending costs money

 

[TurtleDude]

ACtually yes he did. Especially in his 2nd term.

really-what was the net affect of reagan upon tax rates?

 

[winston53660]

tax cuts cost nothing

spending costs money

Nice cliches :roll:

 

[TurtleDude]

Not really.. the bubble started in 96 or 97 and the revenues were going up since 93.

that is consistent with the prediction that jacking up taxes would not start to depress the economy for a couple years-the dot com bubble masked the normal results.

 

[TurtleDude]

Nice cliches :roll:

What was the relevance of that? Its fun seeing a bunch of lefties trying to justify raising taxes on others

 

[Gargantuan]

tax cuts cost nothing

spending costs money

Yes they do. Tax cuts that were not paid for with revenue increases elsewhere do infact cost money.

 

[winston53660]

What was the relevance of that? Its fun seeing a bunch of lefties trying to justify raising taxes on others

lets see do I go with a bunch of old tired worn out cliches or people that support their arguments?:thinking

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes they do. Tax cuts that were not paid for with revenue increases elsewhere do infact cost money.

tax cuts don't need to be paid for

spending does

saving money doesn't cost you money

stop the nonsense

you libs want to jack up taxes so your masters can convince the sheeple that dems can keep buying votes with spending that will be "paid for" by tax hikes

the spending has to be radically curtailed even if it costs your party its ability to keep buying votes

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

you wish to decrease tax revenue?

Raising taxes will increase tax revenue.

 

[TurtleDude]

Raising taxes will increase tax revenue.

cutting spending will decrease the deficit and there is not enough tax dollars available to make up for the massive increases in spending

and your claim is not provable. In some cases tax hikes decrease revenue

and it appears all the dems want to do is soak the rich more rather than raising taxes on the people who don't pay their fair share now

 

[cpwill]

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will INCREASE revenue, not decrease it!!!!!

this is incorrect - static scoring has never accurately depicted revenue increases for the simple reason that it does not take into account the fact that people are rational decision makers, and will seek to shield their income from tax liability.

Higher Rates don't equal Higher Revenue; they just equal Greater Resources Poured Into Tax Avoidance.

as you can see - tax rates on the rich have jumped wildly in the last few decades, while revenues have remained generally flat, rising only slightly as rates are generally reduced, and tax avoidance becomes less profitable.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Gotta love a true believer

I've posted the proof corroborating that statement many times.

 

[TurtleDude]

I've posted the proof corroborating that statement many times.

and it does not prove your claim is always correct

and you cannot deny that no matter how much taxes are raised, there is not enough to cover the massive spending increase

and sooner or later, the rich will start rejecting such nonsense and move or avoid or evade taxes and all of you who are dependent on the rich to pay YOUR share of the taxes are gonna be in for a rude surprise

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

A point that you cannot prove. You might be right for 6 months and wrong for six years

but making the poor pay more could have some useful educational utility

Right, it's just coincidence that every single time there's been a tax hike, increased tax revenue followed. The same cannot be said about tax cuts.

 

[TurtleDude]

Right, it's just coincidence that every single time there's been a tax hike, increased tax revenue followed. The same cannot be said about tax cuts.

for how long? there also are good arguments for tax cuts

there is only one argument for a tax hike and that does not defeat the arguments for a tax cut

and unlike you I reject the attitude that peoples' wealth should be subordinate to the Greater good (of the Dem politicians especially)

You all go to great lengths to try to justify other people paying more taxes. Until you are paying top bracket tax rates you really have no standing to demand anyone else pay more

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

ah more of the from each according to their ability nonsense?

I can afford a burger more than most people but since I get the same value as you do I pay the same price

That is really logical

you get the same citizenship benefits as I do we each should pay the same for it

and common sense demands if you cannot afford more taxes you should not demand more government or that others pay more for it

Sticking to your "taxes = burger" analogy, if everyone pays the same for their burger, the restaurant can't afford to hire waiters to bring you your burger. In this analogy, "restaurant = government" and "waiter = military."

 

[cpwill]

Raising taxes will increase tax revenue.

that is incorrect - higher nominal tax rates have not produced more revenue in the past, and they will not do so now - because revenue is not a function of nominal tax rates.

It is a function of GDP, with relative-size-of-government (government does not tax itself to the degree that it does investment, labor, and production) as the prime sub-controlling factor.

if you want to increase revenues, you have to increase GDP.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Yawn, you forget 9-1-1 and the main tax cuts were in 2003 weren't they

I realize that people like you love tax hikes on anyone who makes more than you do but what caused revenues to go up under Clinton was the dot com bubble

that hyper grew the economy and tax revenues when up

What would Conservatives do without 9.11? Oh, by the way, let's see your evidence that 9.11 caused tax revenue to drop for 3 straight years. Let's see your evidence that 9.11, which occurred with little over 3.5 months left in 2001, caused tax revenue to drop in 2001? Let's see your evidence that "Clinton "jacked up" the luxury tax? Let's see your evidence that tax revenue fell after Clinton did that? Let's see your evidence that imposing a luxury tax (which occurred under Bush in 1990) led to a drop in tax revenue.