So Then Increase All Taxes....
- Thread starter SPK145
- Start date
Capital gains cut fueled rapid growth, not caused it alone.
The was some profit taking, but it also added new entrants to the market... increased investments all around.
Again... The 6 years following a tax increase, revenue increased an average of 8.51%. How is that possible if tax cuts increase revenue?
The 6 years following the 2003 tax cuts was 3.3%
Real income per capita is important here. UP under tax increases, DOWN under tax decreases.
The 2001 recession was from March 2001 to November 2001 according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. George W. Bush took office in January 2001, not sure how you can say he inherited a recession.
This post was edited on 7/17 10:19 PM by shu09
This post was edited on 7/17 10:19 PM by shu09
Artificial Internet bubble. The same can be said for 2003 and the artificial housing bubble.
> You can't be serious using 6 years when half of those years were following the housing crash caused by bad interventionist government policy from both parties.
>> Per capita means nothing to me, I'm concerned with total revenues. Of course per capita went down after the tax cuts, far less people pay taxes, the rich pay WAY to much as a percent of all taxes. If per capita is so important to you, wouldn't you rather tax more people?
More divisive class warfare, I'm telling you that is going to be/already the bane of America.
> You can't be serious using 6 years when half of those years were following the housing crash caused by bad interventionist government policy from both parties.
>> Per capita means nothing to me, I'm concerned with total revenues. Of course per capita went down after the tax cuts, far less people pay taxes, the rich pay WAY to much as a percent of all taxes. If per capita is so important to you, wouldn't you rather tax more people?
More divisive class warfare, I'm telling you that is going to be/already the bane of America.
If your concerned with total revenues why aren't you suggesting we go back to the policies under Clinton?
The 6 years prior to the Clinton tax increase saw 5% revenue growth per year. The 6 years after the increase saw 8.5% revenue growth per year.
How can you look at that and think tax decreases would have the same or better effect?
Debt Ceiling Drama
by Ron Paul
July 18, 2011
The debt ceiling debate is providing plenty of opportunity for political theater in Washington. Proponents of raising the debt ceiling are throwing around the usual scare tactics and misinformation in order to intimidate opponents into accepting more debt and taxes. It is important to distinguish the truth from the propaganda.
First of all, politicians need to understand that without real change default is inevitable. In fact, default happens every day through monetary policy tricks. Every time the Federal Reserve engages in more quantitative easing and devalues the dollar, it is defaulting on the American people by eroding their purchasing power and inflating their savings away. The dollar has lost nearly 50% of its value against gold since 2008. The Fed claims inflation is 2% or less over the past few years; however economists who compile alternate data show a 9% inflation rate if calculated more traditionally. Alarmingly, the administration is talking about changing the methodology of the CPI calculation yet again to hide the damage of the government's policies. Changing the CPI will also enable the government to avoid giving seniors a COLA (cost of living adjustment) on their social security checks, and raise taxes via the hidden means of "bracket creep." This is a default. Just because it is a default on the people and not the banks and foreign holders of our debt does not mean it doesn't count.
Politicians also need to acknowledge that our debt is unsustainable. For decades our government has been spending and promising far more than it collects in taxes. But the problem is not that the people are not taxed enough. The government has managed to run up $61.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities, which works out to $528,000 per household. A tax policy that would aim to extract even half that amount of money from American families would be unimaginably draconian, and not unlike attempting to squeeze blood from a turnip. This is, unequivocally, a spending problem brought about by a dramatically inflated view of the proper role of government in a free society.
Perhaps the most abhorrent bit of chicanery has been the threat that if a deal is not reached to increase the debt by August 2nd, social security checks may not go out. In reality, the Chief Actuary of Social Security confirmed last week that current Social Security tax receipts are more than enough to cover current outlays. The only reason those checks would not go out would be if the administration decided to spend those designated funds elsewhere. It is very telling that the administration would rather frighten seniors dependent on social security checks than alarm their big banking friends, who have already received $5.3 trillion in bailouts, stimulus and quantitative easing. This instance of trying to blackmail Congress into tax increases by threatening social security demonstrates how scary it is to be completely dependent on government promises and why many young people today would jump at the chance to opt out of Social Security altogether.
We are headed for rough economic times either way, but the longer we put it off, the greater the pain will be when the system implodes. We need to stop adding more programs and entitlements to the problem. We need to stop expensive bombing campaigns against people on the other side of the globe and bring our troops home. We need to stop allowing secretive banking cartels to endlessly enslave us through monetary policy trickery. And we need to drastically rethink government's role in our lives so we can get it out of the way and get back to work.
by Ron Paul
July 18, 2011
The debt ceiling debate is providing plenty of opportunity for political theater in Washington. Proponents of raising the debt ceiling are throwing around the usual scare tactics and misinformation in order to intimidate opponents into accepting more debt and taxes. It is important to distinguish the truth from the propaganda.
First of all, politicians need to understand that without real change default is inevitable. In fact, default happens every day through monetary policy tricks. Every time the Federal Reserve engages in more quantitative easing and devalues the dollar, it is defaulting on the American people by eroding their purchasing power and inflating their savings away. The dollar has lost nearly 50% of its value against gold since 2008. The Fed claims inflation is 2% or less over the past few years; however economists who compile alternate data show a 9% inflation rate if calculated more traditionally. Alarmingly, the administration is talking about changing the methodology of the CPI calculation yet again to hide the damage of the government's policies. Changing the CPI will also enable the government to avoid giving seniors a COLA (cost of living adjustment) on their social security checks, and raise taxes via the hidden means of "bracket creep." This is a default. Just because it is a default on the people and not the banks and foreign holders of our debt does not mean it doesn't count.
Politicians also need to acknowledge that our debt is unsustainable. For decades our government has been spending and promising far more than it collects in taxes. But the problem is not that the people are not taxed enough. The government has managed to run up $61.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities, which works out to $528,000 per household. A tax policy that would aim to extract even half that amount of money from American families would be unimaginably draconian, and not unlike attempting to squeeze blood from a turnip. This is, unequivocally, a spending problem brought about by a dramatically inflated view of the proper role of government in a free society.
Perhaps the most abhorrent bit of chicanery has been the threat that if a deal is not reached to increase the debt by August 2nd, social security checks may not go out. In reality, the Chief Actuary of Social Security confirmed last week that current Social Security tax receipts are more than enough to cover current outlays. The only reason those checks would not go out would be if the administration decided to spend those designated funds elsewhere. It is very telling that the administration would rather frighten seniors dependent on social security checks than alarm their big banking friends, who have already received $5.3 trillion in bailouts, stimulus and quantitative easing. This instance of trying to blackmail Congress into tax increases by threatening social security demonstrates how scary it is to be completely dependent on government promises and why many young people today would jump at the chance to opt out of Social Security altogether.
We are headed for rough economic times either way, but the longer we put it off, the greater the pain will be when the system implodes. We need to stop adding more programs and entitlements to the problem. We need to stop expensive bombing campaigns against people on the other side of the globe and bring our troops home. We need to stop allowing secretive banking cartels to endlessly enslave us through monetary policy trickery. And we need to drastically rethink government's role in our lives so we can get it out of the way and get back to work.
but you will tie in every other factor that was involved that contributed to increased revenue in 2006 because it supports your argument?
"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."
Well, I did tie in the housing bubble for 2006. I won't tie in the capital gains rate cut as that raises very, very little direct impact.
If your argument for the Clinton tax rates are so strong, why not bring them back for all classes rather than just those mean rich people? After all, there is much more income to be taxed from the so-called middle class.
Because furthering the distance between the rich and the middle class is what will destroy this country. We do much better as a country when the rich are taxed at a higher percentage.
The middle class is disappearing. This decade has seen the highest executive pay compared to their employees ever in this country. The rich keep taking more while the middle class see's cost of living increases if they are lucky.
There is only one group of people who can afford to pay more into our debt problem. We can dance around that fact as long as we like, but that will not change.
Merge,
But then your whole Clinton tax rates vs. Bush tax rates fall apart over class warfare rhetoric.
And you haven't talked at all about spending cuts, it's all been revenues for you. And I'm talking about real spending cuts, not the phony political football of cutting the growth of spending. And no area should be untouchable including entitlements and military.
But then your whole Clinton tax rates vs. Bush tax rates fall apart over class warfare rhetoric.
And you haven't talked at all about spending cuts, it's all been revenues for you. And I'm talking about real spending cuts, not the phony political football of cutting the growth of spending. And no area should be untouchable including entitlements and military.
My first post in this thread, I agreed with you about spending cuts especially military spending.
I think both (increases and cuts) need to happen but admitted that I wouldn't agree with the level of spending cuts that you would likely want to see.
I will follow Warren Buffet's guidance on this issue. The rich are the only ones who can pay more, and because of that they need to. That's how the system works.
If you take more money from people who already can't save anything, consumer spending declines.
The actual definition is semantics? lol.
Economic recovery and recession are two different things.
After the 2001 recession was over. Unemployment went up 30%, but negative growth periods were over. That is what a recession IS. That is not semantics.
Isn't that the very definition of communism?
There's a phony windbag for you. He's more than free to pay more in income taxes voluntarily than federally required, yet he doesn't. And remember, his income is overwhelmingly capital gains taxes which are less than income taxes (and should be). Remember that infamous untruthful speech he gave about his secretary paying a higher rate of tax than him? Complete B/S. He used her marginal tax rate that was applied to a very, very small part of her taxable income compared to his average tax rate on all of his income.
That is the very definition of a progressive tax system which has been a part of America's greatness since the 1800's.
and Warren Buffet's receptionist was quoted to be paying about 30%. There is no 30% marginal rate.
Even assuming it was... It sounds like she is making a decent salary and is likely paying more than the 17% that Buffet pays which was his argument.
In his speech, he said she made $60,000 and was paying a 30% tax rate. Impossible. B/S from the Oracle of B/S.
Progressive tax rates is another way of saying communism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Call it what you like, it's a redistribution of wealth commonly known as communism.
Merge, I'm assuming you are referring to the bi-partisan Gang of Six recommendation that calls for Medicare/Medicaid cuts, restructuring Social Security along with closing tax loopholes and lowering tax rates. This would be the plan that Obama came out in support of this plan last night after opposing all along the way while it was being worked on for months.
Coburn's plan sounds like something on the right track but I'd have to see a year-by-year breakdown of it. Anything that cuts spending more down the road than immediately is a joke as that can and would be changed many times over the years, nobody would be bound by that, that is just political chicanery. Our problem is more immediate more so than ten years down the road.
I'm not against lowering tax rates and cutting deductions (I'd rather see even lower rates and NO deductions, the flatter the better). If that raises revenue, so be it, but the much, much bigger problem is spending.
I'm not against lowering tax rates and cutting deductions (I'd rather see even lower rates and NO deductions, the flatter the better). If that raises revenue, so be it, but the much, much bigger problem is spending.
Guys, guys this will all be over shortly. Wall Street will bring pressure on certain none Tea Party Republicans who will join Dems for "the good of the country" and Dems will agree to more cuts and it will end. Wall Street will never allow the government to shut down. Just a few more days, 
