PDA

View Full Version : Let's have an honest talk on tax cut extension.



LWW
12-05-2010, 04:54 PM
My number one reason to support the extension is that the tax cuts increased revenue and therefor logic would dictate that a reversal would lower revenue at a time when deficits are enormous.

My number two reason, assuming one could convince me reason number one was wrong ... in case anyone wants to take a whack at it, is that it draws capital from the economy which could be invested in economic growth.

Now, if one could convince me that point number two was also wrong, my third reason to oppose eliminating the tax cuts is that it is a proven fact that giving the state more money does not create fiscal responsibility. Giving the state more money only encourages them to spend it ... plus a little ... and delay making the hard decisions later rather than sooner.

LWW

cushioncrawler
12-06-2010, 01:47 AM
If i were King there would be zero payroll income tax, for everybody.
macRex.

LWW
12-06-2010, 02:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If i were King there would be zero payroll income tax, for everybody.
macRex. </div></div>

On that I agree.

LWW

pooltchr
12-06-2010, 07:00 AM
I heard an interesting story the other day. Seems the state of New York is estimating they lose $12million in tax revenue each year on tobacco sales. New York has the highest cigarette tax in the country. People are either cutting down or quitting, or finding other ways to avoid paying the high cigarette tax.
Just another example that increasing taxes doesn't always increase revenues.

Steve

sack316
12-06-2010, 08:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I heard an interesting story the other day. Seems the state of New York is estimating they lose $12million in tax revenue each year on tobacco sales. New York has the highest cigarette tax in the country. People are either cutting down or quitting, or finding other ways to avoid paying the high cigarette tax.
Just another example that increasing taxes doesn't always increase revenues.

Steve </div></div>

It's like anything else, there's going to be a law on diminishing returns... even when it comes to taxes.

Nobody loves to pay taxes, but to some extent people won't mind (or maybe people will "accept it" is a better way to phrase it). But there's bound to be some threshold where people will decide it's worth the effort to find a way around it.

All the absurdly high NY tax rate did was help tobacco sales in states like PA.

It wasn't until they enacted laws banning smoking around the state and ran a media blitz campaign statewide that the smoking rate in New York actually dropped significantly.

Sack

Chopstick
12-06-2010, 08:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If i were King there would be zero payroll income tax, for everybody.
macRex. </div></div>

You wouldn't have to be king. You would just be an American like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc.

Income Tax-----Federal Reserve Banking System

Chicken------Egg

LWW
12-06-2010, 05:28 PM
I have to assume that none of the leftists want to have an honest discussion on the subject.

LWW

Qtec
12-07-2010, 03:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My number one reason to support the extension is that the tax cuts increased revenue </div></div>

That's wrong for a start. How can anyone take you seriously when you lie in the first sentence?

Q.....no link

LWW
12-07-2010, 05:48 AM
Even the far right Washington Post disagrees with your myth ... which has been disproven ad infiniyum with various and sundry links which you reject because they aren't delivered via the party spoon.

As I thought, nobody on the left wishes to engage in an adult conversation on the topic ... preferring instead to begin a slew of character assassinations and misrepresentations to dealing with reality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some readers have pointed out, entirely accurately, that the gross amount of tax revenue rose in the aftermath of the tax cuts, although there was some decline through 2004. The government took in $2 trillion in 2000; $2.6 trillion in 2007. (I’m using Riedl’s preferred high-point year here.) This increase barely keeps up with inflation.</div></div>

Facts, they are such stubborn things. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/08/cherry-picking_season.html)

LWW

Qtec
12-07-2010, 07:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even the far right Washington Post disagrees with your myth ... which has been disproven ad infiniyum with various and sundry links which you reject because they aren't delivered via the party spoon.

As I thought, nobody on the left wishes to engage in an adult conversation on the topic ... preferring instead to begin a slew of character assassinations and misrepresentations to dealing with reality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some readers have pointed out, entirely accurately, that the gross amount of tax revenue rose in the aftermath of the tax cuts, although there was some decline through 2004. The government took in $2 trillion in 2000; $2.6 trillion in 2007. (I’m using Riedl’s preferred high-point year here.) This increase barely keeps up with inflation.</div></div>

Facts, they are such stubborn things. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/08/cherry-picking_season.html)

LWW </div></div>


Facts are stubborn things.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Did you actually read that whole article or did you just find an out of context quote that fitted your already made up mind?</span>

lets see the WHOLE of that paragraph!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some readers have pointed out, entirely accurately, that the gross amount of tax revenue rose in the aftermath of the tax cuts,<span style="color: #CC0000">Like it had done for the last 70 yrears!</span> although there was some decline through 2004. The government took in $2 trillion in 2000; $2.6 trillion in 2007. (I’m using Riedl’s preferred high-point year here.) <span style='font-size: 26pt'>This increase barely keeps up with inflation.</span>

More important, to get back to McConnell’s assertion about the absence of evidence that the tax cuts “actually diminished revenue,” the point is: compared to what? <span style='font-size: 23pt'>The only logical benchmark is whether the tax cuts diminished revenue compared to what they would have been in the absence of any change, <span style="color: #CC0000">and here the answer is indisputable:</span> know what that means? </span> the tax cuts did their intended job of returning money to taxpayers. <span style='font-size: 26pt'>The government took in less than it would have otherwise.</span>

How do I know? Brian Riedl said so. Riedl found that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were responsible for “just 14 percent of the swing from the projected cumulative $5.6 trillion surplus for 2002-2011 to an actual $6.1 trillion deficit.” </div></div>


Got it? How many times do you have to be told?

Q

LWW
12-07-2010, 07:45 AM
Yes I did ... and I chose an article from a leftist who was desperately trying to spin it on purpose.

Do you conceptually comprehend what "This increase barely keeps up with inflation" means? Answer, it means that it kept up with inflation plus a tiny bit more.

Do you conceptually comprehend what “just 14 percent of the swing from the projected cumulative $5.6 trillion surplus for 2002-2011 to an actual $6.1 trillion deficit.” means? Answer, it means that 86% of the increase in the debt was due to increases in spending.

Do you conceptually comprehend how often and easily you are played? Answer, not at all.

LWW

Qtec
12-08-2010, 03:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes I did ... and I chose an article from a leftist who was desperately trying to spin it on purpose.

Do you conceptually comprehend what "This increase barely keeps up with inflation" means? Answer, it means that it kept up with inflation plus a tiny bit more.

Do you conceptually comprehend what “just 14 percent of the swing from the projected cumulative $5.6 trillion surplus for 2002-2011 to an actual $6.1 trillion deficit.” means? Answer, it means that 86% of the increase in the debt was due to increases in spending.

Do you conceptually comprehend how often and easily you are played? Answer, not at all.

LWW </div></div>


Your argument basically says that when GW took over the revenue was x and that because 6 years later the revenue is x + $1, "the revenue grew under Bush".

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Answer, it means that it kept up with inflation plus a tiny bit more. </div></div>

ie <span style='font-size: 17pt'>well below the norm.</span>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Other Republicans and administration officials, including the president, have made similar statements about the power of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. But McCain and his colleagues are not accounting for the decrease in revenue that accompanied the cuts.

“Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts,” Alan D. Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Institute told the Washington Post last October. Viard, who worked in the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Analysis and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush, told FactCheck.org that “nobody can absolutely prove that.” Proof would require time travel and a reversal of tax policy. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>“But among economists, there’s no dispute.”</span>



Tax cuts can be a sound economic move that spurs growth, says Viard. “But it doesn’t mean that [the cuts] gained revenue." </div></div>

http://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck/imagefiles/Image/2006.older.and.misc/federal%20revenue%20bar%20chart(1).jpg

.....and he managed to double the Nat Debt at the same time and leave the whole country on a precipice.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a truism: The wealthiest 1 percent have never had it so good.

According to government figures, 1-percenters' share of America's total income is <span style='font-size: 20pt'>the highest it's been since 1929,</span> and their tax rates <span style='font-size: 26pt'>are the lowest they've faced in two decades. </span></div></div>




Q

LWW
12-08-2010, 04:47 AM
I hope you are aware that your chart proves that the R congress's budgetary/tax policy expanded revenue by roughly 60% in under a decade.

You are aware that the new democrook congress has collapsed that revenue growth.

The author's, and your, argument is esoteric in that the government's share of GDP decreased ... which is true. What you both miss is that the policies a;llowed for revenue to increase to the state while GDP rose even faster.

Your argument boils down to this:

1 - Option A allows the state to have 18.5% of $100.00 in GDP, or a total of $18.50 in tax revenue.

2 - Option B allows the state to have 20% of $90.00 in GDP, or a total of $18.00 in tax revenue.

My contention is that option A gives both the state more total revenue and the people a higher standard of living via higher GDP.

Your contention is who cares that option B gives the government less revenue and leaves more people impoverished ... it punishes the creation of wealth and that's the important thing.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/ONLINE%20ARGUMENTS/Snoopy.jpg

LWW

Qtec
12-08-2010, 05:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are aware that the new democrook congress has collapsed that revenue growth </div></div>

Well the first move of the new GOP congress has been to increase the Nat Debt.

Q

LWW
12-08-2010, 05:22 AM
WOW!

You actually can pay attention.

And now for a reality check ... I opposed it before they did it and I oppose it after they did it.

OTOH you blamed the R's for not doing it before they did it, and now blame them for doing it after they did.

LWW

Qtec
12-08-2010, 06:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WOW!

You actually can pay attention.</div></div>

Can you?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And now for a reality check ... I opposed it before they did it and I oppose it after they did it...
LWW</div></div>

link (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=328778#Post328778)



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Deficits, deficits, deficits, <span style='font-size: 26pt'>'its the deficit'.</span>

That's all we have heard from the GOP since Obama became Pres.....<span style='font-size: 14pt'>WAS It was all lies.</span> </div></div>

?

Simple Q.

Q

llotter
12-08-2010, 06:47 AM
At least the conservatives, Bachmann and DeMint are against this deal because it increases the deficit and I agree with them. DeMint said he will filibuster it in the Senate and maybe that will stop it.

The debt is the cause of our current economic problems and it can only be solved with huge spending cuts.

Qtec
12-08-2010, 07:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At least the conservatives, <span style='font-size: 26pt'><u>Bachmann and DeMint</u></span> are against this deal because it increases the deficit and I agree with them. DeMint said he will filibuster it in the Senate and maybe that will stop it.

The debt is the cause of our current economic problems and it can only be solved with huge spending cuts. </div></div>

Are you serious? De Mint wants the tax cuts paid for but also wants them to be permanent. He never says how he will foot the bill though.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Senator Jim DeMint announced on Hewitt’s show tonight, his opposition to this agreement by GOP leadership and Obama:

Senator JimDeMint just announced on my program that he will oppose the deal as well as a vote for cloture on the deal. He is reluctant to criticize GOP Senate leadership, but believes the deal at a minimum <u>has to be paid for</u>, and that we need “a permanent economy” not a temporary one <u>as well as permanent tax cuts, not temporary tax cuts. </u></div></div>


LOL

Q

llotter
12-08-2010, 07:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My number one reason to support the extension is that the tax cuts increased revenue and therefor logic would dictate that a reversal would lower revenue at a time when deficits are enormous.

My number two reason, assuming one could convince me reason number one was wrong ... in case anyone wants to take a whack at it, is that it draws capital from the economy which could be invested in economic growth.

Now, if one could convince me that point number two was also wrong, my third reason to oppose eliminating the tax cuts is that it is a proven fact that giving the state more money does not create fiscal responsibility. Giving the state more money only encourages them to spend it ... plus a little ... and delay making the hard decisions later rather than sooner.

LWW </div></div>

Generally, I agree with you that our government should not raise anyone's taxes. Milton Friedman said that he never saw a tax cut that wasn't better than no cut so obviously it would be better not to raise taxes.

If the goal was to maximize tax receipts for the government, it would make sense to find the optimum level of taxation to achieve that goal but I don't think that that level is knowable and anyway, the goal is the wrong one. The goal should be end all those unconstitutional expenses of government and to properly fund those few functions remaining.

In addition, the proper role of government is to protect our freedom and should have nothing to do with our economic choices. At some point it should be obvious to anyone smarter than The Moron that the government has been the cause of our economic problems and therefore logic should dictate undoing the interferences of the past rather than trying to gigger the flawed system they created.

Perhaps the Tea Party will call for a general tax protest where people refuse to comply with the twisted tax code if things don't change in short order.

Deeman3
12-08-2010, 08:50 AM
All the while, we now approach 14 trillion in debt!

And the solution? Keep the tax rate as is and, in the same bill, increase unemployment benefits for 13 months!

There are absolutely no adults working on this in Washington.

How can anyone defend either party right now?

Chopstick
12-08-2010, 09:04 AM
All of this discussion is completely moot. In 15 years, entitlement spending and the interest on the debt Obama has created will exceed 100% of all federal tax revenues. Not just income tax. All tax revenues. They will not even be able to pay the light bill in the white house. No amount of tax increase is going to fill that gap. It is game over for the big government spenders and no amount of argument is going to change that fact.

Deeman3
12-08-2010, 09:11 AM
Chopstick,

Greek economy ring a bell here? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Think Chinese will bail us out then?

eg8r
12-08-2010, 10:18 AM
And don't forget they are also taking in less for Social Security which will further put that program in peril. This is the sad part for me. W was willing to allow people to have a choice where their retirement money was going to go. Thanks to the Dems they are not allowed to choose and they also want to make sure there is even less money there than was expected.

eg8r

Deeman3
12-08-2010, 11:45 AM
And as long as SS is allowed to be raided in the general fund, as LBJ arranged, it will be poorer and poorer each year.

Imagine if it had never been raided in the first place? Just too much temptation to the Dems when it was solvent!

LWW
12-08-2010, 04:42 PM
Thanks guys for contributing. It is refreshing.

LWW