PDA

View Full Version : Regime: Tax cuts are best way to grow economy.



LWW
10-27-2012, 04:49 AM
HOLY DESPERATE DEMBOTS BATMAN (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-considering-new-tax-cut/2012/10/26/8187d726-1fa5-11e2-9cd5-b55c38388962_story.html)

This is where all the good little dembots chant that they have always favored tax cuts to grow the economy.

Soflasnapper
10-29-2012, 08:08 AM
Tax cuts have been part of Obama's economic recovery program since 2009. His original tax cut was the largest middle class tax cut of all time, and his later 2 point cut in payroll taxes was again a very large tax cut. He specifically had to fight to get that extended over GOP opposition.

It isn't tax cuts per se that are opposed, but, as you must know, the tax cuts for the upper brackets that are opposed. That cannot have escaped your attention, and your point is intentionally falsely framed.

LWW
10-29-2012, 09:00 AM
How can you say that?

Defend that position?

Soflasnapper
10-29-2012, 10:49 AM
To repeat myself, Obama has proposed and got put in place and continues to propose tax cuts, or extensions of various tax cuts, including the entire Bush rate cut for all brackets except the topmost. Even the topmost bracket would continue to get the bracket cuts of the lower tiers.

That's the truth, and it needs no defending if someone knows these facts.

As to why tax cuts are more efficient when provided to those not in the top income bracket, it's called the marginal propensity to save (and/or marginal propensity to spend). Poorer to average income people tend to spend, and the highest bracket tends to save, more than their opposite cohort member.

LWW
10-29-2012, 03:52 PM
Swing and a miss.

Why are you stating that it's OK for lower wage earners to not pay their fair share?

Soflasnapper
10-29-2012, 05:13 PM
Lower wage workers were paying far more than their share, as the payroll tax rate was boosted 50% on them from where it was prior, to defray the costs of the top brackets' tax cuts. Reducing this 6.4% rate on all their earnings is not really a break so much as righting that wrong. At least, that was what Reagan believed when he got the EITC in place. The GOP used to believe that as well, until recently.

LWW
10-29-2012, 05:36 PM
Got anything to ack that up?

Soflasnapper
10-29-2012, 07:17 PM
As originally adopted in 1975, the earned income credit was intended to offset the Social Security taxes of low-income workers with children and to provide those taxpayers with an increased incentive to work.

Tax Policy Center (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/encyclopedia/EITC.cfm)

That was when the SS tax was 4.2%. Reagan's Greenspan Commission authored reform took that rate up to 6.2% (and raised the ceiling of wages it applied to by over 200%).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I supported all the Reagan Republican initiatives over the past generation that abolished federal income taxes on the poor, and what the Left calls the working class, and almost abolished them completely on the middle class.

That began with the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which grew out of then Governor Ronald Reaganís famous testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in 1972, where he proposed exempting the working poor from all Social Security and income taxes as an alternative to welfare, with the credit serving as a way to offset payroll taxes for the poor and low income workers. </div></div>

Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/07/26/how-president-obama-is-deceiving-you-on-tax-policy/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The EITC was created in 1975, in part to offset the burden of increased social security payroll taxes on low-wage workers. </div></div> here (http://www.results.org/issues/us_poverty_campaigns/economic_opportunity_for_all/earned_income_tax_credit/)

LWW
10-30-2012, 02:51 AM
You have explained how it was leveled 30 years back ... you have no explanation why Obama cut SS receipts.

The most likely reason s to break the current system early to justify robbing IRA/401K funds.

Qtec
10-30-2012, 03:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It isn't tax cuts per se that are opposed, but, as you must know, the tax cuts for the upper brackets that are opposed. That cannot have escaped your attention, and your point is intentionally falsely framed.</div></div>Correct...and what is his reply? Another question..

Q

Qtec
10-30-2012, 03:39 AM
and an Another question..

Q

Qtec
10-30-2012, 03:39 AM
... Another question..

Q

Qtec
10-30-2012, 03:40 AM
Another question..

Q

Qtec
10-30-2012, 03:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <u>Poorer to average income people tend to spend,</u> and the highest bracket tends to save, more than their opposite cohort member. </div></div>

Correct again.

Q

LWW
10-30-2012, 04:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <u>Poorer to average income people tend to spend,</u> and the highest bracket tends to save, more than their opposite cohort member. </div></div>

Correct again.

Q </div></div>

And that spending is simply consumption, mostly on imported goods ... and is a one and propostion.

Investment however generally leads to bigger ticket spending on duable, and more likely domestic, goods such as homes ... factories ... autos ... planes and the like.

So, as a nation, are we better to invest in CADILLAC or crack?

The lack of basic economic understanding exhibited by the cabal should be an embarrassment to y'all.

Next ridiculous assertion combined with denial of reality?

Stretch
10-30-2012, 07:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <u>Poorer to average income people tend to spend,</u> and the highest bracket tends to save, more than their opposite cohort member. </div></div>

Correct again.

Q </div></div>

And that spending is simply consumption, mostly on imported goods ... and is a one and propostion.

Investment however generally leads to bigger ticket spending on duable, and more likely domestic, goods such as homes ... factories ... autos ... planes and the like.

So, as a nation, are we better to invest in CADILLAC or crack?

The lack of basic economic understanding exhibited by the cabal should be an embarrassment to y'all.

Next ridiculous assertion combined with denial of reality?
</div></div>

So your claim is that poor to middle class families spend thier money on crack? Yep, you're an idiot. St.

LWW
10-30-2012, 08:24 AM
Do you have any idea how much of welfare transfers ends up being spent on drugs and alcohol?

Soflasnapper
10-30-2012, 08:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You have explained how it was leveled 30 years back ... you have no explanation why Obama cut SS receipts.

The most likely reason s to break the current system early to justify robbing IRA/401K funds. </div></div>

Now you admit that Obama has been for cutting taxes to support a weak economy, did it immediately, and did it several times, including this SS 2 point cut which has been in effect for several years now.

Which moots your point that this is somehow a new 'regime' theory-- it's been their theory all along.

Soflasnapper
10-30-2012, 08:48 AM
And that spending is simply consumption, mostly on imported goods ... and is a one and propostion.

No it isn't. Consumption carries a multiplier value, as the money that is spent into the economy is re-spent by the recipient, and by their recipient, etc.

Qtec
10-31-2012, 05:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And that spending is simply consumption, mostly on imported goods ... and is a one and propostion.

No it isn't. Consumption carries a multiplier value, as the money that is spent into the economy is re-spent by the recipient, and by their recipient, etc. </div></div>

..and?

When money goes round, every one benefits. That's just common sense.

What people are telling you is that when a huge amount of money goes to people who DON'T spend it, it doesn't help the economy. It just takes more money out of circulation.

Q

Gayle in MD
10-31-2012, 08:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And that spending is simply consumption, mostly on imported goods ... and is a one and propostion.

No it isn't. Consumption carries a multiplier value, as the money that is spent into the economy is re-spent by the recipient, and by their recipient, etc. </div></div>

..and?

When money goes round, every one benefits. That's just common sense.

What people are telling you is that when a huge amount of money goes to people who DON'T spend it, it doesn't help the economy. It just takes more money out of circulation.

Q


</div></div>

Such a simple fact, yet it is beyond the Republican voters to grasp it even after they have watched the results of eight years of the Bush redistribution of Middle Class dollars go to the top one percent, and even after they have watched Republicans block the recovery by refusing to do what all respected economists, both righties and lefties, have said must be done. RAISE TAXES ON THE WEALTHY, CUT OUT WASTE.

How hard is it to see that Republicans have blocked recovery?

How hard is it to see that Republicans are counting on throwing the election?

IMO, the first thing we should do is make it illegal for any congressman or senator to ever be involved with acquiring government contracts, including the Military Industrial complex, or working for lobbyists, before or after running for office.

That alone would wipe out the people who only run to advance their own financial interests.

Privatizing military only led to more financial corruption.

Privatizing jails, has led to more being jailed.

There should never be no bid contracting. If the Bush Cheney no bid contracts were not an obvious scam to Amerian voters, what is it goinog to take to wake people up!

By the way, if Romney should steal this election, I am building a bomb shelter.

G.