Tax cuts dont increase revenues [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : Tax cuts dont increase revenues

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 12:24 PM

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html

Look who says so.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.

Im sure this thread will now swiftly fall to the bottom of the page.

glockmail

12-10-2007, 12:28 PM

Revenues have increased every time it's been done. Sorta puts a damper on liberal theories.

Pale Rider

12-10-2007, 12:31 PM

mistake...

Pale Rider

12-10-2007, 12:33 PM

Look who says so.
Well, we know it does. You just posting another one of your liberal lie pages claiming some liberal "said so" deviod of ONE SINGLE FACT FOR PROOF is just a joke.

Im sure this thread will now swiftly fall to the bottom of the page.
Thanks for the laugh though.

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 12:41 PM

Laffer is convinced that the reduction of the top tax rate from 70% to 28% during the Reagan years paid for itself--in part by encouraging the rich to stop finagling--and the evidence mostly backs him up. "You find these enormous responses in the upper brackets," Laffer says. "These guys fire their lawyers and accountants and actually pay their taxes. Yay! Isn't that what we want them to do?"

But Reagan's tax cuts for the nonrich were big money losers, and it took the fiscal discipline of Bill Clinton to mop up the resulting red ink. Laffer gushes with praise for Clinton, but he's also a fan of Clinton's successor. "What Clinton did was, he gave Bush the fiscal flexibility to do what was right," Laffer says. In the face of the recession and terrorist attacks of 2001, Bush "needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense, and Clinton gave him the ability to do that."

In other words, the Bush tax cuts were meant to create big deficits. But Laffer's O.K. with that. "The Laffer Curve should not be the reason you raise or lower taxes," he says. Perhaps not, but it does make for great campaign promises.

Do you guys know who Laffer is?

glockmail

12-10-2007, 12:45 PM

.... it took the fiscal discipline of Bill Clinton to mop up the resulting red ink. ...:lol:

Talk about a re-write of history. :lol:

Hagbard Celine

12-10-2007, 12:47 PM

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 12:50 PM

:lol:

Talk about a re-write of history. :lol:

You dont know who Laffer is do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Laffer

glockmail

12-10-2007, 12:53 PM

It's idiotic. Taxes are how the government makes revenue. If they cut their source of revenue, they get less revenue. "Cutting taxes increases revenue?" It's like saying chopping off a finger will increase your fingers. What's idioic is Democrats failing to understand the dynamics of tax policy.

Its really simple Hag. When Wal-Mart cuts the price of a widget they sell more widgets. Therefore Wally-world makes more money. When GovCo cuts their prices more people make have an incentive to make, and report making, more money. Even though they pay lower rates they pay more taxes overall.

glockmail

12-10-2007, 12:55 PM

You dont know who Laffer is do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Laffer I know who he is. I also know who JFK, Reagan, and Bush 43 were/ are, and what happened when they all lowered taxes: revenues went up. Just as predicted by Laffer's Curve.

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 12:56 PM

You just called the Man who propsed the f'ing idea a liberal hack whos rewriting history.

Laffer IS the man you and your party claim as the Hero of all economics.

He himself says it does not work.

GET IT!

Little-Acorn

12-10-2007, 12:57 PM

What's idioic is Democrats failing to understand the dynamics of tax policy.

Its really simple Hag. When Wal-Mart cuts the price of a widget they sell more widgets. Therefore Wally-world makes more money. When GovCo cuts their prices more people make have an incentive to make, and report making, more money. Even though they pay lower rates they pay more taxes overall.

Glockmail, how long do you suppose it will be before truthmutters notices that you described Laffer's theory correctly while he got it wrong?

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 12:59 PM

So ypu are saying Laffer the man who created the idea got it wrong?

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA!

You people will throw anyone under the bus to keep believing the lies huh?

Little-Acorn

12-10-2007, 01:05 PM

So ypu are saying Laffer the man who created the idea got it wrong?

Let me guess: You're jealous of little haggy's 0-for-everything record of being wrong, and are trying to catch up with him.

With that post, you're well on your way! :lol:

Hagbard Celine

12-10-2007, 01:10 PM

Let me guess: You're jealous of little haggy's 0-for-everything record of being wrong, and are trying to catch up with him.

With that post, you're well on your way! :lol:

Aw. "Little" Little-Acorn is still spewing the same-old unoriginal sh*t he spews in every other thread. How banal.

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 01:15 PM

Let me guess: You're jealous of little haggy's 0-for-everything record of being wrong, and are trying to catch up with him.

With that post, you're well on your way! :lol:

WTF are you rambling about here?

Face the Facts the guy your side has been calling a god because drew a curve on a napkin one day admitts its bullshit and ASLO gives the credit for the surpluses of the 90s To CLINTON.

The game is up , its a pack of lies and you need to ask yourself WHY you insist on continuing to believe in lies.

Little-Acorn

12-10-2007, 01:21 PM

Face the Facts the guy your side has been calling a god because drew a curve on a napkin one day admitts its bullshit and ASLO gives the credit for the surpluses of the 90s To CLINTON.

The game is up , its a pack of lies
Little haggy, you're getting some stiff competition here for cellar-dweller status. Beware! :lol:

Pale Rider

12-10-2007, 01:25 PM

glockmail

12-10-2007, 01:28 PM

Glockmail, how long do you suppose it will be before truthmutters notices that you described Laffer's theory correctly while he got it wrong? There's a lot of that going around today: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=166171&postcount=34

:laugh2:

glockmail

12-10-2007, 01:29 PM

Isn't it sad you have to explain that? Its due to the dumbing down of America, by public schools and democrat-controlled teacher's unions.

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 01:30 PM

Your Hero Laffer has abondoned you guys.

Now he is also the enemy huh?

how funny is that one?

Hagbard Celine

12-10-2007, 01:33 PM

There's a lot of that going around today: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=166171&postcount=34

:laugh2:

Yeah, you guys are in rare form today. Never have I been so impressed with the level of idiocy of the Conservative posters than I have today.

glockmail

12-10-2007, 01:44 PM

Your Hero Laffer has abondoned you guys.

Now he is also the enemy huh?

how funny is that one?

Yeah, you guys are in rare form today. Never have I been so impressed with the level of idiocy of the Conservative posters than I have today. This new tactic of ram your head into a wall and claim victory is a new one. Intersting study of liberal behavior today.

PostmodernProphet

12-10-2007, 01:49 PM

It's idiotic. Taxes are how the government makes revenue. If they cut their source of revenue, they get less revenue. "Cutting taxes increases revenue?" It's like saying chopping off a finger will increase your fingers.

no, it isn't....because income upon which taxes can be collected is not limited to "ten"......look at it this way.....is it easier to get a million people to give you a dollar, or one person to give you a million dollars......now, if neither the million people or the one person got anything from you......which is easier the second year, getting a million people to give you a dollar again, or getting the one person to give you another million......the less money you take each year, the easier it is to get money in successive years.......

Pale Rider

12-10-2007, 01:50 PM

Yeah, you guys are in rare form today. Never have I been so impressed with the level of idiocy of the Conservative posters than I have today.

Hag... you've been on a roll lately of just being a dumb ass. What's your problem? Failing in school too? Girl friend dump you? Drinking a little too much? Been smoking dope? All of the above? In any case, you need a reality check man, because agreeing with liesmatter is going to splash your ass to the bottom feeder ranks of the board...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2032/2100773421_8c40a0f336_o.jpg

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 01:52 PM

So just tell us you are going to throw Laffer under the bus guys.

Laffer says his napkin trick did not work and that Clinton gets credit for the 90s surpluses.

Pale Rider

12-10-2007, 01:56 PM

So just tell us you are going to throw Laffer under the bus guys.

Laffer says his napkin trick did not work and that Clinton gets credit for the 90s surpluses.

NO NO NO NO... You're not going to just waltz past my last post. It pretty much blows your whole bit here to smithereens.

Your lies aren't going to get you through this one skippy.

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 01:59 PM

Listen , you have lost.

you will refuse this fact but the economic field including your Guru says it does not work.

You can call me names all you want Laffer himself agrees more with me than you.

He has better credentials than either of us and has finnally faced the facts.

Believe lies if you wish just dont expect the American public to buy them anymore.

remie

12-10-2007, 02:00 PM

Hag... you've been on a roll lately of just being a dumb ass. What's your problem? Failing in school too? Girl friend dump you? Drinking a little too much? Been smoking dope? All of the above? In any case, you need a reality check man, because agreeing with liesmatter is going to splash your ass to the bottom feeder ranks of the board...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2032/2100773421_8c40a0f336_o.jpg

Thanks for posting that Pale.....it saved me from having to search for it. Facts are facts. Revenues increase EVERY time taxes are cut. I dont know what is so hard to understand about that.

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 02:01 PM

Wheres your link guys?

its the rules remember?

Immanuel

12-10-2007, 02:09 PM

NO NO NO NO... You're not going to just waltz past my last post. It pretty much blows your whole bit here to smithereens.

Your lies aren't going to get you through this one skippy.

Yes, she will. You can post asking for an answer to that post until you are blue in the face. An answer will not come. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen on these sites and it is not just TM or liberals that refuse to address the rebuttals.

But, keep asking, maybe I will start a pool on how many posts it will take to get a real answer.

Immie

Hagbard Celine

12-10-2007, 02:10 PM

Hmm. Maybe there is something to this Laffer Curve nonsense! :dance:

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 02:13 PM

Yes, she will. You can post asking for an answer to that post until you are blue in the face. An answer will not come. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen on these sites and it is not just TM or liberals that refuse to address the rebuttals.

But, keep asking, maybe I will start a pool on how many posts it will take to get a real answer.

Immie

Immy did they post a link to those charts yet so we can see who generated them?

Immanuel

12-10-2007, 02:16 PM

Immy did they post a link to those charts yet so we can see who generated them?

What difference does that make? It is obvious he did not create that out of clear blue sky... you can easily google that and find it. Although, it would have been appropriate to have posted a link, you still would not answer it.

Also, I did not single you out. You won't answer it but neither would most of us.

Immie

Pale Rider

12-10-2007, 02:19 PM

Immy did they post a link to those charts yet so we can see who generated them?

It says right in the picture... "US DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY." Did you miss it?

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzcharts200512150917.asp

remie

12-10-2007, 02:23 PM

Wheres your link guys?

its the rules remember?

Heres one of many. Entire article at:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Conclusion
The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is di sproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years

Hagbard Celine

12-10-2007, 02:30 PM

It says right in the picture... "US DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY." Did you miss it?

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzcharts200512150917.asp

Oh really? I thought it said "US Dept. of my ass!?" :eek:

Some schmuck created this thing on MSpaint.

remie

12-10-2007, 02:30 PM

JohnDoe

12-10-2007, 02:32 PM

Thanks for posting that Pale.....it saved me from having to search for it. Facts are facts. Revenues increase EVERY time taxes are cut. I dont know what is so hard to understand about that.
With or without tax cuts, don't revenues generally increase every year with our natural growth of the economy? How much of these increases in the graph are increases that WOULD happen anyway?

The big dip from 2002 in lost revenues and the lost revenues from 2002 onward year after year not meeting 2002's tax revenues, were they ever retrieved or made up? NO.

Finally 4 years later they have a fricking gain on taxes according to this graph?

HOLY CRAP, this chart says it is only the first two months of every year?????????????????????????????????????????????? ??

What about the full year instead of the first 2 months of each year, wtf are they HIDING?

and what about the 5 years previous to 2002 for you to compare how much taxes went up each year without tax cuts.

YOUR CHART PROVES NOTHING, but that Laffer is RIGHT, it does not always work and this time, IT DID NOT WORK.

Please, all of you, take a mathematics course and learn how to analyze the information before you.

jd

glockmail

12-10-2007, 02:34 PM

Oh really? I thought it said "US Dept. of my ass!?" :eek:

Some schmuck created this thing on MSpaint. You agree to eat your word when proven wrong, right?

Immanuel

12-10-2007, 02:35 PM

Heres one of many. Entire article at:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Conclusion
The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is di sproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years

Agreed.

The fact that Bush's cuts have not worked (and it is claimed that they were not designed to work) may be affected by any number of variables including the War. Economics is not an exact science. They use models to explain what should happen under given situations. But, they cannot possibly predict the reaction of human beings to the stimulus provided by a tax cut every single time and it may be that they knew what the results of this cut would be by the targeted cuts they used.

Laffer didn't say, tax cuts never pay for themselves. He said they didn't this time around and that they were not designed to do so this time around. Was this another deceit of the Bush Administration?

But, just because it didn't work this time around doesn't mean it never does. If cutting prices didn't work to increase revenue, you would never see a sale at Macy's or any other retailer.

Immie

remie

12-10-2007, 02:35 PM

Wheres your link guys?

its the rules remember?

Some more recent data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Need some more? Google is full of them.

theHawk

12-10-2007, 02:43 PM

Your Hero Laffer has abondoned you guys.

Now he is also the enemy huh?

how funny is that one?

You've got to be the biggest moron on these boards for posting that.
Nowhere in the article does Laffer say his own theory isn't true. He in no way has "abondoned" fiscal conservatives.

And how did things work out? Laffer is convinced that the reduction of the top tax rate from 70% to 28% during the Reagan years paid for itself--in part by encouraging the rich to stop finagling--and the evidence mostly backs him up. "You find these enormous responses in the upper brackets," Laffer says. "These guys fire their lawyers and accountants and actually pay their taxes. Yay! Isn't that what we want them to do?"

Considering that the vast majority of taxes are paid by the upper class, the above quote is pretty damaging evidence that your opinion is flat out wrong.

The article itself doesn't even make a case. Its true tax cuts themselves don't increase revenues, a spurred economy boosted by lower taxes does.

Sitarro

12-10-2007, 02:43 PM

Laffer wasn't the first to say tax cuts increase growth which in turn also increases revenue....... President Kennedy appealed to Congress in 1961 to lower taxes for the same reason. Read this and get a little education libs....

http://www.nationalcenter.org/JFKTaxes1961.html

President Kennedy Appeals to the Congress for a Tax Cut
April 20, 1961

To the Congress of the United States:

A strong and sound Federal tax system is essential to America's future. Without such a system, we cannot maintain our defenses and give leadership to the free world. Without such a system, we cannot render the public services necessary for enriching the lives of our people and furthering the growth of our economy.

The tax system must be adequate to meet our public needs. It must meet them fairly, calling on each of us to contribute his proper share to the cost of government. It must encourage efficient use of our resources. It must promote economic stability and stimulate economic growth. Economic expansion in turn creates a growing tax base, thus increasing revenue and thereby enabling us to meet more readily our public needs, as well as our needs as private individuals.

This message recognizes the basic soundness of our tax structure. But it also recognizes the changing needs and standards of our economic and international position, and the constructive reform needs to keep our tax system up to date and to maintain its equity. Previous messages have emphasized the need for prompt Congressional and Executive ACTION to alleviate the deficit in our international balance of payments-to increase the modernization, productivity and competitive status of American industry-to stimulate the expansion and growth of our economy-to eliminate to the extent possible economic injustice within our own society-and to maintain the level of revenues requested in my predecessor's Budget. In each of these endeavors, tax policy has an important role to play and necessary tax changes are herein proposed.

The elimination of certain defects and inequities as proposed below will provide revenue gains to offset the tax reductions offered to stimulate the economy. Thus no net loss of revenue is involved in this set of proposals. I wish to emphasize here that they are a "set"-and that considerations of both revenue and equity, as well as the interrelationship of many of the proposals, urge their consideration as a unit.

I am instructing the Secretary of the Treasury to furnish the Committee on Ways and Means of the House a detailed explanation of these proposals in connection with their legislative consideration.

I. LONG-RANGE TAX REFORM

While it is essential that the Congress receive at this time this Administration's proposals for urgent and obvious tax adjustments needed to fulfill the aims listed above, time has not permitted the comprehensive review necessary for a tax structure which is so complicated and so critically important [p.291] to so many people. This message is but a first though urgent step along the road to constructive reform.

I am directing the Secretary of the Treasury, building on recent tax studies of the Congress, to undertake the research and preparation of a comprehensive tax reform program to be placed before the next session of the Congress.

Progressing from these studies, particularly those of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Joint Economic Committee, the program should be aimed at providing a broader and more uniform tax base, together with an appropriate rate structure. We can thereby work toward the goal of a higher rate of economic growth, a more equitable tax structure, and a simpler tax law. I know these objectives are shared by-and, at this particular time of year, acutely desired by-the vast majority of the American people.

In meeting the demands of war finance, the individual income tax moved from a selective tax imposed on the wealthy to the means by which the great majority of our citizens participates in paying for well over one-half of our total budget receipts. It is supplemented by the corporation income tax, which provides for another quarter of the total.

This emphasis on income taxation has been a sound development. But so many taxpayers have become so preoccupied with so many tax-saving devices that business decisions are interfered with, and the efficient functioning of the price system is distorted.

Moreover, special provisions have developed into an increasing source of preferential treatment to various groups. Whenever one taxpayer is permitted to pay less, someone else must be asked to pay more. The uniform distribution of the tax burden is thereby disturbed and higher rates are made necessary by the narrowing of the tax base. Of course, some departures from uniformity are needed to promote desirable social or economic objectives of overriding importance which can be achieved most effectively through the tax mechanism. But many of the preferences which have developed do not meet such a test and need to be reevaluated in our tax reform program.

It will be a major aim of our tax reform program to reverse this process, by broadening the tax base and reconsidering the rate structure. The result should be a tax system that is more equitable, more efficient and more conducive to economic growth.

II. TAX INCENTIVE FOR MODERNIZATION AND EXPANSION

The history of our economy has been one of rising productivity, based on improvement in skills, advances in technology, and a growing supply of more efficient tools and equipment. This rise has been reflected in rising wages and standards of living for our workers, as well as a healthy rate of growth for the economy as a whole. It has also been the foundation of our leadership in world markets, even as we enjoyed the highest wage rates in the world.

Today, as we face serious pressure on our balance of payments position, we must give special attention to the modernization of our plant and equipment. Forced to reconstruct after wartime devastation, our friends abroad now possess a modern industrial system helping to make them formidable competitors in world markets. If our own goods are to compete with foreign goods in price and quality, both at home and abroad, we shall need the most efficient plant and equipment.

At the same time, to meet the needs of a growing population and labor force, and [p.292] to achieve a rising per capita income and employment level, we need a high and rising level of both private and public capital formation. In my preceding messages, I have proposed programs to meet some of our needs for such capital formation in the public area, including investment in intangible capital such as education and research, as well as investment in physical capital such as buildings and highways. I am now proposing additional incentives for the modernization and expansion of private plant and equipment.

Inevitably, capital expansion and modernization-now frequently under the of automation-alter established modes of production. Great benefits result and are distributed widely-but some hardships result as well. This places heavy responsibilities on public policy, not to retard modernization and capital expansion but to promote growth and ameliorate hardships when they do occur-to maintain a high level of demand and employment, so that those who are displaced will be reabsorbed quickly into new positions-and to assist in retraining and finding new jobs for such displaced workers. We are developing, through such measures as the Area Redevelopment Bill and a strengthened Employment Service, as well as assistance to the unemployed, the programs designed to achieve these objectives.

High capital formation can be sustained only by a high and rising level of demand for goods and service. Indeed, the investment incentive itself can contribute materially to achieving the prosperous economy under which this incentive will make its maximum contribution to economic growth. Rather than delaying its adoption until all excess capacity has disappeared and unemployment is low, we should take this step now to strengthen our anti-recession program, stimulate employment and increase our export markets.

Additional expenditures on plant and equipment will immediately create more jobs in the construction, lumber, steel, cement, machinery and other related capital goods industries. The staffing of these new plants-and filling the orders for new export markets-will require additional employees. The additional wages of these workers will help create still more jobs in consumer goods and service industries. The increase in jobs resulting from a full year's operation of such an incentive is estimated at about half a million.

Specifically, therefore, I recommend enactment of an investment tax incentive in the form of a tax credit of:

-15% of all new plant and equipment investment expenditures in excess of current depreciation allowances

-6% of such expenditures below this level but in excess of 50% of depreciation allowances; with

-10% on the first $5,000 of new investment as a minimum credit

This credit would be taken as an offset against the firm's tax liability, up to an overall limitation of 30% in the reduction of that liability in any one year. It would be separate from and in addition to depreciation of the eligible new investment at cost. It would be available to individually owned businesses a an overa1Ê"> well as corporate enterprises, and apply to eligible investment expenditures made after January 1 of this year. To remain a real incentive and make a maximum contribution to those areas of capital expansion and modernization where it is most needed, and to permit efficient administration, eligible investment expenditures would be limited to expenditures on new plant and equipment, on assets located in .the United States, and on assets with a life of [p.293] six years or more. Investments by public utilities other than transportation would be excluded, as would be investment in residential construction including apartments and hotels. Of the eligible firms, it is expected that many small firms would be able to take advantage of the minimum credit of 10% on the first $5000 of new investment which is designed to provide a helpful stimulus to the many small businesses in need of modernization. Other small firms, subject to a 30% tax rate, would strive to be eligible for the full 15% credit-the equivalent for such firms of a deduction from their gross income for tax purposes of 50% of the cost of new investment. Among the remaining firms, it is expected that a majority would be induced to make new investments in modern plant and equipment in excess of their depreciation in order to earn the 15% credit. New and growing firms would be particularly benefited. The 6% credit for those whose new investment expenditures fall between 50% and 100% of their depreciation allowances is designed to afford some substantial incentive to the depressed or hesitant firm which knows it cannot yet achieve the 15% credit. In arriving at this form of tax encouragement to investment, careful consideration was given to other alternatives. If the credit were given across-the-board to all new investment, a much larger revenue loss would result from those expenditures which would have been undertaken anyway or represent no new level of effort. Our objective is to provide the largest possible inducement to new investment which would not otherwise be undertaken. Thus the plan recommended above would involve the same revenue loss-approximately $1.7 billion-as only a 7 percent credit across-the-board to all new investment. The use of current depreciation allowances as the threshold above which the higher rate of credit would apply recommends itself for a number of reasons. Depreciation reflects the average level of investment over the past, but is a less restrictive and more stable test than the use of an average of investment expenditures for a period such as the preceding five years. In addition, the depreciation allowances themselves in effect supply tax-free funds for investment up to this level. We now propose a tax credit-which would help to secure funds needed for the additional investment beyond that level. The proposed credit, in terms of the revenue loss involved, will also be much more effective as an inducement to investment than an outright reduction in the rate of corporation income tax. Its benefits would be distributed more broadly, since the proposed credit will apply to individuals and partnerships as well as corporations. It will also be more effective as a direct incentive to corporate investment, and increase available funds more specifically in those corporations most likely to use them for additional investment. In short, whereas the credit will have the advantage of focusing on the profitability of new investment, much of the revenue loss under a general corporate rate reduction would be diverted into raising the profitability of old investment. It is true that this advantage of focusing entirely on new investment is shared by the alternative strongly urged by some-a tax change permitting more rapid depreciation of new assets (be it accelerated depreciation or an additional depreciation allowance for the first year). But the proposed investment credit would be superior, in my view, for a number of reasons. In the first place, the determination of the length of an asset's life and proper methods of depreciation have a normal and important function in determining [p.294] taxable income, wholly apart from any considerations of incentive; and they should not be altered or manipulated for other purposes that would interfere with this function. It may be that on examination some of the existing depreciation rules will be found to be outmoded and inequitable; but that is a question that should be separated from investment incentives. A review of these rules and methods is underway in the Treasury Department as a part of its overall tax reform study to determine whether changes are appropriate and, if so, what form they should take. Adoption of the proposed incentive credit would in no way foreclose later action on these aspects of depreciation. In the second place, an increase in tax depreciation tends to be recorded in the firm's accounts, thereby raising current costs and acting as a deterrent to price reduction. The proposed investment credit would not share this defect. Finally, it is clear that the tax credit would be more effective in inducing new investment for the same revenue loss. The entire credit would be reflected immediately in the increased funds available for investment without increasing the company's future tax liability. A speed-up in depreciation only postpones the timing of the tax liability on profits from the investment to a later date-an increase in profitability not comparable to that of an outright tax credit. Yet accelerated depreciation is much more costly in immediate revenues. For example, on an average investment, a tax credit of 15% would bring the same return to the firm as an additional first year depreciation of over 50% of the cost of the investment. Yet the immediate revenue loss to the Treasury from such additional depreciation would be twice as much, and would remain considerably higher for many years. The incentive to new investment our economy needs, and which this recommendation would provide at a revenue loss of $ 1.7 billion, could be supplied by an initial write-off only at an immediate cost of $3.4 billion. I believe this investment tax credit will become a useful and continuous part of our tax structure. But it will be a new venture and remain in need of review. Moreover, it may prove desirable for the Congress to modify the credit from time to time, so as to adapt it to the needs of a changing economy. I strongly urge its adoption in this session.

Goes on, refer to link.

remie

12-10-2007, 02:44 PM

Immy did they post a link to those charts yet so we can see who generated them?

This one I particuralary like. Its full of links you can follow. It even gives information on how Clintons tax rate increase decreased revenues.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200601270946.asp

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 02:44 PM

Heres one of many. Entire article at:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Conclusion
The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is di sproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years

Very good!

now face the facts that it only works when taxes are excessive.

This is due to the entities not avoiding the taxes.

This is just what Laffer says and he also says that it does not work like the Republicans try to say. It works in an isolated incident of exsessive taxes. It does not work now or will it in the future if they are not excessively taxed.

What this proves is they are not now excessively taxed and have not been since the early 80s so WTF are we still cutting thier taxes?

GET IT!

Sitarro

12-10-2007, 02:47 PM

When tax free weekend happens each year, stores are inundated with buyers..... why would that be? Why would the stores love this if they weren't bringing in more revenue?

Immanuel

12-10-2007, 02:49 PM

Very good!

now face the facts that it only works when taxes are excessive.

In other words, in your opinion it never works, because you don't believe that taxes can be excessive even at 100% :poke:

Immie

remie

12-10-2007, 02:51 PM

Very good!

now face the facts that it only works when taxes are excessive.

This is due to the entities not avoiding the taxes.

This is just what Laffer says and he also says that it does not work like the Republicans try to say. It works in an isolated incident of exsessive taxes. It does not work now or will it in the future if they are not excessively taxed.

What this proves is they are not now excessively taxed and have not been since the early 80s so WTF are we still cutting thier taxes?

GET IT!

Read the whole article or for that matter the other articles I linked. You cant avoid the facts surrounding tax cuts be the capital gains reductions or income rate reductions. Do you get it yet?

JohnDoe

12-10-2007, 02:51 PM

remie

12-10-2007, 02:52 PM

In other words, in your opinion it never works, because you don't believe that taxes can be excessive even at 100% :poke:

Immie

That I get.

Sitarro

12-10-2007, 02:52 PM

Very good!

now face the facts that it only works when taxes are excessive.

This is due to the entities not avoiding the taxes.

This is just what Laffer says and he also says that it does not work like the Republicans try to say. It works in an isolated incident of exsessive taxes. It does not work now or will it in the future if they are not excessively taxed.

What this proves is they are not now excessively taxed and have not been since the early 80s so WTF are we still cutting thier taxes?

GET IT!

You really aren't terribly bright are you? Blond? You are the perfect Democrat...... not much of a thinker, can't think at all for yourself, believe in Santa Claus-the Easter Bunny and unions, and believe that taxing the productive to help the nonproductive is the moral thing to do....... under your ideas, this country would be gone within 6 months.

glockmail

12-10-2007, 02:54 PM

Very good!

now face the facts that it only works when taxes are excessive.

This is due to the entities not avoiding the taxes.

This is just what Laffer says and he also says that it does not work like the Republicans try to say. It works in an isolated incident of exsessive taxes. It does not work now or will it in the future if they are not excessively taxed.

What this proves is they are not now excessively taxed and have not been since the early 80s so WTF are we still cutting thier taxes?

GET IT!

Actually what Laffer said was the the Reagantax cuts worked. The Time-CNN Opinion Writer's opinion is now what you are referring to. We all know where his obligations lie.

Pale Rider

12-10-2007, 02:59 PM

Once again I do this... :bang3:... for even ATTEMPTING at reasoning with liesmatter.

My God this woman is dense. I wonder if she's under constant supervision? She needs it.

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 03:01 PM

Read Laffers quotes which the article is full of.

You can avoid them all you want but they will not go away.

Laffer knows that any gain in revenues by reducing taxes is way behind us.

Do you think any of the Republican candidates will admit the truth of that fact?

Immanuel

12-10-2007, 03:03 PM

Actually what Laffer said was the the Reagantax cuts worked. The Time-CNN Opinion Writer's opinion is now what you are referring to. We all know where his obligations lie.

Reagan's tax cuts for the rich work but the article states that the cuts for the "nonrich" were big money losers. Hmm, question is who pays/paid the vast majority of taxes? Where is the cutoff in the example? Where do the middle class fall in that example? The poor pay almost no taxes at all while the ultra rich pay most of the taxes.

So, the question I would like to know is (and I am sure if I took the time to read all the links or google it myself I could find out) what was the overall effect of the Reagan Tax Cuts, positive influx of revenue to the government or negative?

Immie

glockmail

12-10-2007, 03:07 PM

Reagan's tax cuts for the rich work but the article states that the cuts for the "nonrich" were big money losers. Hmm, question is who pays/paid the vast majority of taxes? Where is the cutoff in the example? Where do the middle class fall in that example? The poor pay almost no taxes at all while the ultra rich pay most of the taxes.

So, the question I would like to know is (and I am sure if I took the time to read all the links or google it myself I could find out) what was the overall effect of the Reagan Tax Cuts, positive influx of revenue to the government or negative?

Immie I just look at the bottome line. It's not important where cutoffs are or which group paid less. That kind of micro-management is stupid.

Immanuel

12-10-2007, 03:12 PM

I just look at the bottome line. It's not important where cutoffs are or which group paid less. That kind of micro-management is stupid.

Which is basically what I meant none of this "rich" vs "nonrich" in the article makes a darned bit of difference, what was the bottom line change that was important.

But, when TM claims it only worked for the "rich" well, since the rich pay such a larger part of the tax basis in the first place, a little improvement on the rich side takes care of a heck of a lot of losses on the "poor" side.

Immie

remie

12-10-2007, 03:12 PM

Reagan's tax cuts for the rich work but the article states that the cuts for the "nonrich" were big money losers. Hmm, question is who pays/paid the vast majority of taxes? Where is the cutoff in the example? Where do the middle class fall in that example? The poor pay almost no taxes at all while the ultra rich pay most of the taxes.

So, the question I would like to know is (and I am sure if I took the time to read all the links or google it myself I could find out) what was the overall effect of the Reagan Tax Cuts, positive influx of revenue to the government or negative?

Immie

Im not going to find the numbers again but the information is in one of the article I cited. The bottom line as I see it is that the very sector that provides the bulk of government revenue, provides an even greater percentage when taxes are cut because they put their money in play opening new businesses and adds to the labor market by providing jobs. Even TM should go for that.

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 03:14 PM

http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/taxcuts.html

The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.

theHawk

12-10-2007, 03:18 PM

Immanuel

12-10-2007, 03:23 PM

You know what is funny?

The title of the article is "Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues", but that is not what Laffer said at all. Funny how the title of an article can lead one away from what the article and its sources really say, isn't it?

Immie

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 03:29 PM

And how did things work out? Laffer is convinced that the reduction of the top tax rate from 70% to 28% during the Reagan years paid for itself--in part by encouraging the rich to stop finagling--and the evidence mostly backs him up. "You find these enormous responses in the upper brackets," Laffer says. "These guys fire their lawyers and accountants and actually pay their taxes. Yay! Isn't that what we want them to do?"

I did NOT ignore it . I posted it myself if you go back ot page one and look.

This has been discussed already and it is the one time that they worked and ONLY because the entities stopped AVOIDING paying their taxes.

This effect is over and he agrees with it and says the laffer curve is no longer a reason to reduce taxes.

Funny you ignored that part.

Sitarro

12-10-2007, 03:36 PM

Hagbard Celine

12-10-2007, 03:39 PM

Why have you ignored my post that showed Democrat God, President Kennedy, advocated lower taxes?

Because it's against her religion. Why do you think JFK was assassinated? It says right here in the "LIB HANDBOOK," Chapter four, verse 11, "Taxes should do nothing but rise. They are the lifeblood of the mother government. Any other viewpoint on this subject shall not be tolerated and is punishable by death." So you see? She can't acknowledge your heresy, otherwise someone from the CAS (Clinton Assassination Squad) would be knocking on her door tonight.

Immanuel

12-10-2007, 03:41 PM

This effect is over and he agrees with it and says the laffer curve is no longer a reason to reduce taxes.

He does not say that. He says the curve should not be the reason to raise or lower taxes as in it never was the reason to adjust tax policies, not like it ever was.

Tax policy should be adjusted to effect a change in tax revenue either up or down depending on the needs of the country. The reason to lower taxes is to effect an increase in tax revenue by stimulating growth. This is one philosophical viewpoint. Another viewpoint would be to raise taxes in order to increase revenue because people are not going to change their lives and will still pay taxes just like when gas prices go up, people are still going to buy gas.

The Laffer Curve is only a demonstration of how things work much like the charts showing the basic economic principles of Supply and Demand.

Immie

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 03:43 PM

Why have you ignored my post that showed Democrat God, President Kennedy, advocated lower taxes?

Why would you think I am against lowering taxes?

What I am against is lowering taxes and increasing spending.

That is what the R party has done for the last thirty years when give the chance.

theHawk

12-10-2007, 03:57 PM

This effect is over and he agrees with it and says the laffer curve is no longer a reason to reduce taxes.

Funny you ignored that part.

Its not about people avoiding paying taxes. People are less inclined to be productive and put themselves in the next bracket if they get taxed so much that their take home pay would be just a few bucks more. Its about people avoiding higher income brackets because they feel its just not worth making more income when the vast majority of it will just be taxed away.

theHawk

12-10-2007, 03:58 PM

Why would you think I am against lowering taxes?

What I am against is lowering taxes and increasing spending.

That is what the R party has done for the last thirty years when give the chance.

Well thats the most sensible thing you've said.

The R party has been spending too much because they're too liberal and refuse to cut the big government spending machines like Social Security and welfare.

Hagbard Celine

12-10-2007, 04:02 PM

Its not about people avoiding paying taxes. People are less inclined to be productive and put themselves in the next bracket if they get taxed so much that their take home pay would be just a few bucks more. Its about people avoiding higher income brackets because they feel its just not worth making more income when the vast majority of it will just be taxed away.

In other words you believe that the majority of Americans are basically the Dude from "The Big Lebowski." Nice hawk. Glad to know you think so highly of your fellow Americans. The reality is nobody except CPAs thinks about taxes more than once per year when they turn them in. The whole "incentive" argument is old and tired. It's the same as the argument for the death penalty. Supposedly it's this huge deterrent, yet thousands of violent crimes are still committed in the US and around the world every year. People are going to work hard to be rich and have nice things or they aren't. If tax "incentives" worked, everybody would be middle or upper class. And yet, we still have a huge poor population.

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 04:40 PM

manu1959

12-10-2007, 04:45 PM

how about the clinton tax cut.......google that

OCA

12-10-2007, 04:46 PM

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 04:50 PM

http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/taxcuts.html

EFFECT OF REAGAN TAX CUT ON REVENUES - SHORT ANALYSIS
The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.

Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up only 91.3 percent during the 80's. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which is directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. Hence, the claim that the doubling of TOTAL revenues proves the effectiveness of tax cuts is including revenues which resulted from a tax hike to prove the effectiveness of a tax cut. This seems like the height of hypocrisy.

Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them.

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 04:53 PM

how about the clinton tax cut.......google that

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

OCA

12-10-2007, 05:03 PM

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record
by William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore

William A. Niskanen is chairman and Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.

Bob Dole's proposal for a 15 percent income tax cut has reignited the long-standing debate about the economic impact of Reaganomics in the 1980s. This study assesses the Reagan supply-side policies by comparing the nation's economic performance in the Reagan years (1981-89) with its performance in the immediately preceding Ford-Carter years (1974-81) and in the Bush-Clinton years that followed (1989-95).

On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

This study also exposes 12 fables of Reaganomics, such as that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, the Reagan tax cuts caused the deficit to explode, and Bill Clinton's economic record has been better than Reagan's.

Introduction

Bob Dole's call for a 15 percent across-the-board income tax cut has provoked yet another fierce debate about the Reagan economic record. Because Dole's tax plan is at least partly modeled after Reagan's tax cuts of 1981, the Reagan record has recently been put squarely back on trial. [1]

Judging from the partisan political discourse in Washington, there is virtually no agreement about what that record tells us. Republicans describe the 1980s as an era of prosperity--a decade when America reasserted its economic and military might. Democrats, on the other hand, portray the Reagan presidency as a period of record budget deficits, economic decline, and widening income gaps between rich and poor. Senator Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) recently described the 1980s as a decade of "discredited supply side economics." President Clinton recently warned that, like the Reagan tax cuts, the Dole tax cut would "balloon the deficit, raise interest rates, and weaken the economy." [2]

Often partisanship and ideology prevent a dispassionate assessment of the Reagan years. The political left has adopted the convention of arguing that the beneficial economic changes in the 1980s--the conquering of inflation, the surge in employment, and the sustained economic expansion--had little to do with Reagan's policies, whereas any negative change--the explosion in the budget deficit, the savings and loan crisis, and so forth--was a direct consequence of the failed theology of Reaganomics. [3] Meanwhile, the right argues that only the triumphs of Reagan's record deserve much attention, and that any blemishes--again the big budget deficits--were inconsequential or the fault of the Democrats in Congress. [4]

This study attempts to cut through the fog created by this partisan dialogue and spotlight the real economic record of the 1980s--sticking to "just the facts." All the figures provided in this study come from standard statistical sources: Bureau of the Census, the Economic Report of the President, and Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government. To judge how well the economy performed under Reagan's policies, we compare the economic performance of the Reagan years (1981-89) with that of the immediate pre-Reagan years (1974-81) and the post-Reagan years (1989-95).

In the last part of the study we provide some interpretation of these economic and fiscal data and sort out fact from fable regarding the 1980s. We also examine the implications of the economic data as they relate to the advisability of an income tax rate cut in 1997.

The Era of Reaganomics

In 1981 Ronald Reagan entered the White House and immediately implemented a dramatic new economic policy agenda for the country that was dubbed "Reaganomics." [5]Reaganomics consisted of four key elements to reverse the high-inflation, slow-growth economic record of the 1970s: (1) a restrictive monetary policy designed to stabilize the value of the dollar and end runaway inflation; (2) a 25 percent across-the-board tax cut enacted (The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) designed to spur savings, investment, work, and economic efficiency; (3) a promise to balance the budget through domestic spending restraint; and (4) an agenda to roll back government regulation.

Clearly, some of those goals were accomplished; others were not. The most objective way to assess whether the policies were a success is to examine the economic evidence for the Reagan years once the policies were implemented.

A Model for Assessing the Reagan Record

There is some disagreement about what date should be used to measure the economic starting point of the Reagan era. A common ploy of Reagan's critics is to measure the economy's performance from 1979 to 1989 and falsely describe the record over this period as "the Reagan years." For example, in 1991 the Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee of Congress released a report entitled "Falling Behind: The Growing Income Gap in America," which purportedly proves that the victims of Reaganomics were the least affluent Americans. The report concluded that "families in the lowest forty percent of the income distribution actually had lower real incomes on average in 1989 than they did in 1979." Upon closer inspection, however, what the income data really show is that when Jimmy Carter's economic policies were in effect, family incomes plummeted by 9 percent, but that after Reagan's economic policies took effect (1982-89), family incomes rose by 11 percent. In the Joint Economic Committee report, Reaganomics is blamed for the poor performance of the economy under Carter. Ronald Reagan had many seemingly magical qualities, but his policies were never able to influence the economic direction of the nation at least two years before they took effect. Some of Reagan's supporters, on the other hand, define the Reagan years as only the seven years of economic expansion, 1983-89, while conveniently omitting the recession years of 1981 and 1982. [6]

There are two defensible methods of measuring the performance of the economy on Reagan's watch. One method is to examine the economic record from the month Reagan formally took office, January 1981, through the month he left the White House, January 1989.

An alternative approach is to allow a one-year lag for the policy changes to be enacted and take effect on the economy. Reagan's tax cuts were not even passed by Congress until midsummer of 1981 and did not begin to take effect until October 1, 1981. His first budget proposal was for fiscal year 1982. Hence, if we define the beginning of the Reagan years as the first full year when the policies were in effect, the eight years in which Reagan's policies were in effect were 1982-89. This latter approach seems to provide a more accurate gauge of the economy's reaction to the change in policies Reagan enacted in 1981, and for this reason we adopt this as the standard for analysis in this study--that is, we measure the economic effects of Reagan policies beginning with January 1982 and using 1981 as the base year of comparison. (This still picks up the deep recession of the early 1980s.) For those who are unsatisfied with this method of measuring the Reagan record, in Table 1 we present the data both ways: first, from the month Reagan entered office through the month he left office, and second, with a one-year lag to adjust for the timing of the policy changes. The results do not differ substantially regardless of which dates are used.

Just as controversial is the issue of when the Reagan era ended. Again, Reagan's political foes often describe the entire 12 years of the Reagan and Bush administrations as the "Reagan years." [7]At first blush this seems logical: two Republican administrations in succession would normally suggest a continuation of policy from one to the other. Yet the real and dramatic shift in economic policy in Washington occurred not in 1993, with the start of the Clinton administration, but rather in 1990, with George Bush's repudiation of his "no new taxes" pledge that led to both the enactment of a large anti-supply-side tax increase and a flurry of legislation--from the Clean Air Act amendments, to the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to the Americans with Disabilities Act--that began the reregulation of America in the 1990s. [8] Indeed, the Clinton economic program in most respects has been closest to that of George Bush, particularly with respect to the direction of fiscal policy.

In sum, we delineate two years as marking turning points in economic policy in the United States: 1981 and 1990. Because these two years represent dramatic policy shifts, they provide a convenient and unique laboratory-like testing ground for assessing the success or failure of Reaganomics. In this study we compare the economic performance in the pre-Reagan years (1974-81), the Reagan years (1981-89), and the post-Reagan years (1989-95). [9]

For fiscal variables examined at the end of this report, there is much less controversy over the start and the end of the Reagan presidency. Reagan's first budget was for fiscal 1982 (not 1981), and his last budget was for fiscal 1989. [10]

The Real Reagan Economic Record

Table 1 contrasts side by side the economy's performance for the three periods of analysis--1974-81, 1981-89, and 1989-95--for 10 key variables. We measure the change in each economic variable from the start of the period through the end and present the annualized change. [11] On 8 of the 10 key variables, the Reagan record unambiguously outperformed the records of the pre- and post-Reagan years. The two exceptions were the savings rate, which declined in the Reagan years at a faster rate than in the pre- and post-Reagan years, and productivity, which grew faster in the pre-Reagan years but slower in the post-Reagan years. [12] The following is a summary for each of the 10 variables:

Economic Growth. The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2 percent growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s, which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economic expansion alone, the economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was when they began. [13] Figure 1 shows the economic growth rate by president since World War II. That rate was higher in the 1980s than in the 1950s and 1970s but was substantially lower than the rapid economic growth rate of more than 4 percent per year in the 1960s. The Kennedy income tax rate cuts of 30 percent that were enacted in 1964 generated several years of 5 percent annual real growth.

Economic Growth per Working-Age Adult. When we adjust the economic growth rates to take account of demographic changes, we find that the expansion in the Reagan years looks even better and that the 1970s' performance looks worse. GDP growth per adult aged 20-64 in the Reagan years grew twice as rapidly, on average, as it did in the pre- and post-Reagan years.

Median Household Incomes. Real median household income rose by $4,000 in the Reagan years--from $37,868 in 1981 to $42,049 in 1989, as shown in Figure 2. This improvement was a stark reversal of the income trends in the late 1970s and the 1990s: median family income was unchanged in the eight pre-Reagan years, and incomes have fallen by $1,438 in the anti-supply-side 1990s, following the 1990 and 1993 tax hikes. [14] Most of the declines in take-home pay occurred on George Bush's watch. Under Bill Clinton's tenure, there has been zero income growth in median household income.

Employment. From 1981 through 1989 the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs, or roughly 2 million new jobs each year. Contrary to the Clinton administration's claims of vast job gains in the 1990s, the United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs per year in the post-Reagan years. The labor force United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs expanded by 1.7 percent per year between 1981 and 1989, but by just 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 1995. [15]

Hours Worked. Table 1 confirms that hours worked per adult aged 20-64 grew much faster in the 1980s than in the pre -or post-Reagan years.

Unemployment Rate. When Reagan took office in 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. In the recession of 1981-82, that rate peaked at 9.7 percent, but it fell continuously for the next seven years. When Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.5 percent. This reduction in joblessness was a clear triumph of the Reagan program. Figure 3 shows that in the pre-Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended upward; in the Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended downward; and in the post-Reagan years, the unemployment rate has fluctuated up and down but today remains virtually unchanged from the 1989 rate.

Productivity. For real wages to rise, productivity must rise. Over the past 30 years there has been a secular downward trend in U.S. productivity growth. Under Reagan, productivity grew at a 1.5 percent annual rate, as shown in Figure 4. This was lower than in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s but much higher than in the post-Reagan years. Under Clinton, productivity has increased at an annual rate of just 0.3 percent per year--the worst presidential performance since that of Herbert Hoover.

Inflation. The central economic evil that Ronald Reagan inherited in 1981 from Jimmy Carter was three years of double-digit inflation. In 1980 the consumer price index (CPI) rose to 13.5 percent. By Reagan's second year in office, the inflation rate fell by more than half to 6.2 percent. In 1988, Reagan's last year in office, the CPI had fallen to 4.1 percent. Figure 5 shows the inflation and interest rate trend.

Interest Rates. In 1980 the interest rate on a 30-year mortgage was 15 percent; this rate rose to its all-time peak of 18.9 percent in 1981. The prime rate steadily fell over the subsequent six years to a low of 8.2 percent in 1987 as the inflationary expectation component of interest rates fell sharply. The prime rate hit its 20-year low in 1993 at 6.0 percent. The Treasury Bill rate also fell dramatically in the 1980s--from 14 percent in 1981 to 7 percent in 1988. In the 1990s, interest rates have continued to migrate gradually downward, as shown in Figure 5.

Savings. The savings rate did not rise in the 1980s, as supply-side advocates had predicted. In fact, in the 1980s the personal savings rate fell from 8 percent to 6.5 percent. [16]In the 1990s the average savings rate has fallen even further to an average of 4.9 percent [17]--although the rate of decline has slowed.
The decline in the personal savings rate in the 1980s was disappointing, but two factors mitigate the implications of these statistics. First, the drop in the savings rate was partly a natural response to demographic changes in America--namely, the baby boomers entering their peak spending years. Second, the savings rate data fail to account for real gains in wealth, which clearly are an important form of savings. The real value of capital assets and property doubled from 1980 to 1990. The Dow Jones Industrial Average nearly tripled from a low of 884 in 1982 to 2,509 in 1989. These increases in the value of stocks, bonds, homes, businesses, and so forth added to Americans' balance sheets hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth that are not accounted for in the savings rate statistics. [18]

Table 1
The Real Reagan Economic Record
Start of Presidency to End of Presidency One-Year Policy Lag
Pre-Reagan Reagan Post-Reagan Pre-Reagan Reagan Post-Reagan
1973-80 1980-88 1988-95 1974-81 1981-89 1989-95
Annual Percentage Change
Real GDP (chained 1992 dollars) 2.4 3.1 2.0 2.8 3.2 2.1
Real GDP (chained 1992 dollars),per member of the adult working-age population* 0.5 1.7 1.1 0.9 1.9 0.8
Real median family income 0.0 0.8 -0.3 0.0 1.4 -0.6
Total civilian employment, per member of the adultworking-age population* 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.1
Total hours worked, business sector, per member of the adult working-age population* -0.5 0.5 0.2 -0.5 0.8 0.0
Productivity (business sector output per hour) 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.6 1.3 1.1
Annual Percentage Point Change
Unemployment rate 0.3 -0.2 0.0 0.2 -0.3 0.0
Inflation rate (change in GDP chain-type price index) 0.4 -0.8 -0.2 -0.2 -0.5 -0.3
Long-term interest rate (corporate bonds, Moodys Aaa) 0.6 -0.3 -0.3 0.8 -0.6 -0.3
Personal savings rate -0.2 -0.4 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -0.1

Source: Cato Institute calculations, based on data from Economic Report of the President, 1996; and Department of Commerce.
*Figures were divided by the working-age adult population (defined as those aged 20-64).

The Reagan Fiscal Record

The fiscal record of the 1980s was much less impressive than the economic record. The major outcomes of Reagan's budgetary policies, as well as of the pre- and post-Reagan budgetary policies, are summarized in Table 2. Highlights are as follows:

Budget Deficit. The budget deficit exploded in the 1980s. Figure 6 shows that in 1981, the budget deficit was $101 billion (in 1987 dollars) and 2.7 percent of GDP. In 1983 it peaked at $236 billion and 6.3 percent of GDP. By the time Reagan left office in 1989, however, it had fallen to $141 billion and 2.9 percent of GDP. These deficits were higher in real dollars than those under any other post-World War II president except for George Bush.

National Debt. The national debt (public debt) in real 1987 dollars doubled from $1,004 billion in 1981 to $2,028 billion in 1989. As a share of GDP, the debt increased from 27 percent to 42 percent, as shown in Figure 7. In the 1990s the debt has risen to 52 percent of GDP. The rise in the national debt in the 1980s was large and has imposed significant repayment costs on future generations.

Total Revenue Growth. Nominal federal revenues dou-bled in the 1980s from $517 billion to $1.031 trillion. From 1981 to 1989 real federal revenues climbed by 20 percent. As a share of GDP, however, federal tax revenues fell by 1.0 percentage point during that period.

Income Tax Receipts. Even income tax revenues grew substantially in the 1980s. In 1981 income tax receipts totaled $347 billion; in 1989 they totaled $549 billion, a 58 percent increase. In fact, income tax collections grew only slightly slower in the 1980s than in the 1990s despite income tax rate reductions in the Reagan years and increases in the Bush-Clinton years. Real income tax revenues rose by 16.3 percent from 1982 to 1989 after the top income tax rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1983, and then to 28 percent in 1986. According to the latest (August 1996) Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast, real income tax revenues will have grown by 17.9 percent from 1990 to 1997, following the raising of the top income tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent in 1990 and then to 39.6 percent in 1993. [19] On a purely static basis, the 1990 tax increase raised $380 billion less in income tax revenues from 1991 to 1995 than had been predicted. [20]

Federal Spending. The federal budget was not cut under Reagan. In fact, it was 69 percent larger when Reagan left office than when he entered it--22 percent larger in real terms. As a share of GDP, federal outlays declined by less than 1 percentage point. [21]

Defense Spending. From 1981 to 1989, the Pentagon budget doubled from $158 billion to $304 billion. The years of the greatest spending hike in the military budget were 1978-87, when the Pentagon's expenditures rose from $180 billion to $280 billion in real 1987 dollars.[22]

Domestic Spending. Overall domestic spending growth was relatively constrained during the Reagan presidency, particularly compared with that of other presidencies, as shown in Table 3. In fact, domestic spending grew at a slower real rate under Reagan than under all other recent presidents. Moreover, domestic outlays as a share of GDP fell from 15.3 to 12.9 percent from 1981 to 1989 (Table 2). But the reductions in domestic spending were substantially smaller than required to balance the federal budget, cut taxes, and finance a military build-up.

Table 2
Budget Trends before, during, and after the Reagan Years
Percentage Change
Pre-Reagan Reagan Post-Reagan
FY1973 FY1981 FY1989 FY1996 1973-81 1981-89 1989-96
Billions of 1987 Dollars
Total outlays 620.3 867.7 1,057.2 1,170.5 39.9 21.8 10.7
Defense 197.2 198.2 285.9 197.0 0.5 44.2 -31.1
Domestic 380.0 581.1 615.0 790.0 52.9 5.8 28.5
Interest 43.1 88.4 156.3 183.5 105.1 76.8 17.4
Receipts 582.7 766.6 916.2 1,062.1 31.6 19.5 15.9
Individual income tax revenue 260.7 365.8 412.2 469.6 40.3 12.7 13.9
Deficit 37.6 101.0 141.0 108.4 168.6 39.6 -23.1
Debt held by the public 860.7 1,004.7 2,025.2 2,805.4 16.7 101.6 38.5
GDP (chain-weighted 1992 $)* 3,902.3 4,724.9 6,060.4 6,742.9 21.1 28.3 11.3
Percentage of GDP
Total outlays 19.3 22.9 22.1 21.4 3.6 -0.8 -0.7
Defense 6.0 5.3 5.9 3.6 -0.7 0.6 -2.3
Domestic 11.9 15.3 12.9 14.5 3.4 -2.4 1.6
Interest 1.4 2.3 3.3 3.3 0.9 1.0 0.0
Receipts 18.1 20.2 19.2 19.4 2.1 -1.0 0.2
Individual income tax revenue 8.1 9.6 8.6 8.6 1.5 -1.0 0.0
Deficit 1.2 2.7 2.9 2.0 1.5 0.2 -0.9
Debt held by the public 26.8 26.5 42.3 51.4 -0.3 15.8 9.1

Table 3
Growth of Domestic Spending, by President
Annual Percentage
Annual Increase in Billions President Increase
of 1995 dollars
Truman 5.5 5
Eisenhower 7.5 12
Kennedy/Johnson 8.0 21
Nixon/Ford 8.5 42
Carter 3.5 34
Reagan 1.0 17
Bush 4.5* 29
Clinton 3.0* 23

Source: Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1996.

*Includes nondefense spending in the defense budget.

The 1980s: Facts versus Fables

In this section we depart from the purely factual presentation of the economic and fiscal performance of the 1980s presented above and interpret what these data say about the Reagan years. We find in many cases that the historical evidence contradicts much of the most commonly cited conventional wisdom of the Reagan years. Specifically, there are 12 common fables about the 1980s that are at odds with the facts.

Fable 1: The Reagan Administration Relied on "Pie-in-the-Sky" Predictions That Tax Rate Cuts Would Pay for Themselves

Supply-siders predicted their tax cuts would pay for themselves. This was nonsense from day one, because the credible evidence overwhelmingly indicates that revenue feedbacks from tax cuts is 35 cents per dollar, at most. Are we really gullible enough to accept a free dinner while still suffering the indigestion from our "free" lunch? [23]

This is one of the great enduring myths of Reaganomics: that the White House relied on wild supply-side assumptions regarding the revenue impact of the tax cuts. The Reagan administration never assumed that the tax cuts would pay for themselves. In fact, "America's New Beginning: A Program for Economic Recovery," the White House budget plan released on February 18, 1981, included a table entitled "Direct Revenue Effects of Proposed Tax Reductions." [24] That table predicted a huge $700 billion revenue loss from the tax cuts through 1986, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4
Reagan Administration's Scoring of the 1981 Tax Cut--Revenue Impact, in Billions of Dollars
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1981-86
-8.8 -53.9 -100.0 -148.1 -185.7 -221.7 -718.2

Source: Office of the President, "America's New Beginning: A Program for Economic Recovery," February 18, 1981, p. 16.

Fable 2: The Reagan Tax Cuts "Caused" the Budget Deficit to Explode in the 1980s

Fifteen years ago, marginal tax rates and the progressivity of the tax system were dramatically reduced. Some suggested that these policies would so spur economic growth that tax revenue would actually increase. The outcome of that experiment is now a matter of record: not only did this response not occur, but the national debt quadrupled in the span of a dozen years. [25]

This is the most common and overly simplistic interpretation of the budgetary events of the 1980s. Further, it is factually untrue that the Reagan tax cuts were a major cause of the budget deficits of the 1980s and the "quadrupling" of the debt. (In the 1980s the real debt doubled; it did not quadruple.) Real federal revenues grew at a faster pace after the Reagan tax cuts than after the Bush and Clinton tax hikes. From 1982 to 1989, they expanded by 24.1 percent. Over a comparable seven-year period, 1990-97, a period that accounts for both the Bush and the Clinton tax increases, real federal revenues will have grown by 19.3 percent (see Table 5). The lesson of the 1980s and 1990s is consistent with the supply-side theory that there are behavioral and investment responses to changes in tax rates.

Figure 8 shows that, as a share of GDP, federal revenues fell from 20.2 percent in 1981 (the peak year for taxes as a share of GDP in the post-World War II period) to a low of 18.0 percent of GDP in 1984, and rose back up to 19.2 percent by 1989. This would suggest that the Reagan tax cuts were a small contributing factor to the increase in the budget deficit over the course of the 1980s. From 1950 to 1995, federal receipts have averaged 18.4 percent of GDP. Hence, throughout most of the Reagan years and clearly by the end, taxes as a share of national output were substantially above the postwar average.

If the Reagan tax cut was not the major contributing factor to the increasing deficit in the 1980s, what was? There were two primary explanations: (1) a large and sustained defense build-up; and (2) the unexpected rapid decline in inflation and the recession in the early 1980s.

The Defense Buildup and the Deficit. Table 6 shows that the cumulative increase in defense spending from 1981 to 1989 ($806 billion) was larger than the entire cumulative increase in the budget deficit ($779 billion) in those years. That is, if defense spending had been held to the rate of inflation from 1981 to 1989, the total real deficit would have fallen in the 1980s rather than risen. It is also true that the decline in the military budget accounts for almost the entire fall in the deficit from 1988 to 1996. [26]

Table 5
Reagan Tax Cuts vs. Bush-Clinton Tax Hikes:
Overall Real Revenue Growth
After Reagan Tax Cuts After Bush-Clinton Tax Hikes
Year Total Revenue* Percentage Change Year Total Revenue* Percentage Change
1982 738 1990 914
1983 684 -7.3 1991 895 -2.1
1984 730 6.7 1992 895 0.0
1985 777 6.4 1993 922 3.7
1986 790 1.7 1994 982 6.5
1987 854 8.1 1995 1,034 5.3
1988 877 2.7 1996 1,082 4.6**
1989 916 4.4 1997 1,090 0.7**
Total 24.1 19.3

Source: Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1997.

*Billions of 1987 dollars.
**Congressional Budget Office, August 1996 revenue forecast.

Table 6
Defense Spending and Deficits in the 1980s
As % of GDP $ Billions Buildup
Year Defense Deficit Defense Deficit Defense Deficit
1981 5.3 2.7 134 79
1982 5.9 4.1 158 128 24 49
1983 6.3 6.3 185 208 51 129
1984 6.2 5.0 210 185 76 106
1985 6.4 5.4 227 212 93 133
1986 6.5 5.2 253 221 119 142
1987 6.3 3.4 273 150 139 71
1988 6.0 3.2 282 155 148 76
1989 5.9 2.9 290 152 156 73
Change
1981-89 0.2 0.6 156 73 806 779

Source: Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1997.

If the entire accumulation of debt in the 1980s went to finance the Reagan defense build-up, the key policy question would shift to whether it was appropriate to borrow for those large military expenditures. Was the Reagan administration justified in paying for this one-time increase in "public investment" spending through debt rather than taxes? Or, put another way, was it appropriate to have asked our children and grandchildren to help defray the cost of defeating the Soviet menace?

The answer to that question rests to some extent on the issue of whether the defense build-up materially contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union and, if so, on the discounted present value to our children and grandchildren of no longer having the "Evil Empire" imperiling the security of the planet. The figure could easily be in the trillions of dollars.

In any case, Reagan's critics were proven right when they said that the administration would not be able to cut tax rates, increase the defense budget, and balance the budget all at the same time.

The Fall in Inflation and the 1981-82 Recession. The unexpectedly steep decline in inflation in 1981 and 1982 contributed significantly to the rise in the deficit in the early 1980s. [27] When inflation falls sharply and unexpectedly, so too do nominal revenues while real expenditures rise sharply and unexpectedly. Both Reagan and Congress had approved spending increases for 1982-85 on the assumption, mostly due to erroneous inflation forecasts, that nominal GDP would be some $2.5 trillion higher than it was between 1981 and 1986. The abrupt reduction in inflation created an estimated $300-$400 billion spending windfall for defense and domestic programs. [28]

Fable 3: The Federal Reserve, Not Ronald Reagan, Deserves the Credit for Ending the 1970s Era of High Inflation

One man is more responsible for the political success of the Reagan presidency than any other, and his name is not Ronald Reagan. It is Paul Volcker, the man Jimmy Carter appointed as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. A relatively stable currency has been the basis . . . for the economic boom of recent years. . . .

And Volcker did it. In October 1979 he persuaded his colleagues to starve inflation of the dollars it feeds on. President Reagan did little to help. In fact, his deficits worked against Volcker's efforts. [29]

The conquering of inflation in a very short time was primarily a result of tightening monetary policy under Federal Reserve Board chairman Paul Volcker. Volcker deserves high praise for the change in policy. But Reagan clearly warrants a large part of the credit for endorsing the overdue correction in Federal Reserve policy from the high-inflation 1970s. A major element of Reaganomics, in addition to the tax cuts, was sound money--a policy the nation had not followed since the late 1960s. The Federal Reserve's policy of sweating out inflation took place with the explicit approval of the Reagan administration, even though that policy contributed to the deep recession of 1981-82 and the unexpectedly large and immediate fall in inflation was a major factor in the budget deficit explosion in the early 1980s.

The Reagan-Volcker anti-inflation policy may seem noncontroversial today, but it is noteworthy that at the time the decisions were made, there was very little consensus about how to defeat inflation. [30] In 1980, for example, economist Paul Samuelson wrote that "two-digit price inflation is a distinct possibility for much of the decade of the 1980s." [31]He predicted an inflation rate from 1982 to 1987 of 9.4 percent a year. The Democratic party was endorsing a host of inflation-fighting measures that were economically wrongheaded and almost certain to fail. During the 1980 Democratic presidential primaries, Jimmy Carter's anti-inflation policy included credit controls and gas rationing while Ted Kennedy, his opponent, endorsed wage and price controls.

Most Keynesian economists had predicted that Reaganomics would make inflation worse, not better. Hobart Rowen of the Washington Post stated the conventional wisdom by arguing that the Kemp-Roth tax cuts would be "dangerously inflationary." [32] He added, "There is nothing in the [Reagan] fiscal program--in the view of those not addicted to supply-side theory--that works against inflation." James Tobin, a Nobel prize winner and an informal Clinton administration adviser, also had warned of the inflationary impact of Reagan's tax cuts and had called instead for "a five-year period of gradually declining wage-increase guide-posts."[33] The late Walter Heller, a Keynesian who had served as John Kennedy's chief economic adviser, summarized the conventional wisdom most succinctly in 1980: "The [Reagan] tax cut would simply overwhelm our existing productive capacity with a tidal wave of demand," thus accelerating inflation.[34]

Amazingly, even after inflation had fallen by more than half by late 1982, Reagan's skeptics believed the progress on prices was a temporary aberration. Economist Paul Krugman, now of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Larry Summers of the Clinton Treasury Department warned in November 1982 of a coming "inflation time bomb." "It is reasonable to expect a significant reacceleration of inflation in the near future," they wrote. "A significant portion of the slowing of consumer price inflation since 1980 does not represent a reduction in the underlying rate." [35]

Fable 4: Reagan Had Little to Do with Ending the Energy Crisis; He Was the Fortunate Beneficiary of the Demise of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

Luck was on Reagan's side in the 1980s. OPEC crumbled and world commodity prices fell.[36]

OPEC's demise clearly contributed to the end of high inflation in the 1980s. But luck is not what caused the downfall of OPEC. Reagan's first official act as president was, by executive order, to immediately terminate oil price controls, a policy that instantly reenergized America's domestic production and exploration of oil.

Moreover, the energy crisis in the 1970s was not purely a result of external factors beyond the control of politicians. With respect to dealing with OPEC, virtually every government energy policy in the 1970s--those under Nixon, Ford, and Carter-- exacerbated the energy crisis, from the windfall profits tax to energy price controls. Reagan hastened the end of the energy crisis by repealing all of these misguided policies.[37]

Fable 5: Clinton's Economic Record Has Outperformed Reagan's

Our economy is the soundest it's been in a generation.[38]

The growth rate under Clinton has been 2.7 percent, half a percent below the 3.2 percent growth rate under Reagan and a full percentage point below the 3.8 percent growth rate during the 1983-89 expansion. Standard government forecasts predict a 2-2.5 percent growth rate through the end of the decade. Yet, if even the high end of that forecast proves to be accurate, the 1990s will be the lowest economic growth decade since the Great Depression and the second lowest in the 20th century.

Fable 6: The 1980s Expansion Was a Classic Keynesian Economic Recovery Driven by the Stimulative Effects of High Deficits

Reagan's economic program actually amounted to the longest and most successful Keynesian recovery the world has yet seen. [39]

If the 1980s expansion had been a classic, demand-driven Keynesian recovery, nominal demand should have grown rapidly in the 1980s. However, as Figure 9 shows, over the course of the 1980s the rate of nominal demand growth fell.

The Keynesian explanation of the economic recovery in the 1980s is also fundamentally inconsistent with the sharp fall in inflation throughout that decade. If the recovery had been driven by a hike in the demand for goods and services rather than by a supply-side effect of greater output, inflation would have risen rather than fallen. But it did fall. This is why the near-universal predictions by Reagan's opponents from 1979 to 1981 of higher inflation from tax cuts proved to be entirely misguided.

Finally, if budget deficits are highly stimulative, the post-Reagan period of 1990-95 should have produced strong economic growth. The budget deficits of that period were very nearly of the same magnitude as the deficits of 1982-89 (4.2 percent of GDP versus 3.9 percent of GDP); in the 1980s, however, we had rapid growth and in the 1990s we have had anemic growth. The answer seems to be the supply-side effects of tax and regulatory reductions in the 1980s versus the tax hikes and reregulation in the 1990s.

Fable 7: The Robust Reagan Economic Expansion Was Only a Result of the Steep Economic Decline in the Early 1980s

Reagan's political adversaries maintain that the economy expanded rapidly from 1983 to 1989 only because of the underused resources from the severe recession of 1981-82. This interpretation of the 1980s expansion is contradicted by two facts. First, even taking into account the deep recession years of 1981-82, the economy grew at a faster rate over the entire Reagan period than it did over the Ford-Carter years and the Bush-Clinton years.

Second, the economic expansion of the 1980s was notable for not only its strength but also its length. Figure 10 demonstrates that the Reagan recovery lasted 92 months, making it the second longest uninterrupted economic expansion in the century--outlasted only by the 1961-69 boom.[40]

Fable 8: Bush and Clinton Inherited a Future of High and Rising Deficits from Reagan

The supply-side turkey has come home to roost. [41]

It is a popular misconception that Presidents Bush and Clinton inherited large deficits "baked in the cake" from Reagan policies. When Reagan left the White House in January 1989, the fiscal outlook was expected to continue to improve rather than worsen. In that month, the CBO released its long-term forecast for the economy and the budget deficit.

Table 7 shows that the deficit was expected to continue to fall steadily to $110 billion and 1.5 percent of GDP by 1995.[42]These forecasts reflected in large part a continuation of the modest fiscal progress achieved during Reagan's second term. The CBO concluded that continued deficit reduction would occur even if Bush were to do nothing to improve the budget outlook and simply left fiscal policy on automatic pilot. In reality, the national debt was $622 billion higher than anticipated and as a share of GDP, the budget deficits were nearly 2 percentage points higher. Measured in real dollars, the 1990-94 period showed the worst five-year deficit performance in the post-World War II era. [43]

Table 7
Deficits in the 1990s: Reagan Baseline vs. Actual Performance
CBO, 1989 Actual Difference
Year $ Billions % GDP $ Billions % GDP $ Billions % GDP
1990 141 2.6 121 4.0 80 1.4
1991 140 2.4 269 4.7 129 2.3
1992 135 2.2 290 4.9 155 2.7
1993 129 2.0 255 4.1 126 1.9
1994 122 1.7 203 3.1 81 1.4
1995 110* 1.5* 161 2.4 51 0.9
Total 777 1,399 622
Total
% GDP 2.1 3.9 1.5

Source: Congressional Budget Office, "Economic and Budget Outlook," January 1989.

*1995 projections come from the CBO's March 1990 report.

Fable 9: Workers Had to Work Harder for Smaller Paychecks in the 1980s

Caught between the lawmakers in Washington and the dealmakers on Wall Street have been millions of American workers forced to move from jobs that once paid $15 an hour into jobs that now pay $7. [44]

Barlett and Steele never back up such anecdotal claims with any facts. Here they are: the correct way to measure changes in worker pay from one period to the next is not by examining wages alone, but by tallying the total compensation per hour--a measure that includes wages and benefits--paid to a worker. [45] Nonwage benefits have been an increasing share of total hourly worker compensation. In 1960, 9 percent of worker compensation was in the form of fringe benefits; in 1975, 16 percent of worker compensation was wage supplements; and by 1990, that percentage had risen to 20 percent. [46]So although it is true that average real wages have been falling over the past 20 years, real compensation has been generally rising. The average real wage in 1990 dollars fell from about $11.00 an hour in 1980 to about $10.00 in 1988, a 9 percent decline. But real compensation per hour rose from $15.00 per hour in 1981 to $16.50 an hour in 1988. [47]

Fable 10: In the 1980s the Rich Got Richer and the Poor Got Poorer

During the 1980s the bucket of liberty and economic freedom rose, while the bucket of income equality fell. Upper-tier Americans significantly expanded their share of national wealth, while low-income citizens lost ground. Reagan policies were critical to the shift. [48]

During the Reagan years, the total share of national income tilted toward the wealthiest Americans. From 1980 to 1988 the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans increased their share of total income from 16.5 to 18.3 while the poorest fifth saw their share fall from 4.2 to 3.8 percent. [49]

Yet it is not true that the gains by the wealthiest Americans came at the expense of low-income Americans. From 1981 to 1989, every income quintile--from the richest to the poorest--gained income according to the Census Bureau economic data (see Figure 11). [50] The reason the wealthiest Americans saw their share of total income rise is that they gained income at a faster pace than did the middle class and the poor. But Reaganomics did create a rising tide that lifted nearly all boats.

Table 8 shows that by 1989 there were 5.9 million more Americans whose salaries exceeded $50,000 a year than there were in 1981 (adjusting for inflation). Similarly, there were 2.5 million more Americans earning more than $75,000 a year, an 83 percent increase. And the number of Americans earning less than $10,000 a year fell by 3.4 million workers.

Table 8
Workers' Incomes in the 1980s (millions of workers and billions of 1981 dollars)
Year < $10,000 > $50,000 > $75,000
1981 66.0 9.9 3.0
1989 62.6 15.8 5.5
Difference -3.4 5.9 2.5
% Change -5% 60% 83%

Source: Cato Institute calculations based on Bureau of the Census, U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1996, p. 478, Table 740.
Note: Earning levels are adjusted for inflation between 1981 and 1989.

The gains in incomes of all income groups is all the more impressive when we examine data on income mobility. Tens of millions of Americans moved up the income scale in the 1980s--an economic fact that is obscured when only the static income quintile data from the start of the decade to the end are examined. Figure 12 shows that 86 percent of households that were in the poorest income quintile in 1980 had moved up the economic ladder to a higher income quintile by 1990. Incredibly, a poor household in 1980 was more likely to have moved all the way up to the richest income quintile by 1990 (15 percent) than to still be in the poorest quintile (14 percent).

Fable 11: The Poor and Minorities Lost Ground under Reagan's Economic Policies

The 1980s was the first decade since the 1930s in which large numbers of Americans actually suffered a serious decline in living standard. [51]

The poorest 20 percent of Americans experienced a 6 percent gain in real income in the 1980s and have suffered a 3 percent loss in income in the 1990s. Figure 13, which compares the income trends for the poorest fifth of Americans over the past 20 years, shows that the poor did the best during the Reagan years. Black Americans saw their incomes grow at a slightly faster pace (11.0%) than whites (9.8%) in the Reagan years (see Table 9).

Table 9
Real Household Incomes
1973-81 1981-88 1988-94
Whites -2.2% 9.8% -3.8%
Blacks -4.4% 11.0% 2.0%

Source: Bureau of the Census, "Money Income and Poverty Status in the United States, 1995," Current Population Reports (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, 1995).

Fable 12: The Rich Saw Their Tax Bills Go Down in the 1980s While Everyone Else Paid More

Contrary to popular rhetoric, the wealthiest Americans did not pay less taxes; rather, they paid more taxes after the income tax rate cuts in 1981. In constant dollars, the richest 10 percent of Americans paid $177 billion in federal income taxes in 1980 but paid $237 billion in 1988. The remaining 90 percent of households paid $5 billion less in income taxes over this period. [52] They earned more and they paid more. In fact, Federal Reserve Board member Lawrence Lindsey has shown that taxes paid by the wealthy were substantially higher than they would have been if the top tax rate had remained at 70 percent.[53] Figure 14 shows that the share of total income taxes paid by the wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans actually rose from 18 percent in 1981 to 25 percent in 1990. The wealthiest 5 percent of Americans saw their tax share rise from 35 to 44 percent. So the rise in the deficit was clearly not a result of "tax cuts for the rich."

Conclusion

The 1980s were years of economic progress, not decline. Real GDP grew by about one-third in the 1980s. The economic gains were widely distributed among income groups, with every income quintile, from the richest fifth to the poorest fifth, gaining ground in the Reagan years.

The Reagan tax cuts were not a primary cause

of the eruption of the deficit in the 1980s. The main two causes were an unexpectedly sharp reduction in inflation in the early 1980s that led to large real increases in federal spending, and a nearly $1 trillion military build-up during the last phase of the cold war.

Most significantly, the economy of the 1980s outperformed that of the 1990s in virtually every measurable category. Economic growth was higher, job creation was faster, incomes rose much faster, and productivity climbed at a healthier pace.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
[1]. The Economic Recovery and Tax Act of 1981 (the Kemp-Roth tax bill) reduced income tax rates by 25 percent over three years.

[2]. White House Press Release, Office of the Press Secretary, August 5, 1996. Remarks by the President at signing ceremony for Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996.

[3]. See, for example, Donald Barlett and James B. Steele, America: What Went Wrong? (Kansas City, Mo.: Universal Press Syndicate, 1992), p. 3. The authors argue that "In the 1980s the already rich got richer than ever . . . while life for the working class deteriorated, and those at the bottom were trapped."

[4]. See, for example, "Promises Made, Promises Kept," White House Office of Public Affairs, December 1988.

[5]. For a detailed description of the economic policies of the Reagan administration, see William Niskanen, Reaganomics: An Insider's Account (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).

[6]. For a good summary of the economy's performance during the expansion years 1983-89, see Robert Bartley, The Seven Fat Years: And How to Do It Again (New York: Free Press, 1992), p. 2.

[7]. See Bill Clinton's 1992 "Putting People First," campaign document Democratic National Committee, Washington, D.C.: August 1992.

[8]. Stephen Moore, "Broken Promises: What's Gone Wrong with the Economy of the 1990s?" Report no. 136 (Lewisville, Texas: Institute for Policy Innovation, April 1996).

[9]. Most of the economic data are only available through 1995. Where we have more recent data that include preliminary estimates for 1996, we include them.

[10]. Actually, the lame-duck Reagan administration released a fiscal 1990 budget in early January 1989, but the Bush administration mostly ignored it.

[11]. To account for the fact that the 1990-95 period is shorter than the eight Reagan and eight pre-Reagan years, all the economic variables are shown on an average annual basis.

[12]. On the no-policy-lag basis, however, productivity growth was highest in the Reagan years.

[13]. Richard McKenzie argues that this expansion was the equivalent of adding another California to the American economy. See Richard B. McKenzie, What Went Right in the Nineteen Eighties (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1993) p. 121.

[14]. Chris Frenze, "Reagan Income Growth versus Clinton Crunch," Joint Economic Committee of Congress, March 1996. Based on U.S. Census Budget Data.

[15]. Alan Reynolds, "The Seven Lean Years," Hudson Institute Policy Report (Indianapolis, Ind.: Hudson Institute, 1996.)

[16]. Net national investment in the 1980s showed a similar pattern to that of savings: the net investment rate fell from 10.5 percent in the 1960s to 5.3 percent in the 1980s to an all-time low of 3.8 percent in the 1990s. Yet, according to the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, net foreign investment in the United States exploded from -$31 billion in 1980 to a high of $115 billion in 1987. Over the course of the Reagan years, net foreign investment in the United States increased by nearly one-half trillion dollars. In the global marketplace, lower tax rates tend to attract capital because the after-tax rate of return on capital investment rises as the tax rates fall.

[17]. H. Erich Heinemann, "Dead on Arrival Autopsy Report," Washington Times, April 4, 1996, p. A15.

[18]. Arthur B. Laffer, "Les Hauts Taux Les Totaux," A.B. Laffer, V.A. Canto and Associates, San Diego, Calif., March 25, 1996.

[19]. CBO Budget and Economic Update, August 1996.

[20]. Congressional Budget Office, "Economic and Budget Outlook," December 1990.

[21]. Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 1997.

[22]. Ibid.

[23]. Lawrence Chimerine, chief economist at the Economic Strategies Institute, "Return of the Supply-Siders," Washington Post, July 23, 1996, p. A24.

[24]. Office of the President, "America's New Beginning: A Program for Economic Recovery," February 18, 1981, p. 16.

[25]. Economic Report of the President, 1996

[26]. This is not to argue against the wisdom of a defense build-up in the early 1980s. Even the Carter administration had called for large defense spending hikes in its last budget. Reagan increased defense spending faster than Carter would have, but some large increase in military spending was no doubt inevitable given the geopolitical situation in 1980 and the almost universally acknowledged inadequacy of America's military in those years.

[27]. David Stockman, The Triumph of Politics: The Inside Story of the Reagan Revolution (New York: Avon Books, 1987).

[28]. Paul Craig Roberts, The Supply Side Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984).

[29]. New Republic editorial, September 9, 1985, p. 7.

[30]. See Stephen Moore, "Clinton's Dismal Scientists,"

National Review, March 15, 1993, pp. 32-39.

[31]. Paul Samuelson, cited in Moore, "Clinton's Dismal Scientists," p. 34.

[32]. Hobart Rowen, cited in ibid., p. 36.

[33]. James Tobin, cited in ibid., p. 34.

[34]. Walter Heller, cited in ibid., p. 35.

[35]. Paul Krugman and Larry Summers, "Inflation during the 1983 Recovery," U.S. Government Memorandum, September 9, 1982. Significantly, Summers and Krugman are two of the most vocal opponents of the Dole tax cut proposal.

[36]. Stephen Moore, "Clinton's Dismal Scientists," National Review, March 15, 1993, p. 38.

[37]. Stephen Moore, "Doomsday Delayed: America's Surprisingly Bright Natural Resource Future," Report no. 118 (Lewisville, Texas: Institute for Policy Innovation, August 1992),

pp. 47-50.

[38]. Bill Clinton, August 17, 1996.

[39]. Newsday editorial page, November 15, 1988.

[40]. The current economic expansion is in its sixth year and may eventually exceed the Reagan recovery.

[41]. Robert Kuttner, Los Angeles Times, October 14, 1991.

[42]. Congressional Budget Office, "Economic and Budget Outlook," January 1989.

[43]. What is unique about the big deficits in the 1990s is that, unlike the very high deficits of the Reagan years, which corresponded with high and growing cold war expenditures, the Bush-Clinton deficits have occurred despite a shrinking defense budget. Normally at the end of a war period, the deficit falls sharply or even turns into a surplus as wartime expenditures fall. But as discussed earlier, under the Bush-Clinton administrations, reductions in wartime expenditures have given way to large increases in the budgets of most all other civilian programs.

[44]. Barlett and Steele, p. 2.

[45]. The best discussion of this issue is found in McKenzie, What Went Right, or see Richard McKenzie, "America: What Went Right," Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 172, June 1, 1992.

[46]. McKenzie, What Went Right, p. 232. McKenzie argues that these percentages probably understate the total amount of wage supplements provided to workers.

[47]. Ibid.

[48]. Kevin Phillips, The Politics of Rich and Poor: Wealth and the American Electorate in the Reagan Aftermath (New York: Harper Perennial, 1991), p. 52.

[49]. Bruce Bartlett, "Trickle-Down Economics," National Review, September 2, 1996, p. 63.

[50]. Bureau of the Census, Income Statistics Branch, Current Population Reports, Series P60 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, 1996).

[51]. Paul R. Krugman, The Age of Diminished Expectations: U.S. Economic Policy in the 1990s (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990), p. 22.

[52]. Lawrence Lindsey, The Growth Experiment: How the New Tax Policy Is Transforming the U.S. Economy (New York: Basic Books, 1991).

[53]. Ibid.

© 2007 The Cato Institute

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120&full=1

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 05:05 PM

Cato is right wing

manu1959

12-10-2007, 05:05 PM

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

so AMT and tax cuts work under dems but not repubs is that your argument....

manu1959

12-10-2007, 05:07 PM

Cato is right wing

and you only post info from neutral sites......:slap:

OCA

12-10-2007, 05:15 PM

Cato is right wing

So what? Can you dispute any of its findings? If not please continue to try and disparage the source, its all you've gfot left and fits your pattern to a "t"

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 05:20 PM

I gave you quotes from your own right wing economist Mr Laffer and you give me a right wing site?

OCA

12-10-2007, 05:22 PM

I gave you quotes from your own right wing economist Mr Laffer and you give me a right wing site?

Laffer is wrong now, simply put.

The facts and written history speak for itself. Try and contradict those facts if you can.

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 05:59 PM

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/

How much did Reagan pay down?

OCA

12-10-2007, 06:02 PM

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/

How much did Reagan pay down?

You didn't pay attention, Congress, A democratic Congress dramatically increased spending which balooned the deficit.

Said1

12-10-2007, 06:13 PM

Said1

12-10-2007, 06:18 PM

Laffer gushes with praise for Clinton, but he's also a fan of Clinton's successor.

Yes. I'll have a cherry. :)

manu1959

12-10-2007, 06:23 PM

Yes. I'll have a cherry. :)

and you get a cherry why? ..... could it be because clinton and bush both used the same economic techniques to stimulate the economy.....

clinton got the dot com era to presdie over and bush got a war .....

to give either credit or blame is laughable....

but you still deserve a cherry....

Said1

12-10-2007, 06:28 PM

and you get a cherry why? ..... could it be because clinton and bush both used the same economic techniques to stimulate the economy.....

clinton got the dot com era to presdie over and bush got a war .....

to give either credit or blame is laughable....

but you still deserve a cherry....

I should get a cherry from someone who must have a basket of them.....you know, for cherry picking the article they posted. :laugh2:

manu1959

12-10-2007, 06:33 PM

I should get a cherry from someone who must have a basket of them.....you know, for cherry picking the article they posted. :laugh2:

truth would never do that......:poke:

theHawk

12-10-2007, 06:37 PM

In other words you believe that the majority of Americans are basically the Dude from "The Big Lebowski." Nice hawk. Glad to know you think so highly of your fellow Americans. The reality is nobody except CPAs thinks about taxes more than once per year when they turn them in. The whole "incentive" argument is old and tired. It's the same as the argument for the death penalty. Supposedly it's this huge deterrent, yet thousands of violent crimes are still committed in the US and around the world every year. People are going to work hard to be rich and have nice things or they aren't. If tax "incentives" worked, everybody would be middle or upper class. And yet, we still have a huge poor population.

I have no idea what you're talking about, never saw that movie.
And I'm not talking about the "huge poor population". The poor and lower middle class pay very little of the total tax revenue if any at all, so they are irrelivant to this discussion. We're talking about the upper tax brackets, the "rich" people, the ones who create business and jobs. If you tax them to death it will discourage them from expanding their businesses.

manu1959

12-10-2007, 06:46 PM

I have no idea what you're talking about, never saw that movie.
And I'm not talking about the "huge poor population". The poor and lower middle class pay very little of the total tax revenue if any at all, so they are irrelivant to this discussion. We're talking about the upper tax brackets, the "rich" people, the ones who create business and jobs. If you tax them to death it will discourage them from expanding their businesses.

exactly....if you let me keep more than 66% of my money i will expand my business, give staff bonuses and raises, remodel my house, buy a car, hire a gardener, go out to dinner, buy my wife something nice, donate more to charity.....

or you can let the gov't have it and they will spend it on the war and entitlement programs....

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 07:28 PM

http://www.iht.com/articles/2000/02/18/think.2.t_2.php

Even conservative economists, however, are prepared to give Mr. Clinton some credit. In the latest issue of the American Enterprise magazine, they addressed the question of who should be thanked for the boom, and a number of economists who would hardly rate as Clintonites agree that he did some good things.

Among the most important were to support Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Federal Reserve, appoint Robert Rubin as Treasury secretary and back his strong dollar policy and sign important trade liberalization agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.

In fact, Mr. Moore argues, by reducing inflation (a "quasi tax cut"), keeping the dollar strong, endorsing free trade agreements initiated by his Republican predecessors and signing the Republican Congress's capital gains tax cut, Mr. Clinton was effectively practicing the very Reaganomics that he has scorned.

So tell me why you hate Clinton?

manu1959

12-10-2007, 07:29 PM

if not for the efforts of the dot com crowd......

truthmatters

12-10-2007, 08:11 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Internet_and_technology

They helped it to life

Internet and technology
Main article: Al Gore's contributions to the Internet and technology

Gore at the Ansari X Prize Executive Summit, October 19, 2006Al Gore was involved in the development and mainstreaming of the Internet as both Senator and Vice-President.[citation needed] Campbell-Kelly and Aspray note in Chapter 12 of their 1996 text, Computer: A History of the Information Machine, that up until the early 1990s, public usage of the Internet was limited. They continue to state that the "problem of giving ordinary Americans network access had exercised Senator Al Gore since the late 1970s" leading him to develop legislation that would alleviate this problem.[92] Gore thus began to craft the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (Gore Bill) which was passed on December 9, 1991 and led to the National Information Infrastructure (NII)[93] which Gore referred to as the "information superhighway".

In a March 9, 1999 interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Gore stated, "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."[94] This was often misquoted by media outlets who wrote that he claimed to have "invented the internet."[95]

In commenting on the interview, Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn argued in a 2000 email that, "We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet."[96]

Gore would later poke fun at the controversy on the The Late Show with David Letterman when he read Letterman's Top 10 List, which for this show was called, "Top Ten Rejected Gore - Lieberman Campaign Slogans." Number nine on the list was: "Remember, America, I gave you the Internet, and I can take it away!"[97]

Gore has been a member of the board of directors of Apple Inc. since 2003 and serves as a Senior Advisor to Google Inc.[98]

Gore's 2007 book, The Assault on Reason is an analysis of what he calls the "emptying out of the marketplace of ideas" in civic discourse, which, according to Gore, is due to the influence of electronic media, especially television, and which endangers American democracy; but he also expresses the belief that the Internet can revitalize and ultimately "redeem the integrity of representative democracy."[99]

LuvRPgrl

12-11-2007, 02:33 AM

Yea, look who, Communist News Network

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html

Look who says so.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.

Im sure this thread will now swiftly fall to the bottom of the page.

red states rule

12-11-2007, 05:53 AM

Laffer and others did not say that tax cuts ALWAYS increases revenues, but that specifically targeted tax cuts, under specific situations, increases tax revenues and pays for itself.

In this case, they did not pay for themselves, or....they did not increase the revenue intake quick enough to pay for themselves.

Which means, it was planned that way or they made a huge mistake in their assumptions that these specific tax cuts would increase revenues.

I would venture to say that if they had limited the tax cuts to just the reductions in capital gains taxes and dividend taxes that revenues would have increased immediately the following year instead of taking 4 years of revenue LOSSES before getting to the tax revenues of where they began, in 2002.

I still am questioning why this chart that was posted in full color ONLY included the first 2 months of each year and not the full year's revenues for each year, and also why the 5 previous years were not shown so that a true comparrison could be made.

jd

"Targeted" tax cuts? Why not give tax cuts to the folks who pay the taxes?

The top 1% pay about 36% of all Federal income taxes

The bottom 50% pay about 4%

Tax cuts DO INCREASE revenues. It did for JFK, Ronald Reagan, and now for Pres Bush

Here are the facts folks...........

The Shrinking Deficit

We hate to be the bearers of good news, but someone's got to do it: The Congressional Budget Office has released its preliminary estimates for Fiscal Year 2007 that ended September 30, and the federal budget deficit fell again, this time by 35% to $161 billion.

There's more to applaud, if you can stand it: Since 2004, deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion, which is one of the most rapid three-year declines in U.S. history. The deficit as a share of the economy is down to 1.2%, or about half the average of the last 50 years. This improvement is especially remarkable given the $150 to $200 billion a year of post-9/11 expenses for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Americans coughed up a record $2.568 trillion in taxes to the IRS in 2007, or 6.7% more than in 2006. This means federal receipts have climbed by $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. Income, dividend and capital gains tax rates were all cut in 2003, but individual income tax receipts have soared by 46.3% in four years, with payments by the wealthy accounting for most of the windfall. Last year's increase in individual income payments was 11.3%, or more than double the rate of growth in nominal GDP. Don't worry, class warriors: Hannah Montana and others among the "new rich" are paying their taxes.

Overall federal revenue is now 18.8% of GDP, compared with the 18.2% average of the past 40 years. The nearby table shows how far off CBO was, as usual, in its static-revenue estimates that failed to anticipate the impact of taxes on incentives and growth.

The biggest surprise in fiscal 2007 was the slower growth in federal spending. CBO reports that federal outlays crept up just 2.8% last year (2.5% after adjusting for timing in payments), which was "well below the 7.3 percent average over the previous five years." The decline was largely due to lower disaster-related payments compared with Hurricane Katrina's aftermath the year before, plus the budget deal last winter that kept domestic spending stable as Congress changed hands.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189497675953035.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

How about that? The "rich" are paying MORE in taxes AFTER the tax cut!!!!

red states rule

12-11-2007, 05:58 AM

You don't really want me to post some statistics on Reaganomics and how revenues were dramatically increased due to his massive tax cuts only to be squandered by a Tip O'Neill led Congress, do you?

Revenues doubled to over $1 trillion is eight years

remie

12-11-2007, 08:34 AM

How about that? The "rich" are paying MORE in taxes AFTER the tax cut!!!!

Dont confuse them with the facts. I tried to tell them this forty posts ago. They wont buy it cause it doesnt fit what they want to believe.

red states rule

12-11-2007, 08:36 AM

Dont confuse them with the facts. I tried to tell them this forty posts ago. They wont buy it cause it doesnt fit what they want to believe.

I know.

They might have to duct tape their heads to keep it from exploding

Joe Steel

12-11-2007, 08:44 AM

exactly....if you let me keep more than 66% of my money i will expand my business, give staff bonuses and raises, remodel my house, buy a car, hire a gardener, go out to dinner, buy my wife something nice, donate more to charity.....

So?

Why should we care if you do these things?

Are you suggesting they would stimulate the economy and benefit everyone?

If that's the case, if you really want to stimulate the economy, just pay the tax so the goverment can fund an entitlement program. That's the best way to stimulate the economy. The beneficiaries will spend their benefits in their own neighborhoods and that will generate economic activty which will create jobs and prosperity.

Guaranteed.

red states rule

12-11-2007, 08:46 AM

glockmail

12-11-2007, 08:52 AM

So?

Why should we care if you do these things?

Are you suggesting they would stimulate the economy and benefit everyone?

If that's the case, if you really want to stimulate the economy, just pay the tax so the goverment can fund an entitlement program. That's the best way to stimulate the economy. The beneficiaries will spend their benefits in their own neighborhoods and that will generate economic activty which will create jobs and prosperity.

Guaranteed. That is so dumb. The opposite argument is constantly made against the lottery, and it has been proven: when the po' folk come into cash, the blow it on crack. Rich people, however, invest it to make more money.

red states rule

12-11-2007, 08:53 AM

That is so dumb. The opposite argument is constantly made against the lottery, and it has been proven: when the po' folk come into cash, the blow it on crack. Rich people, however, invest it to make more money.

and grow the economy, and adds jobs, which increases tax revenues

5stringJeff

12-11-2007, 10:05 AM

I just did a big research paper on the Bush tax cuts. Here's what we found. Lowering tax rates does increase tax revenues. However, it did not make up for the estimated revenues that the government would have received had the higer tax rates been in effect. We calculated that the higher revenues made up for about 15% of the "lost" tax revenues over the period of ten years.

So conservatives are correct in saying that lowering tax rates raises revenues, but they are incorrect in saying that tax cuts "pay for themselves." They do not.

5stringJeff

12-11-2007, 10:10 AM

So?

Why should we care if you do these things?

Are you suggesting they would stimulate the economy and benefit everyone?

If that's the case, if you really want to stimulate the economy, just pay the tax so the goverment can fund an entitlement program. That's the best way to stimulate the economy. The beneficiaries will spend their benefits in their own neighborhoods and that will generate economic activty which will create jobs and prosperity.

Guaranteed.

Wrong. The best way to stimulate the economy is to decrease taxes and let people spend the money they earned. Taxes always result in a deadweight loss, and therefore decrease economic efficiency.

truthmatters

12-11-2007, 11:12 AM

Bush is spending less since 2004?

wow that is great news. Im glad is only spending like a half drunken soldier.

The whole story.

http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2007/oct/11/us-budget-deficit-falls-1628-billion-2007-lowest-l/

The fact is that the nation's debt has exploded on his watch — rising by $3 trillion since 2001, to $9 trillion today.”

Bush recently signed into law a measure increasing the government's borrowing ceiling to $9.815 trillion. It was the fifth debt increase of Bush's presidency. The national debt is the accumulation of the annual deficits.

During the Clinton administration, the federal budget ran a surplus for four consecutive years, something that had not been accomplished for seven decades.

truthmatters

12-11-2007, 11:27 AM

JohnDoe

12-11-2007, 11:32 AM

MtnBiker

12-11-2007, 11:43 AM

Why are liberals so eager for more taxes to be collected? The government is horribly inefficient at spending money.

manu1959

12-11-2007, 11:51 AM

JohnDoe

12-11-2007, 12:01 PM

Why are liberals so eager for more taxes to be collected? The government is horribly inefficient at spending money. Mtn

I don't believe we are eager... in raising taxes, but we are at a point, because of the EXCESSIVE spending and borrowing by congress under this administration's budget, (to the tune of $3,000,000,000,000 dollars-that IS 3 TRILLION added to our national debt in just the 6 years of the republican rule), that taxes have to be raised, in order to pay for all of this overspending and to be able to pay back the treasuries for the social security recipiants to come, AND for the future of our children, so that they do not have to carry the excessive debt that we added and all the negatives that come with it, imo.

jd

MtnBiker

12-11-2007, 12:07 PM

Sitarro

12-11-2007, 12:15 PM

So?

Why should we care if you do these things?

Are you suggesting they would stimulate the economy and benefit everyone?

If that's the case, if you really want to stimulate the economy, just pay the tax so the goverment can fund an entitlement program. That's the best way to stimulate the economy. The beneficiaries will spend their benefits in their own neighborhoods and that will generate economic activty which will create jobs and prosperity.

Guaranteed.

That 2 grand that went to all those hard working people that hung around to become victims of New Orleans pathetic flood control system sure helped stimulate the economy, didn't it? It helped strip clubs, dentists putting in gold caps, drug dealers, jewelry peddlers and liquor stores....... yea........ don't let the productive people that earn it keep it to hire others, let the government have it to buy votes....... great idea.

JohnDoe

12-11-2007, 12:40 PM

You will have no argument from me about this administration spending to much, however don't kid yourself, the democrats have been the traditional tax and spend party for decades. A tax raise will do little good until spending is reduced.
I believe the facts show that this is a myth, that under republican administrations, spending goes up more than under Democratic administrations, and that debt goes up more under republican administrations also than under democratic as well.

The republicans do talk a good game, but they do not put their money where their mouth is when it comes right down to it.

And in no way am I excusing the Democratic administrations from overspending themselves, just that Republican administrations have been much worse when it comes to their budgets and balancing them.

They both spend money like it is water, which is very disheartening to someone like me who is more of a blue dog democrat, a fiscal conservative democrat.

:(

jd

truthmatters

12-11-2007, 12:43 PM

Your right Care.

Republicans spend more in their terms than Dems do.

Joe Steel

12-11-2007, 01:24 PM

Wrong. The best way to stimulate the economy is to decrease taxes and let people spend the money they earned. Taxes always result in a deadweight loss, and therefore decrease economic efficiency.

Wrong.

Tax cuts may or may not result in sufficient spending to create economic activity. For example, tax savings could be invested overseas where they would do nothing for the domestic economy.

Taxes would provide funding for government expenditures which is the best way to boost economic activity in recessions.

Joe Steel

12-11-2007, 01:26 PM

go read the post and count the jobs my expenditures would create....

This is a public policy point. Even if you were to do those things we couldn't be assured all similarly situtated taxpayers would do them. The only to ensure that is to let the government do it.

Joe Steel

12-11-2007, 01:29 PM

That 2 grand that went to all those hard working people that hung around to become victims of New Orleans pathetic flood control system sure helped stimulate the economy, didn't it? It helped strip clubs, dentists putting in gold caps, drug dealers, jewelry peddlers and liquor stores

It doesn't make any difference where the money was spent. It created local jobs.

The money could have been shoveled out the door of a helicopter and it still would have stimulated the economy because it would have been spent over and over again.

JackDaniels

12-11-2007, 02:09 PM

I'm surprised that the conservatives in this thread are so open to admitting how they love big government.

If you care about limiting government to its Constitutional limits, then increasing revenues shouldn't even be on your radar screen. You want to increase revenue because you want to continue to huge spending policies of the socialist Republican party.

Sitarro

12-11-2007, 02:38 PM

JackDaniels

12-11-2007, 02:46 PM

Just the type of comment I would expect from the board drunk, I see you beat Psycho to it.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Again, you prove that you do not have the internal faculties to process rational thought. Just what I'd expect from the board pothead/druggie.

red states rule

12-11-2007, 10:16 PM

http://www.khilafah.com/kcom/analysis/news-watch/morgan-stanley-issues-full-us-recession-alert.html

Morgan Stanley is issuing a recession alert.

Tell me how will those deficits look next year?

Im sure you will find SOME way to blame it on Clinton.

BTW this could have been avoided if they had done something about the subprime problem in its infancy. They did not because housing was the main thing fueling the economy and if they slowed it down like they needed to they would have been even further in the hole.

Lets see what "vital" government services the Reid/Pelosi run Congress are funding

Dems support the pork, er, troops
Victory Caucus has posted the Senate emergency appropriation bill for Iraq.

Democrats support the troops with:

* $3.5 million for guided tours of the Capitol.
* $25 million for asbestos abatement at the Capitol Power Plant.
* $24 million for sugar beets.
* $3 million for sugar cane.
* $100 million for security at the Presidential Conventions in 2008.
* $20 million for insect infestation damage.
* $2.1 billion for crop production losses.
* $1.5 billion for livestock production losses.
* $100 million for Dairy Production Losses.
* $13 million for Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention Program.
* $31 million for one month extension of Milk Income Loss Contract program.
* $2 million for the University of Vermont
* $32 million for Livestock Indemnity Program.
* $40 million for the Tree Assistance Program.
* $100 million for Small Agricultural Dependent Businesses.
* $6 million for North Dakota flooded crop land.
* $35 million for emergency conservation program.
* $50 million for the emergency watershed program.
* $115 million for the conservation security program.
* $18 million for drought assistance in upper Great Plains/South West.
* $165.9 million for fisheries disaster relief.
* $50 million for fisheries disaster mitigation fund.
* $12 million for forest service money.
* $640 million for LIHEAP.
* $388.9 million for road projects.
* $22.8 million for geothermal research and development.
* $500 million for wildland fire management.
* $13 million for mine safety technology research.

Thus the Democratic-controlled Congress puts placing our troops in harm’s way on the same level as dairy subsidies, tours of the Capitol and sugar (both beeted and caned).

This is worse than war profiteering. At least Haliburton gave the troops something, even if it was tainted water. What does Congress give them?

Are those critters from the Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention Program going to supply one ounce of wool for armor?

Democratic senators — including Byrd and Rockefeller — put the presidential conventions ahead of the troops, by making sure there is plenty of money fior those party comnventions 17-18 months ahead, while next year the troops will have to go through this emotional roller coaster again.

Disgusting is too nice a word for people who voted to send troops to Iraq in 2002, and less than 5 years later play political chicken with funding for those very troops.

UPDATE: The vote was 50-48 with Hagel crossing lines.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/03/27/how-dems-support-the-troops/

Sitarro

12-11-2007, 11:10 PM

Again, you prove that you do not have the internal faculties to process rational thought. Just what I'd expect from the board pothead/druggie.

Not only have I not smoked any pot in over a year, I don't do drugs, don't drink and don't inhale tobacco. I do admit to some Advil consumption when needed for the aches an aging body goes through when picking up the slack of useless idiots half my age.

You, on the other hand, promote cigarettes with your avatar and consumption of the most dangerous and abused drug of all time with your screen name. How silly for you to throw out accusations like you have.

Your pathetic little post didn't warrant any reply...... I didn't bother. Your simplistic thoughts are a joke and are nothing but an attempt to insult productive people that take responsibility for their lives. Go finish off another fifth of Jack Black.:fu:

LuvRPgrl

12-12-2007, 02:48 AM

I believe the facts show that this is a myth, that under republican administrations, spending goes up more than under Democratic administrations, and that debt goes up more under republican administrations also than under democratic as well.
:(

jd

Well, where are your facts to support your allegation?

Here's a FACT for you. Its irrelevant what it does to the economy, fact is, taxes beyond govt necessity are simply immoral and wrong. Fact is, excessive taxation is theft. If I dont pay my taxes, the govt , will under threat of violence, come and take my money.
What gives someone the right to come and steal my money and then take 40% for themselves and dole out the rest to "social" programs?
And, fact is, the founding fathers intended for us to be free from overtaxation burdens, ever hear of the Boston tea party?

red states rule

12-12-2007, 05:27 AM

Well, where are your facts to support your allegation?

Here's a FACT for you. Its irrelevant what it does to the economy, fact is, taxes beyond govt necessity are simply immoral and wrong. Fact is, excessive taxation is theft. If I dont pay my taxes, the govt , will under threat of violence, come and take my money.
What gives someone the right to come and steal my money and then take 40% for themselves and dole out the rest to "social" programs?
And, fact is, the founding fathers intended for us to be free from overtaxation burdens, ever hear of the Boston tea party?

The bottom line is no country ever taxed their way into prosperity. If libs think hugh taxes are so good, they need to take a look at the Pres Peanut carter years when the entire government was run by Dems

The top rate was 70%. We also had a prime rate of 21%. We had double digit inflation and unemployment was around 8%

Gas lines around the corner, and we were the laughing stock around the world as far as our economic power

and libs whine how rotten the current economy is

The current tax cuts have unleashed the greatest force on Earth - the economic power of the American people who seize opportunity

Now libs want to punich the achievers by taking more of the money the earn and waste it on government handouts

5stringJeff

12-12-2007, 11:07 AM

Wrong.

Tax cuts may or may not result in sufficient spending to create economic activity. For example, tax savings could be invested overseas where they would do nothing for the domestic economy.

Taxes would provide funding for government expenditures which is the best way to boost economic activity in recessions.

Learn some economics before you start putting your foot in your mouth. Taxes always cause a deadweight loss. Here's a picture so you can visualize it.

http://www.econport.org/images/modules_taxes_fig5new.gif

Joe Steel

12-12-2007, 01:41 PM

Learn some economics before you start putting your foot in your mouth.

Obviously, you haven't.

Taxes always cause a deadweight loss.

So what?

Why don't you take this opportunity to demonstrate your mastery of the dismal science and explain to us the horrors of deadweight loss and why we should let such a trivial idea drive public policy.

glockmail

12-12-2007, 02:06 PM

....
Why don't you take this opportunity to demonstrate your mastery of the dismal science and explain to us the horrors of deadweight loss and why we should let such a trivial idea drive public policy.

How about maximizing freedom? Taxes are the single biggest attack on freedom.

Joe Steel

12-12-2007, 02:26 PM

How about maximizing freedom? Taxes are the single biggest attack on freedom.

The power of taxation is the first of the so-called enumerated powers of Congress.

Do you know why?

Money is the lifeblood of government. Without taxes, it would not be able to function. Are you willing to live without government? How long do you think your precious freedom would last without the power of government to guarantee it?

glockmail

12-12-2007, 02:41 PM

The power of taxation is the first of the so-called enumerated powers of Congress.

Do you know why?

Money is the lifeblood of government. Without taxes, it would not be able to function. Are you willing to live without government? How long do you think your precious freedom would last without the power of government to guarantee it?Taxes are necessary, but excessive taxes are not. The federal government needs about 10% or so to guarantee my precious freedoms, and can do so by sticking with what is enumerated in the Constitution. Anything else is an infringement on my precious freedoms.

JohnDoe

12-12-2007, 02:51 PM

red states rule

12-12-2007, 11:13 PM

I agree with you more than you think. Only I might say what right does the govt have to take my money by force and dole it out to the oil companies or the aggriculture businesses or on unneccessary wars or on the no bid contracts with billions of money not accounted for.... just lost in thin air?

jd

Look how your Dems is spending our tax moeny JD - and you still demand we pay more in taxes??????

Pelosi buys $16K worth of flowers
By Mike Soraghan
December 12, 2007
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has spent $16,000 on flowers since taking office, one reason why she spent 63 percent more in her high-profile inaugural year than her low-key predecessor did last year.

Pelosi (D-Calif.) spent a little more than $3 million in the first nine months of 2007, records show, compared to the $1.8 million Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) spent during the same period in 2006.

Republicans are spending more as well. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has increased spending 23 percent above what Pelosi spent when she held the same job. That would be 16 percent if some of Hastert’s closing-out costs were deducted.

The spending patterns indicate Pelosi is seeking to restore the Speaker’s role as a counterweight to the president and reclaim some of the responsibilities Hastert had ceded to his aggressive majority leader, Tom DeLay (R-Texas). Because of their different roles, Pelosi aides say it is unfair to simply compare Pelosi’s spending to Hastert’s.

“When Speaker Pelosi took the gavel, it was an historic moment. In the days since, the Speaker has hosted leaders from across the country and around the world — opening the People’s House to the people and discussing the work of the 110th Congress,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said in response to e-mailed questions. “There are major new costs associated with setting up the new office of the new Speaker of the House.”

Republicans say Pelosi’s office spending undercuts her message that Democrats are restoring fiscal responsibility to the halls of Congress.

“They could have saved the taxpayer $16,000 by sending out an intern to pick flowers from the Capitol lawn, but I guess that would have detracted from the $4 million worth of pork they planted as part of the ‘greening’ project,” said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for Boehner.

Boehner will be refunding more than $1 million to the treasury from the money he was allocated, Kennedy said.

Most of the $16,058 that Pelosi charged taxpayers for flowers, Elshami said, was for the visits of foreign dignitaries, such as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Jordan’s King Abdullah.

“Many of the same dignitaries and international leaders hosted by the White House … are also hosted by Speaker Pelosi,” Elshami said. “This expense is associated largely with these occasions and other Congress-wide, bipartisan events”

While Hastert didn’t appear to spend any money on flowers last year, bouquets are not new to Pelosi’s office. She spent about $5,000 on flowers last year when she was minority leader.

Attempts to find out how much the White House spends on flowers were unsuccessful.

The increase from Hastert to Pelosi was driven largely by a surge in travel and a heavily fortified payroll.

Pelosi has more people working for her. Hastert employed 35 people during the third quarter of last year. Pelosi, by contrast, had 51 people on her payroll during the same time period.

“As the first Democratic Speaker in 12 years, there was a responsibility to the American people and the Democratic Caucus to hit the ground running and to pass the New Direction agenda,” Elshami said. “To achieve this goal, more resources were needed, including the hiring of additional staff in policy and research areas, for example.”

Another factor in the disparity is travel. Hastert didn’t bill much official travel last year, spending only about $1,700, while Pelosi racked up many times that at nearly $60,000 — a figure that does not include her “congressional delegation” journeys to Europe and the Middle East. It does, however, include many visits to congressional districts.

“As the first woman Speaker of the House and first Democratic Speaker in 12 years, there continues to be a demand for her to travel across the country to appear in congressional districts with members, to meet with local press and editorial boards, and to meet with representatives of the private sector,” Elshami said.

Pelosi also has use of a “legislative floor activity” account, while Boehner controls extra money for “minority employees,” which include his employees and those of other Republican leaders.

If those accounts are factored in, Pelosi’s spending increased 52 percent, and Boehner’s spending increased 12 percent.

The spending information is contained in thick books issued quarterly called the Statement of Disbursements of the House. Some call them “brown books” for their beige covers (Senate books are green). Others call them “bitch books,” because congressional staffers look up their counterparts’ salaries, then complain to their bosses if they’re paid less.

The books are often used to check spending of members’ representational allowance, which in 2007 ranged from $1,262,065 to $1,600,539. Each member of leadership has an MRA account for his or her district office, and a separate account to cover the leadership office.

Under a continuing resolution passed in February, House members got $555 million for their MRAs, and leaders were allocated $24 million.

Other expenses in Pelosi’s office include:

• A $10,000 contract to former Clinton White House speechwriter Heather Hurlburt to write the speech Pelosi delivered to the Israeli Knesset.

• Nearly $20,000 to Washington attorney Richard Meltzer to help with Pelosi’s transition. “Just like a presidential transition, Richard Meltzer was hired to oversee the historic changeover of Congress,” Elshami said.

• More than $2,400 to hire a makeup artist for the week of her swearing in. Pelosi later reimbursed the entire cost from her personal funds.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has spent 1 percent more than Boehner spent when he was majority leader. Boehner was elected majority leader in early February 2006. The office is shrinking from the days of DeLay, who had 29 staffers in 2004. Hoyer had 23 employees in September.

As minority leader, Boehner has carried $127,000 to cover the costs of transitioning from Hastert’s tenure and archiving Hastert’s materials. Beyond that, he has spent more from his minority leader accounts than Pelosi did on services and some salaries.

“Mr. Boehner handles the office books the same way he’d like to see the federal budget administered, which is why he returned to the Treasury roughly $1 million from FY06 and is on track to best that number for FY07,” Kennedy said. “Any modest increase in expenditures this year over last reflects the additional responsibilities he assumed as the highest-ranking Republican in the House.”

The biggest swings were in some of the lower-profile offices.

House Minority Conference Chairman Adam Putnam’s (R-Fla.) office spent 58 percent more than Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) when he was the minority caucus chairman.

A spokesman for Putnam said he absorbed many departure costs for the outgoing conference chairwoman, Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio). For example, many departure bonuses were paid to Pryce’s employees this year, counting toward Putnam’s total. The disbursement books show Putnam has spent about $200,000 less than Pryce did last year.

The biggest percentage decrease was for the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, run by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.). The committee spent 28 percent less this year.

Putnam’s office said it is fairer to compare the spending of the whole Republican conference, steering and policy operations to the Democratic caucus, steering and policy operations.

Money is distributed evenly between the Republicans and Democrats for those functions, and the party leaders decide how to allocate them.

Under that calculation, Republicans spent 18 percent less than they did last year while Democrats’ spending rose 4 percent over last year. Democrats, however, say that is not a legitimate comparison.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-buys-16k-worth-of-flowers-2007-12-12.html

LuvRPgrl

12-15-2007, 03:36 AM

red states rule

12-15-2007, 09:01 AM

I totally concur.
ANYTIME AND EVERYTIME, HOWEVER, when you make govt bigger, by increasing taxes, it makes it easier for them to hind those benefits going to those companies.

Libs are now backing down, and Pres Bush is winning another fight with the Dems.

Dems are CUTTING the pork and CUTTING spending. I give them credit for doing so - even though they were dragged kicking and screaming

We may even see a bigger drop in the annual deficit, which will make the libs case for raising taxes even harder

Joe Steel

12-15-2007, 11:44 AM

Taxes are necessary, but excessive taxes are not. The federal government needs about 10% or so to guarantee my precious freedoms, and can do so by sticking with what is enumerated in the Constitution. Anything else is an infringement on my precious freedoms.

Utter, total and complete nonsense.

Your precious freedoms come from government. Taxes are the price you pay for them. The government decides the price and you pay it.

If you don't like it, get out.

Joe Steel

12-15-2007, 11:47 AM

How about maximizing freedom? Taxes are the single biggest attack on freedom.

Taxes are the price of freedom. Anyone who complains about them is a traitor to the American ideal.

glockmail

12-15-2007, 11:48 AM

Taxes are the price of freedom. Anyone who complains about them is a traitor to the American ideal. You'd love the "freedom" of the former USSR. 100% taxation.

5stringJeff

12-15-2007, 02:00 PM

Utter, total and complete nonsense.

Your precious freedoms come from government. Taxes are the price you pay for them. The government decides the price and you pay it.

If you don't like it, get out.

Taxes are the price of freedom. Anyone who complains about them is a traitor to the American ideal.

Wrong and wrong. Our rights are God-given, and government exists to guarantee them, not to provide them. The government is the servant of the people who give it its legitimacy, NOT the other way around.

And taxes are the price of government, not of freedom. It's not like they don't pay taxes in North Korea, Iran, or Zimbabwe, where people are significantly less free.

Joe Steel

12-15-2007, 02:35 PM

Wrong and wrong. Our rights are God-given, and government exists to guarantee them, not to provide them. The government is the servant of the people who give it its legitimacy, NOT the other way around.

God doesn't a damn about freedom. Throughout history slavery flourished in the most god-fearing of nations and God never lifted a celestial finger to stop it. Men organize governments to create freedom.

And taxes are the price of government, not of freedom. It's not like they don't pay taxes in North Korea, Iran, or Zimbabwe, where people are significantly less free.

Taxes are the lifeblood of government and government creates freedom.

JohnDoe

12-15-2007, 07:03 PM

I totally concur.
ANYTIME AND EVERYTIME, HOWEVER, when you make govt bigger, by increasing taxes, it makes it easier for them to hind those benefits going to those companies.

Actually Luv, I used to think what you are touting is true.

HOWEVER, it is not true.

We now have the largest government spending in our history, and that was with a Republican congress and 2-3 consecutive Republican tax cuts, probably the largest tax cut in our history as a country!

This happened with a Republican President and a Republican House of representatives and a republican senate in the majority.

The money the government takes in revenues doesn't correllate to the money our gvt spends anymore. This Congress proved that to us the past 6 years while the republicans ruled all. They just borrow the money from countries like China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia, and kept on spending, spending and spending like drunken sailors in whore house.

Putting us Americans at the beckon call of China and Saudi Arabia and allowed our dollar's value to go in the toilet, and our National Debt to double the size it had accumilated in our entire history, in just 6 years of rule....because of their excessive spending and because of the tax cuts.

So, i say hogwash to that kind of thinking now....just plain hogwash. And you should say the same and everyone here too should acknowledge what crap and trouble our country is in right now because of the spending and borrowing while giving tax cuts.

Taxes will HAVE TO BE RAISED because of what the republicans did while in control, and yes the Democrats may look bad in doing it, but there is NO CHOICE. Right now we are paying over $300 billion a year out of our budget just to pay the interest payment on our National debt, and it is going to go up to over $400 billion dollars a year before the president is out of office. Like i said, that is for NOTHING other than the interest payment on our enormous debt, providing no reductiuon in the debt and cutting the money congress has to spend on our national defense, homeland security and other mandatory programs, causing congress to borrow this money year after year, unless we have a booming economy that can buy us out of it with higher revenues collected.

But we know that the economy is going in the toilet with the housing crisis, and with the higher gas prices all of us are feeling in our pockets for gasoline and oil to heat our homes. There is no booming economy to buy us out of their spending and borrowing spree....

So, it simply is a MYTH that lowering taxes will keep congress from spending money. :(

jd

red states rule

12-15-2007, 07:12 PM

Actually Luv, I used to think what you are touting is true.

HOWEVER, it is not true.

We now have the largest government spending in our history, and that was with a Republican congress and 2-3 consecutive Republican tax cuts, probably the largest tax cut in our history as a country!

This happened with a Republican President and a Republican House of representatives and a republican senate in the majority.

The money the government takes in revenues doesn't correllate to the money our gvt spends anymore. This Congress proved that to us the past 6 years while the republicans ruled all. They just borrow the money from countries like China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia, and kept on spending, spending and spending like drunken sailors in whore house.

Putting us Americans at the beckon call of China and Saudi Arabia and allowed our dollar's value to go in the toilet, and our National Debt to double the size it had accumilated in our entire history, in just 6 years of rule....because of their excessive spending and because of the tax cuts.

So, i say hogwash to that kind of thinking now....just plain hogwash. And you should say the same and everyone here too should acknowledge what crap and trouble our country is in right now because of the spending and borrowing while giving tax cuts.

Taxes will HAVE TO BE RAISED because of what the republicans did while in control, and yes the Democrats may look bad in doing it, but there is NO CHOICE. Right now we are paying over $300 billion a year out of our budget just to pay the interest payment on our National debt, and it is going to go up to over $400 billion dollars a year before the president is out of office. Like i sad, that is for NOTHING other than the interest payment on our enormous debt, providing no reductiuon in the debt and cutting the money congress has to spend on our national defense, homeland security and other mandatory programs, causing congress to borrow this money year after year, unless we have a booming economy that can buy us out of it with higher revenues collected.

But we know that the economy is going in the toilet with the housing crisis, and with the higher gas prices all of us are feeling in our pockets for gasoline and oil to heat our homes. There is no booming economy to buy us out of their spending and borrowing spree....

So, it simply is a MYTH that lowering taxes will keep congress from spending money. :(

jd

Taxes do not have to be raised. $2.6 trillion was sent to DC last year - and you are still not happy

By all means JD, lets raise taxes only to see Dems piss through it with their pork and flower from Nancy. I see you never responded to the many examples of Dem pork - pork they promised to stop

Still waiting for you to answer how much you want the rich to pay. The top 1% pay 36% of federal income taxes - at what percentage will you be happy?

Revenues have soared since the tax cuts. Thanks to tax cuts, Dems have more money to waste on their pork.

JohnDoe

12-15-2007, 07:42 PM

Taxes do not have to be raised. $2.6 trillion was sent to DC last year - and you are still not happy

By all means JD, lets raise taxes only to see Dems piss through it with their pork and flower from Nancy. I see you never responded to the many examples of Dem pork - pork they promised to stop

Still waiting for you to answer how much you want the rich to pay. The top 1% pay 36% of federal income taxes - at what percentage will you be happy?

Revenues have soared since the tax cuts. Thanks to tax cuts, Dems have more money to waste on their pork.

hey rsr! :)

i don't think a looming recession is the time to raise taxes, but i don't think it is the time to continue giving additional tax breaks such as eliminating the estate tax either.

If the top 1% hold/earn 36% of our country's wealth, then i have no problem what so ever in them paying 36% of our country's income taxes. Do you think you can afford to pay more in taxes so that they can have a reduction in taxes? then by all means, pay more taxes out of your own pockets so that these billionaires can have more money and pay less in taxes! ;)

revenues did not soar after the tax breaks as was thought, only in 2006 did they reach about the same level in revenue intake, as we took in, in 2002. And we lost revenues for 2003, 2004, and 2005 that have STILL not been made up....and those revenues lost, were borrowed from communists, and arabs.

Revenues, without tax breaks would rise each and every year, with the economy's rise. Tax breaks are not needed for revenues to soar, a good economy is needed....just look at some of the clinton years, where tax cuts were not given, revenues soared!

jd

red states rule

12-15-2007, 07:47 PM

hey rsr! :)

i don't think a looming recession is the time to raise taxes, but i don't think it is the time to continue giving additional tax breaks such as eliminating the estate tax either.

If the top 1% hold/earn 36% of our country's wealth, then i have no problem what so ever in them paying 36% of our country's income taxes. Do you think you can afford to pay more in taxes so that they can have a reduction in taxes? then by all means, pay more taxes out of your own pockets so that these billionaires can have more money and pay less in taxes! ;)

revenues did not soar after the tax breaks as was thought, only in 2006 did they reach about the same level in revenue intake, as we took in, in 2002. And we lost revenues for 2003, 2004, and 2005 that have STILL not been made up....and those revenues lost, were borrowed from communists, and arabs.

Revenues, without tax breaks would rise each and every year, with the economy's rise. Tax breaks are not needed for revenues to soar, a good economy is needed....just look at some of the clinton years, where tax cuts were not given, revenues soared!

jd

Hey JD, hope all is well with you

JD, you need to know the facts and not the DNC talking points. The top 1%make about 18% of the income and pay 36% of the income taxes. Income to the government has risen the last 3 years, and the annual deficit has shrunk by more then 55%

When tax were cut by JFK, Reagan, and now Pres Bush - revenues soared JD

Again, Dems are wasting our money with ever increasing amounts of pork - but libs do not say anything about that. Only how the government needs more "funding"

The economny is a long way from recession. Check out my thread on the top 10 economic myths of 2007

JohnDoe

12-15-2007, 07:56 PM

God doesn't a damn about freedom. Throughout history slavery flourished in the most god-fearing of nations and God never lifted a celestial finger to stop it. Men organize governments to create freedom.

Taxes are the lifeblood of government and government creates freedom.

joe, what you are failing to recognize is the billions if not trillions in lost revenues.... no bid contracts with billions not accounted for, $100 billion given for katrina relief just disappeared with virtually all the people affected still in the same sinking boat, billions disappearing in iraq, $2.3 trillion unaccounted for by the pentegon, giving oil companies tax credits while they are pulling in more profits than they ever have in their lives...etc........... there is so much money that the gvt takes in that is just LOST or wasted, enough to pay for healthcare for every citizen for the next 10 years, gone down an invisible drain....

i can understand where you are coming from and what you are trying to say, but there seems to be no accountability for a great deal of our taxes, and this should not be ignored!!!

jd

red states rule

12-15-2007, 07:59 PM

joe, what you are failing to recognize is the billions if not trillions in lost revenues.... no bid contracts with billions not accounted for, $100 billion given for katrina relief just disappeared with virtually all the people affected still in the same sinking boat, billions disappearing in iraq, $2.3 trillion unaccounted for by the pentegon, giving oil companies tax credits while they are pulling in more profits than they ever have in their lives...etc........... there is so much money that the gvt takes in that is just LOST or wasted, enough to pay for healthcare for every citizen for the next 10 years, gone down an invisible drain....

i can understand where you are coming from and what you are trying to say, but there seems to be no accountability for a great deal of our taxes, and this should not be ignored!!!

jd

Oh yes JD, stay with the usual DNC talking points and ignore the "vital" government spending of the Dems

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/wm1660_table1.pdf

5stringJeff

12-15-2007, 08:14 PM

Taxes are the lifeblood of government and government creates freedom.

Really? How many freedoms did the USSR create? How about the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe? How about Mao, whose Communist regime has slaughtered tens of millions of Chinese? What freedoms did he create?

Freedoms are not granted by governments. They belong to people inherently.

glockmail

12-15-2007, 08:19 PM

Really? How many freedoms did the USSR create? How about the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe? How about Mao, whose Communist regime has slaughtered tens of millions of Chinese? What freedoms did he create?

Freedoms are not granted by governments. They belong to people inherently. Wasting your breathe trying to reason with this mental midget.

red states rule

12-15-2007, 08:23 PM

Wasting your breathe trying to reason with this mental midget.

Not so much a mental midget, JD has been sucked in by lies and the revision of economic history by the left

JohnDoe

12-15-2007, 08:25 PM

Oh yes JD, stay with the usual DNC talking points and ignore the "vital" government spending of the Dems

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/wm1660_table1.pdf

rsr, at least half of those requests for money on that list you posted are from Republicans, even the President is on there requesting money?

i don't see ALL that is on that list as pork either?

jd

JohnDoe

12-15-2007, 08:28 PM

and rsr, there is tons of stuff that the dems waste money on too! no question!!!

jd

red states rule

12-15-2007, 08:30 PM

rsr, at least half of those requests for money on that list you posted are from Republicans, even the President is on there requesting money?

i don't see ALL that is on that list as pork either?

jd

JD, most of the dollar amount is going to Dem pork. I see nothing on the list that is needed government spending

The point is JD, the government is awash in our money. WE need MORE tax cuts to get the money out of DC

The Dems are caving on their insane spending, as Pres Bush has boxed them in a corner. No tax increase is needed JD. Cut the spending and the deficit will drop even faster then it has in the last 4 years

glockmail

12-16-2007, 07:28 AM

Not so much a mental midget, JD has been sucked in by lies and the revision of economic history by the left I was referring to JS, not JD.

red states rule

12-16-2007, 07:31 AM

I was referring to JS, not JD.

I stand corrected

But JD has also fallen into the wealth envy trap the left puts out there

Joe Steel

12-16-2007, 09:00 AM

i can understand where you are coming from and what you are trying to say, but there seems to be no accountability for a great deal of our taxes, and this should not be ignored!!!

jd

Certainly. Without accountability tax revenues will be squandered and we will waste one of the most important, perhaps the most important, tools of government.

Government is the structure which makes modern life possible and taxes are vitally important to government.

red states rule

12-16-2007, 09:05 AM

Certainly. Without accountability tax revenues will be squandered and we will waste one of the most important, perhaps the most important, tools of government.

Government is the structure which makes modern life possible and taxes are vitally important to government.

How are Dems spending our tax money? Not the way they promised to get elected

The Water Resources Development Act contains more than 900 special-interest boondoggles like:

At least $1.8 billion to build seven unnecessary navigation locks on the Upper Mississippi River, a project embroiled for years by corruption and budget overruns.

Billions for cross-country “environmental infrastructure,” which usually means building a marina or waterfront shopping center.

$105 million to Louisiana’s Port of Iberia, which the Corps estimated to generate 30 cents for every $1 spent before Senator Mary Landrieu demanded a highly dubious recount.

A multimillion-dollar subsidyfest for wastewater treatment facilities, sewer projects, mine reclamation, beach maintenance and surface transport, none of which fall under the Corps’ jurisdiction.

Funding for a study on the impact on navigation of the proposed Knik Arm Bridge (renamed “Don Young’s Way” in SAFTEA-LU) at Cook Inlet in Alaska (Section 4005)

Riverfront development to enhance recreation in Perth Amboy, New Jersey (Section 4048)

Ecosystem restoration of the Walla Walla River Basin in Washington (Section 4063);

Water supply projects in Wilke County and Yadkinville, North Carolina, and Abilene, Texas (Sections 4058, 4059 and 4077);

Authorization of $5,300,000 for the construction of Lake Lanier Olympic Center in Georgia (Section 5061);

Authorization of $65,000,000 for a Lido Key Beach, Florida, replenishment project (Section 3036).

Several other beach replenishment projects have been added to Section 1001 of H.R. 1495, including:

$21,000,000 for Imperial Beach, California, beach replenishment;
$101,000, 000 for beach replenishment at Ocean City, Sea Isle City, and contiguous New Jersey seashore resorts;
$59,000,000 for central New Jersey seashore beach replenishment;
$122,000,000 for beach replenishment in northern New Jersey;
$10,600,000 for beach replenishment on Pawley’s Island, South Carolina.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a core mission: commercial navigation, flood and storm control, restoring some aquatic ecosystems. The water bill is supported by Democrats and Republicans alike with enough votes to override an expected veto by President Bush.

The earmarks represent incidental local projects that divert money from much needed projects and the actual responsibilities of the Corp of Engineers. Budget and spending transparency in Congress continues to be clear as mud on both sides of the aisle
http://www.liberallyconservative.com/?cat=8

red states rule

12-16-2007, 09:20 AM

hey rsr! :)

i don't think a looming recession is the time to raise taxes, but i don't think it is the time to continue giving additional tax breaks such as eliminating the estate tax either.

If the top 1% hold/earn 36% of our country's wealth, then i have no problem what so ever in them paying 36% of our country's income taxes. Do you think you can afford to pay more in taxes so that they can have a reduction in taxes? then by all means, pay more taxes out of your own pockets so that these billionaires can have more money and pay less in taxes! ;)

revenues did not soar after the tax breaks as was thought, only in 2006 did they reach about the same level in revenue intake, as we took in, in 2002. And we lost revenues for 2003, 2004, and 2005 that have STILL not been made up....and those revenues lost, were borrowed from communists, and arabs.

Revenues, without tax breaks would rise each and every year, with the economy's rise. Tax breaks are not needed for revenues to soar, a good economy is needed....just look at some of the clinton years, where tax cuts were not given, revenues soared!

jd

JD, I told yopu about San Fran Nan spending $16,000 of flowers since Jan 2007

Other expenses in Pelosi’s office include:

• A $10,000 contract to former Clinton White House speechwriter Heather Hurlburt to write the speech Pelosi delivered to the Israeli Knesset.

• Nearly $20,000 to Washington attorney Richard Meltzer to help with Pelosi’s transition. “Just like a presidential transition, Richard Meltzer was hired to oversee the historic changeover of Congress,” Elshami said.

• More than $2,400 to hire a makeup artist for the week of her swearing in. Pelosi later reimbursed the entire cost from her personal funds.

Is this why we need to pay more in taxes JD? So San Fran Nan can live the good life?

Joe Steel

12-16-2007, 10:53 AM

How are Dems spending our tax money? Not the way they promised to get elected

The Water Resources Development Act contains more than 900 special-interest boondoggles like:

...

Boondogglery is in the eye of the beholder. Others would regard these projects as necessary to the general welfare.

red states rule

12-16-2007, 10:55 AM

Boondogglery is in the eye of the beholder. Others would regard these projects as necessary to the general welfare.

Only if you are a pork loving liberal - and these are examples of why you want us to fork over MORE of our hard earned money to the government

Joe Steel

12-16-2007, 12:18 PM

Only if you are a pork loving liberal - and these are examples of why you want us to fork over MORE of our hard earned money to the government

I haven't examined them in detail but I suppose some good can come from them; if for no other reason than that they create employment and have the potential to transfer money from those who have too much to those who have too little.

I realize this may not be acceptable to misfits and malcontents such as yourself but that's something the rest of us will have to accept. There'll always be folks who exist on the fringe of reality and there's just nothing we can do about it.

red states rule

12-16-2007, 12:19 PM

I haven't examined them in detail but I suppose some good can come from them; if for no other reason than that they create employment and have the potential to transfer money from those who have too much to those who have too little.

I realize this may not be acceptable to misfits and malcontents such as yourself but that's something the rest of us will have to accept. There'll always be folks who exist on the fringe of reality and there's just nothing we can do about it.

Here are some examples of pork that Dems put in the defense bill

Democrats support the troops with:

* $3.5 million for guided tours of the Capitol.
* $25 million for asbestos abatement at the Capitol Power Plant.
* $24 million for sugar beets.
* $3 million for sugar cane.
* $100 million for security at the Presidential Conventions in 2008.
* $20 million for insect infestation damage.
* $2.1 billion for crop production losses.
* $1.5 billion for livestock production losses.
* $100 million for Dairy Production Losses.
* $13 million for Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention Program.
* $31 million for one month extension of Milk Income Loss Contract program.
* $2 million for the University of Vermont
* $32 million for Livestock Indemnity Program.
* $40 million for the Tree Assistance Program.
* $100 million for Small Agricultural Dependent Businesses.
* $6 million for North Dakota flooded crop land.
* $35 million for emergency conservation program.
* $50 million for the emergency watershed program.
* $115 million for the conservation security program.
* $18 million for drought assistance in upper Great Plains/South West.
* $165.9 million for fisheries disaster relief.
* $50 million for fisheries disaster mitigation fund.
* $12 million for forest service money.
* $640 million for LIHEAP.
* $388.9 million for road projects.
* $22.8 million for geothermal research and development.
* $500 million for wildland fire management.
* $13 million for mine safety technology research.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/03/27/how-dems-support-the-troops/

Joe Steel

12-16-2007, 12:45 PM

Here are some examples of pork that Dems put in the defense bill

...

Here are some of the things the Founders put in the Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

glockmail

12-16-2007, 03:42 PM

Here are some of the things the Founders put in the Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Kinda puts a damper on progressive taxation and transfer of wealth, doesn't it?

You gotta love it when libs quote the COTUS. It bites them in the ass every time!

Joe Steel

12-16-2007, 05:09 PM

Kinda puts a damper on progressive taxation and transfer of wealth, doesn't it?

You gotta love it when libs quote the COTUS. It bites them in the ass every time!

Try again, dumbass.

The rates are applied equally throughout the United States.

You gotta love it when wingnuts try to interpret the COTUS. It bites them in the ass every time!

glockmail

12-16-2007, 05:39 PM

Try again, dumbass.

The rates are applied equally throughout the United States.

You gotta love it when wingnuts try to interpret the COTUS. It bites them in the ass every time! Please explain why taxing someone who makes $200K at a higher rate then someone who makes $20K not in violation of that phrase?

red states rule

12-16-2007, 05:43 PM

Please explain why taxing someone who makes $200K at a higher rate then someone who makes $20K not in violation of that phrase?

Here are the numbers from the IRS

the top 1% pay 34% of all federal income taxes

the top 5% pay 54%

the top 10% pay 65%

the top 25% pay 85%

and the top 50^ pay 96%

and Dems want to RAISE taxes on these folks?

glockmail

12-16-2007, 05:55 PM

Here are the numbers from the IRS

the top 1% pay 34% of all federal income taxes

the top 5% pay 54%

the top 10% pay 65%

the top 25% pay 85%

and the top 50^ pay 96%

and Dems want to RAISE taxes on these folks?The bottom 49% are 99% Democrats.

red states rule

12-16-2007, 05:56 PM

The bottom 49% are 99% Democrats.

Easy there Glock. Remember, 99% of Dems give the rest a bad name

Joe Steel

12-17-2007, 08:41 AM

Please explain why taxing someone who makes $200K at a higher rate then someone who makes $20K not in violation of that phrase?

Taxpayers throughout the US are subject to the same rate schedule. Similarly-situated taxpayers will pay equal tax.

Nukeman

12-17-2007, 08:42 AM

Taxpayers throughout the US are subject to the same rate schedule. Similarly-situated taxpayers will pay equal tax.

Thats not what he asked and you know it!!!!!

red states rule

12-17-2007, 08:42 AM

Taxpayers throughout the US are subject to the same rate schedule. Similarly-situated taxpayers will pay equal tax.

Please see post #165

red states rule

12-17-2007, 08:56 AM

Yesterday, you had a "unbiased" host do his best to get his guest to call for higher taxes

He failed

Stephanopoulos Pushes Greenspan to Agree Taxes Should Be Raised
By Brent Baker | December 17, 2007 - 03:38 ET

On Sunday's This Week, ABC's George Stephanopoulos pressed former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to agree on the wisdom of raising taxes. Stephanopoulos wondered “what would be wrong with letting the tax cuts for the top one percent expire?” and suggested that to “shore up” Social Security and Medicate that Congress “limit the tax cuts.”

Citing a Congressional Budget Office study, “which was just stunning to me,” Stephanopoulos recounted how “it said that in the last two years -- from 2003 to 2005 -- the increase in income for the top one percent exceeded the total income of the bottom 20 percent. Given that, what would be wrong with letting the tax cuts for the top one percent expire and plowing that money into education?” Following up, Stephanopoulos proposed: “If you have long-term problems in Medicare and then also in Social Security, wouldn't it make sense to, in addition to limiting them as I know you would like to do, to limit the tax cuts and shore up the programs in that way?” Stephanopoulos started the interview by summarizing John Edwards' claim that “average Americans are not winning in this current economy and the policies that we've been following for a long time are part of the reason.” Greenspan retorted: “His remedies will make it worse.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/12/17/stephanopoulos-pushes-greenspan-agree-taxes-should-be-raised

glockmail

12-17-2007, 09:04 AM

Taxpayers throughout the US are subject to the same rate schedule. Similarly-situated taxpayers will pay equal tax. wrong. People who make more pay a much higher percentage. People who make below a certain level actually get money "back" from the guv'mint. Taking money that ain't yours: that's called "stealing". It's also unconstitutional according to the passage that you quouted.

red states rule

12-17-2007, 09:08 AM

5stringJeff

12-17-2007, 10:23 AM

wrong. People who make more pay a much higher percentage. People who make below a certain level actually get money "back" from the guv'mint. Taking money that ain't yours: that's called "stealing". It's also unconstitutional according to the passage that you quouted.

I hate to take Joe Steel's side on anything, but the passage in question was put in to ensure taht the federal government didn't tax one state differently than another state. Since the same tax scheme applies to all 50 states, it's constitutional. Of course, that doesn't make it the right tax policy.

LuvRPgrl

12-17-2007, 12:31 PM

I think you mis read my statement. I was not making any claim about whether or not raising or lowering taxes makes the revenues go up. Im merely pointing out that the larger the govt is, the more corruption and waste of $$$ there will be.
Your back and forth with RSR proves that. Both parties are guilty.

Fact is, taking more money (% wise) from wealthier people is immoral. I think you would be pissed if you paid $2.50 for a burger, and the guy behind you only pays $1.00. Why should richer people have to pay $10.00 to have a cop write him a speeding ticket, but the poor person only has to pay $5.00? (that is the funds to pay the cop, not the ticket penalty amount of $$$)

Also, you comments about how the repub lead senate, house and presidency are spending worse than ever are in error.

When discussing the national debt, it is better to use percentages. If a guy making $1,000,000.00 a year is paying $1,000.00 in interest monthly for his mortgage, and a guy making $100 grand a year is paying $500 interest on his mortgage, who has the less favorable debt amount? Of course the guy only making $100 K per year.

The % of the ND is currently around 1.5%, which is lower than any of Clintons, or Bush senor, or Regean, or Carter,,,,

Fact is, when you make more money you go more into debt in sheer numbers.

Also, the three branches were not totally under repub control. Many of the repubs were very borderline, and actually liberal when it comes to social policy. And their majority was very slim and tenuous at the best. To say repubs had "control" of all three houses is deceitful.

Actually Luv, I used to think what you are touting is true.

HOWEVER, it is not true.

We now have the largest government spending in our history, and that was with a Republican congress and 2-3 consecutive Republican tax cuts, probably the largest tax cut in our history as a country!

This happened with a Republican President and a Republican House of representatives and a republican senate in the majority.

The money the government takes in revenues doesn't correllate to the money our gvt spends anymore. This Congress proved that to us the past 6 years while the republicans ruled all. They just borrow the money from countries like China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia, and kept on spending, spending and spending like drunken sailors in whore house.

Putting us Americans at the beckon call of China and Saudi Arabia and allowed our dollar's value to go in the toilet, and our National Debt to double the size it had accumilated in our entire history, in just 6 years of rule....because of their excessive spending and because of the tax cuts.

So, i say hogwash to that kind of thinking now....just plain hogwash. And you should say the same and everyone here too should acknowledge what crap and trouble our country is in right now because of the spending and borrowing while giving tax cuts.

Taxes will HAVE TO BE RAISED because of what the republicans did while in control, and yes the Democrats may look bad in doing it, but there is NO CHOICE. Right now we are paying over $300 billion a year out of our budget just to pay the interest payment on our National debt, and it is going to go up to over $400 billion dollars a year before the president is out of office. Like i said, that is for NOTHING other than the interest payment on our enormous debt, providing no reductiuon in the debt and cutting the money congress has to spend on our national defense, homeland security and other mandatory programs, causing congress to borrow this money year after year, unless we have a booming economy that can buy us out of it with higher revenues collected.

But we know that the economy is going in the toilet with the housing crisis, and with the higher gas prices all of us are feeling in our pockets for gasoline and oil to heat our homes. There is no booming economy to buy us out of their spending and borrowing spree....

So, it simply is a MYTH that lowering taxes will keep congress from spending money. :(

jd

LuvRPgrl

12-17-2007, 12:37 PM

5stringJeff

12-17-2007, 12:47 PM

One more thing, a deficit isnt as bad as people think. Having a surplus is NOT GOOD, because if the govt has money sitting around, they will figure out a way to spend it.

Ideally, they would use it to reduce the deficit. But we are talking about Congress.

Joe Steel

12-17-2007, 01:24 PM

Thats not what he asked and you know it!!!!!

The answer is on-point. A progressive income tax is permissible because it treats all taxpayers equally. Those with similiar incomes and similar deductions will pay similar taxes.

Joe Steel

12-17-2007, 01:25 PM

Joe Steel

12-17-2007, 01:28 PM

Fact is, taking more money (% wise) from wealthier people is immoral. I think you would be pissed if you paid $2.50 for a burger, and the guy behind you only pays $1.00.

It happens all the time. Prices of airplane seats and hotel rooms, for instance, vary from hour-to-hour and from person-to-person depending on circumstances.

KarlMarx

12-17-2007, 04:25 PM

It's idiotic. Taxes are how the government makes revenue. If they cut their source of revenue, they get less revenue. "Cutting taxes increases revenue?" It's like saying chopping off a finger will increase your fingers.
You miss a subtle, but very important, point. Taxes are not cut, tax RATES are cut.

When you think of taxes in terms of rates it's easier to see why revenue increases when tax rates decrease.

I like to use the analogy of a sale at a department store, or a reduced unit price charged to the consumer when he buys in bulk.

If you decrease the cost of an economic activity (which is what taxes are), you increase its demand. If you increase its demand, then revenue increases.

glockmail

12-17-2007, 09:57 PM

Get someone to explain "similarly-situated" to you.
Get someone to explain the Constitution for you, specifically the passage that you quoted.

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States while you wish it to say:

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States for those who are similarly-situated

JohnDoe

12-17-2007, 10:30 PM

Ideally, they would use it to reduce the deficit. But we are talking about Congress.ideally they would use it to reduce the debt, the national or public debt, not deficit.....there would be no budget deficit if there was a surplus....

i am sure this is what you meant! :)

jd

red states rule

12-17-2007, 10:32 PM

ideally they would use it to reduce the debt, the national or public debt, not deficit.....there would be no budget deficit if there was a surplus....

i am sure this is what you meant! :)

jd

If Dems would cut the pork (as they promised) - the deficit would go down at a faster rate then it has over the last 4 years

5stringJeff

12-17-2007, 11:31 PM

JohnDoe

12-18-2007, 01:04 AM

I think you mis read my statement. I was not making any claim about whether or not raising or lowering taxes makes the revenues go up. Im merely pointing out that the larger the govt is, the more corruption and waste of $$$ there will be.
Your back and forth with RSR proves that. Both parties are guilty.

Fact is, taking more money (% wise) from wealthier people is immoral. I think you would be pissed if you paid $2.50 for a burger, and the guy behind you only pays $1.00. Why should richer people have to pay $10.00 to have a cop write him a speeding ticket, but the poor person only has to pay $5.00? (that is the funds to pay the cop, not the ticket penalty amount of $$$)

Also, you comments about how the repub lead senate, house and presidency are spending worse than ever are in error.

When discussing the national debt, it is better to use percentages. If a guy making $1,000,000.00 a year is paying $1,000.00 in interest monthly for his mortgage, and a guy making $100 grand a year is paying $500 interest on his mortgage, who has the less favorable debt amount? Of course the guy only making $100 K per year.

The % of the ND is currently around 1.5%, which is lower than any of Clintons, or Bush senor, or Regean, or Carter,,,,

Fact is, when you make more money you go more into debt in sheer numbers.

Also, the three branches were not totally under repub control. Many of the repubs were very borderline, and actually liberal when it comes to social policy. And their majority was very slim and tenuous at the best. To say repubs had "control" of all three houses is deceitful.

point one by you:

Fact is, taking more money (% wise) from wealthier people is immoral.

I simply contend you are wrong. Taking more money from the middle class or the poor, who are unable to give more money is IMMORAL.

point 2:

The % of the ND is currently around 1.5%, which is lower than any of Clintons, or Bush senor, or Regean, or Carter,,,,

the national debt as a percentage of gdp is OVER 60% of gdp and has been rising as a percentage of gdp since president bush came in to office.

and this is now $58,000 debt per working person and does not take in to it the baby boomers on the cusp of retiring, medicare obligations for the boomers. $58k debt on a person that makes $40k a year with no savings, is alot different and more burdensome than $58k a year on to a person that makes $1 million a year with a great deal of savings.

Also, the three branches were not totally under repub control. Many of the repubs were very borderline, and actually liberal when it comes to social policy. And their majority was very slim and tenuous at the best. To say repubs had "control" of all three houses is deceitful.

As deceitful as the repubs saying the democrats have full control of congress, as the repubs are saying now, i suppose? The republicans in the senate have initiated 55 filibusters since the dems have taken power.....now that is what i would call total obstructionism, the democrats, outside of a judge or two did NOT stop the republicans from their power and control of the senate via filibuster.

borrowing $5k is not hard on anyone, but borrowing $5k on top of $100k already owed can be a problem.

simply measuring the amount of national debt as a portion of the gdp is deceiving and not giving the whole picture of what is going on and is NOT a good measure to use, though repubs seem to love using it. Measuring it to each person's savings or salary would be more accurate on showing the trouble we really are in as a country.

In addition to this, measuring it to the gdp and saying all is well, is just the opposite of what you were touting, about reducing the size of our government and gives endless borrowing at the fingertips of congress to continue to spend, spend and spend....so what is it that you actually believe in? spending less or spending more because "it ain't so bad when compared to a percentage of the gdp" Luv?

jd

red states rule

12-18-2007, 05:48 AM

Immanuel

12-18-2007, 08:04 AM

red states rule

12-18-2007, 08:08 AM

Amen!

Coupled with how they spend it.

Immie

I am looking forward to JD's liberal spin on my post. Libs see the "rish" as a renewable money source

Immanuel

12-18-2007, 10:07 AM

I am looking forward to JD's liberal spin on my post. Libs see the "rish" as a renewable money source

My guess is she will come back with the standard, "it is fair because the rich make all their money off of our backs. They have to give back what they take from us."

I've heard that kind of talk from her before.

Immie

JohnDoe

12-18-2007, 10:40 AM

JD, why is that liberals have no problem spending my money on their pet social programs, but the sure a shell have a problem with me keeping more of the money I earn

Libs ingnore facts like the milliionaire who pays $400,000 in taxes - but whine about the $15,000 tax cut he gets

Or the evil CEO - the left attacks his lifestyle while ignoring the hundreds or thousands of employees he hires

JD, it is not immoral for people to keep more of the money they earn. What is immoral is how much the government takes from us

RSR, liberals are not spending YOUR MONEY, they and the Republicans are spending EVERYONE'S MONEY, both Democrat's and Republican's and Independent's and people who don't vote at all's money.

The CEO does not give people jobs, the company that he works for gives people jobs.

It is immoral to take MORE MONEY from the working class, who do not have the money to give. Our national debt has almost doubled, SOMEONE has to pay for it, we will not be able to borrow it on our children's backs forever and the SS monies they are using to pay for the every day bills is unacceptable and stealing from the working class's hard earned money. To NOT acknowledge this, is a real shame rsr.... Do you ever stick up for yourself and only come to the rescue of the very wealthiest?

And wasteful spending is greater by Republicans imo....especially with the military, the Pentegon, the no bid contracts, the lost money and no accountability for endless and unnecessary wars of choice. Trillions of dollars down the drain.... and billions upon billions unaccounted for....

This is not to say that the Democrats do not waste money either, because they do, but personally, i would rather see our tax dollars spent on us and not on endless wars, on businesses of choice like oil businesses that head quarter themselves in the united arab emirates and crud like that....

Congress spends too much money, no doubt on that, and it does come from both sides of the aisle, but the money they collect in taxes to pay for it, does not come from republicans only rsr, but from Democrats too, like Teressa heinz kerry and Warren Buffet and Bill and Melissa Gates and me and my family and my Democratic neighbors, and you and Immie and others.

jd

Immanuel

12-18-2007, 10:45 AM

I hate to say it... But I told you so, RSR. :D

It was predictable and one of the reasons I liked her so much even though I disagree with her.

Immie

red states rule

12-18-2007, 10:19 PM

RSR, liberals are not spending YOUR MONEY, they and the Republicans are spending EVERYONE'S MONEY, both Democrat's and Republican's and Independent's and people who don't vote at all's money.

The CEO does not give people jobs, the company that he works for gives people jobs.

It is immoral to take MORE MONEY from the working class, who do not have the money to give. Our national debt has almost doubled, SOMEONE has to pay for it, we will not be able to borrow it on our children's backs forever and the SS monies they are using to pay for the every day bills is unacceptable and stealing from the working class's hard earned money. To NOT acknowledge this, is a real shame rsr.... Do you ever stick up for yourself and only come to the rescue of the very wealthiest?

And wasteful spending is greater by Republicans imo....especially with the military, the Pentegon, the no bid contracts, the lost money and no accountability for endless and unnecessary wars of choice. Trillions of dollars down the drain.... and billions upon billions unaccounted for....

This is not to say that the Democrats do not waste money either, because they do, but personally, i would rather see our tax dollars spent on us and not on endless wars, on businesses of choice like oil businesses that head quarter themselves in the united arab emirates and crud like that....

Congress spends too much money, no doubt on that, and it does come from both sides of the aisle, but the money they collect in taxes to pay for it, does not come from republicans only rsr, but from Democrats too, like Teressa heinz kerry and Warren Buffet and Bill and Melissa Gates and me and my family and my Democratic neighbors, and you and Immie and others.

jd

JD - did you even read the examples of prok I have posted that point out the DEMS PORK?

Pelosi spending $16,000 on flowers, millions to move into her office, and all the pork inserted into spending bills

JD, the bottom 50% of wage earners pay only 4% of all incomes taxes - it is the evil rich that you smear that pay a majority of the taxes

You talk about SS - well when pres Bush offered a plan for folks to invest 2% of their SS money in their own acconut - libs had a fit. What is the Dems answer - surprise - raise taxes

I do not know about you JD - but I never got a job from a poor man. For somebody to hire someone - it takes money. Dems like you seem to think companies have an endless supply that you can take from them and hand out to others

red states rule

12-18-2007, 10:38 PM

This needs to be repeated again and again

Rich Pay More Taxes Since Bush Elected Contrary to Media Meme
By Noel Sheppard | December 18, 2007 - 20:50 ET
You know all that nonsense the media have been spewing that the Bush tax cuts caused the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer?

Well, the Internal Revenue Service and the Congressional Budget Office have published tax and income numbers for 2005, and the press couldn't be any more wrong.

In fact, it's almost as if the media get their data from Democrat presidential candidates, and disseminate it without the slightest effort whatsover to vet or verify its veracity.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal Monday

Every Democrat running for President wants to raise taxes on "the rich," but they will have to do something miraculous to outtax President Bush. Based on the latest available tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy.

Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005.

Wait a minute. Didn't Bush's tax cuts only favor the wealthy? Isn't that what virtually every Democrat media minion - who, of course, can't add one plus one and come up with the correct answer, mind you! - has been claiming for years?

Yet, that's not the truth, is it:

[T]he share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income.

Not what Brian, Katie, and Charlie have been reporting, is it? Once again, it's almost like they're getting DNC talking points rather than actually looking at the data.

Color me unsurprised.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/18/rich-pay-more-taxes-bush-elected-contrary-media-meme

LuvRPgrl

12-19-2007, 01:54 AM

The answer is on-point. A progressive income tax is permissible because it treats all taxpayers equally. Those with similiar incomes and similar deductions will pay similar taxes.

U contradict yourself. "all taxpayers" becomes "those with similiar incomes".
Not ALL taxpayers have SIMILIAR incomes.

LuvRPgrl

12-19-2007, 01:55 AM

It happens all the time. Prices of airplane seats and hotel rooms, for instance, vary from hour-to-hour and from person-to-person depending on circumstances.

WRONG They vary from hour to hour, but NOT person to person.

LuvRPgrl

12-19-2007, 02:05 AM

point one by you:

I simply contend you are wrong. Taking more money from the middle class or the poor, who are unable to give more money is IMMORAL.

So you agree, taking more from one group than another is immoral. Since I did NOT say we should take more from the middle/poor, but in fact we should take the same amount from all, you have proven me correct. THANKS !

point 2:

the national debt as a percentage of gdp is OVER 60% of gdp and has been rising as a percentage of gdp since president bush came in to office.

and this is now $58,000 debt per working person and does not take in to it the baby boomers on the cusp of retiring, medicare obligations for the boomers. $58k debt on a person that makes $40k a year with no savings, is alot different and more burdensome than $58k a year on to a person that makes $1 million a year with a great deal of savings.

Quit distorting stats by bringing in "things that are about to happen".
You simply need to go get your facts straightened out. Percentage of spending is lower now than in Clintons years.

As deceitful as the repubs saying the democrats have full control of congress, as the repubs are saying now, i suppose?

WHich I have never claimed, but is also irrelevant. YOUR POINT was to prove an accusationof someone, by making the claim, which you now are admitting is a false one.

The republicans in the senate have initiated 55 filibusters since the dems have taken power.....now that is what i would call total obstructionism, the democrats, outside of a judge or two did NOT stop the republicans from their power and control of the senate via filibuster.

borrowing $5k is not hard on anyone, but borrowing $5k on top of $100k already owed can be a problem.

Not for those who can afford it.

simply measuring the amount of national debt as a portion of the gdp is deceiving and not giving the whole picture of what is going on and is NOT a good measure to use, though repubs seem to love using it. Measuring it to each person's savings or salary would be more accurate on showing the trouble we really are in as a country.

In addition to this, measuring it to the gdp and saying all is well, is just the opposite of what you were touting, about reducing the size of our government and gives endless borrowing at the fingertips of congress to continue to spend, spend and spend....so what is it that you actually believe in? spending less or spending more because "it ain't so bad when compared to a percentage of the gdp" Luv?

jd

You seem to be good at confusing things. I didnt say I approve of the spending. I simply stated that YOUR ACCUSATIONS ARE FALSE.

Joe Steel

12-19-2007, 06:56 AM

WRONG They vary from hour to hour, but NOT person to person.

Try again, dumbass.

Southwest Airlines – Offers discounts to passengers 65+ that vary from city to city. Senior Fare tickets are fully refundable and changeable. The airline promises that long haul fares for travelers 65+ will not rise above $129. Fares are subject to change until ticketed. Southwest's popular Friends Fly Free program, once frequent and well-promoted, is almost dormant.

This year it has been activated only once, for an Orlando promotion. 800/435-9792. Keep an eye on Southwest's website for best available fares: www.southwest.com

United Air Lines – Offers senior discounts off published fares to travelers 65+ in some limited markets. Lower, Internet-only fares may be found on the website www.united.com but they must be booked and paid for on the Internet. Call 800/241-6522. SilverPack Coupons for fliers 62+ are no longer available.

Silver Wings Plus Travel Club for travelers 55+ costs $75 for two years, $225 for lifetime membership. Members receive a bimonthly club newsletter and a constant flow of promotions, travel packages, hotel and cruise deals, and rental-car discounts. Members are eligible to buy USA Collection Privilege Certificates, four in a pack for only $25, which then provide domestic zone-based discount fares.

The International Zone Certificates offer a similar deal in three zones: Pacific, Europe and Latin America. Some blackout days apply. To join Silver Wings, call the special United number: 800/720-1765. Fare updates and membership benefits are posted on the club website: www.silverwingsplus.com

http://www.suddenlysenior.com/airfareseniordiscounts.html

red states rule

12-19-2007, 07:01 AM

Try again, dumbass.

Is that all you have? Senior discounts?

I notice you and JD ran like hell from the numbers showing how the "rich" are paying more in taxes AFTER the Bush tax cuts

Joe Steel

12-19-2007, 07:32 AM

Is that all you have? Senior discounts?

I notice you and JD ran like hell from the numbers showing how the "rich" are paying more in taxes AFTER the Bush tax cuts

I don't need anything more. One person gets a lower price than another.

What don't you understand about discounts?

I didn't run from your numbers. I ignored them. They're irrelevant. The issue never was the distribution of taxes. It was the distribution of tax cuts.

red states rule

12-19-2007, 07:35 AM

I don't need anything more. One person gets a lower price than another.

What don't you understand about discounts?

I didn't run from your numbers. I ignored them. They're irrelevant. The issue never was the distribution of taxes. It was the distribution of tax cuts.

Since a small minoirty is paying the majority of taxes - when tax cuts are passed why is it a shock to you the people who PAY the taxes get the tax cuts?

Joe Steel

12-19-2007, 07:38 AM

Since a small minoirty is paying the majority of taxes - when tax cuts are passed why is it a shock to you the people who PAY the taxes get the tax cuts?

Tax burden.

The rich can afford to pay more taxes. Allowing them to pay less is immoral.

red states rule

12-19-2007, 07:40 AM

Joe Steel

12-19-2007, 08:21 AM

The top 1% are paying 36% of the incomes taxes while earning 18% of the money

Who the hell are you to decide what they can afford to pay

Someone who understands the issue.

Immanuel

12-19-2007, 08:22 AM

I truly believe that saying, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer". It is true. It takes money to make money. The more money you have the more money you can invest, make and the more taxes you will pay. Even though you pay more in taxes generally you are going to be profitting from your investments and increasing your wealth.

On the other hand, the poor do not have the ability to invest for profit and consequently they are not going to increase their wealth at the same rate as the rich and they may even loose wealth.

However, that is no excuse for punishing the wealthy just to make the poor wealthy. I think we should provide for the basic needs of the poor. I don't want any kid or adult for that matter starving in America, but when taxes are wasted on government pork and not used for the general welfare of the public then there is a problem.

Immie

red states rule

12-19-2007, 08:26 AM

Immanuel

12-19-2007, 08:51 AM

No the old liberal tag line "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is a lie

The US Treasury studied 10 years of tax returns and found that nearly every income level was rising, and people were moving into the next income bracket

What income level dropped? The top 1% fell by small fraction

My point is that the rich get richer at a faster rate than the poor. In fact, the gap between the rich and the poor IS growing. I stated that the net worth of the poor is rising; however, to clarify what I said, it rises at a much slower rate than that of the rich. So, in fact, the gap is increasing.

Now, the truth is that in certain economic times wealth can and does fall, but, generally the maxim that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (compared to the rich that is) holds true.

Immie

red states rule

12-19-2007, 08:56 AM

Immanuel

12-19-2007, 09:08 AM

The rich are not getting richer and the poor are not getting poorer

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010855

Interesting at first skim, but it raises questions with me. For instance, of those in the lowest brackets, I wonder how many of those in the sample were kids right out of college who yesterday worked at Kmart to make ends meet and today are working for Merrill Lynch. I would not consider such a kid as being "poor" just in the lower income brackets one day and the next having moved upwards.

What I consider the poor as are the people who can't or won't work and live off of welfare. Did their wealth increase too? Did these people even file returns? Did they move up in brackets?

I am not disputing the data but questioning the accuracy of the conclusion. The report shows changes in income levels, it does not appear to show changes in wealth.

Immie

5stringJeff

12-19-2007, 10:06 AM

Tax burden.

The rich can afford to pay more taxes. Allowing them to pay less is immoral.

The top 1% are paying 36% of the incomes taxes while earning 18% of the money

Who the hell are you to decide what they can afford to pay

If you work - you got a tax cut. Did you keep the money or did you send it back to the government?

Dude... Joe Steel is a Marxist in every sense of the word. His motto is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Of course, this ignores the fact that the government decides what everyone's ability and need are, and redistributes wealth through confiscation, reducing freedom and eliminating the incentives to succeed in life.

glockmail

12-19-2007, 11:07 AM

....

The rich can afford to pay more taxes. Allowing them to pay less is immoral.

I'd like to see Hillary use that as her campaign slogan.

red states rule

12-20-2007, 05:46 AM

I'd like to see Hillary use that as her campaign slogan.

I am glad the Dems runing for President (and their supporters) are telling the voters up front they will raise their taxes if elected.

I like them telling the truth on this issue

The last liberal running for President who told the folks he was going to raise their taxes was Walter Mondale. He lost 49 states to Ronald Reagan in 1984

Libs never learn from their past mistakes

PostmodernProphet

12-20-2007, 06:45 AM

I am glad the Dems runing for President (and their supporters) are telling the voters up front they will raise their taxes if elected.

is there one who has done that?......I have heard some campaign that they will raise the tax on other people (a/k/a "rich people") but I haven't heard anyone say they are going to raise everyone's taxes......

red states rule

12-20-2007, 06:51 AM

is there one who has done that?......I have heard some campaign that they will raise the tax on other people (a/k/a "rich people") but I haven't heard anyone say they are going to raise everyone's taxes......

all of them said they want to repeal the Bush tax cuts

and Charles Rangel wants a trillion dollar tax increase

LuvRPgrl

12-29-2007, 05:04 AM

Try again, dumbass.

Dumbass eh? I will simply ignore that.
Regarding your contention that prices vary from "person to person". A "person" is hugely different that " a group of people". In fact, it is illegal to charge a person a "higher" amount for something, simply because they are affluent. There might be exceptions, maybe, maybe not, but a vast majority of the time, it is illegal for businesses to charge more simply based on a persons income.

And offering something to the "highest bidder" doesnt count because I dont then turn around and sell the same item to someone for a cheaper price merely because they have less money.
Also, offering a "discount" is much different than charging some groups a higher price than normal.
Everybody is subject to taxes. There is simply no way around it. Poor people, however, are often given breaks. Middle class are charged "middle" tax rates, and the rich are charged "higher" amounts. Yet, the same persons who impose those completely arbitrary tax rates, also make it illegal for Mcdonalds to charge a rich person more money for a burger, than your average person.

The tax rates are in fact completely arbitrary, because who is to say what is fair or moral if the rich are charged a higher "rate"? In fact, why not just give the entire burden to the rich, cut taxes for the middle and lower classes altogether? Once you get outside the concept of equal tax rates for all except the discount to the poor, then it is merely a matter of opinon as to how much any group should be charged.
The courts have upheld, however, that a business is allowed to give discounts to certain "GROUPS" of individuals, based on various reasons for giving that discount, of which attempting to increase business is a perfectly valid one. However, correct me if Im wrong, it has never been upheld that you can be charged more for something, simply because you are more affluent than average.
Yet they think it is perfectly ok to do that in the tax rate structure.

The federal govt's main purpose is to protect us from foreign invaders. If ten of us were in a foxhole, and everyone had to take turns on "watch duty" would it be fair, moral to force the person who is more affluent to have to watch twice as long, and get less sleep?
Now, if you have one person in the foxhole who is disadvantaged for some reason in his ability to do watch duty, then it could be perfectly fair and moral to relieve him of his duty, (or lowering a poor persons tax burden), but I cant see how anyone could say a person who is more affluent should have to do extra watch duty (raise their tax rates).

Not to mention, that the person who is making more $, may be doing so simply because he is putting in more work hours. Why should he be punished for being ambitious?
If I enlisted in the National Guard Reserve, and was running a business at home for income, and the National Guard were called up, and ten of us were in a foxhole taking turns at watch duty, should I have to do extra hours of watch because I am also running a business at home, while the other nine are merely living off their National Guard Reserve pay only? I think not.

Equal pay for equal work, also applies in reverse. Equal charges for equal services/products provided, by the govt. When the govt provides a service, why should they be able to charge different people different amounts based on their incomes? Why is a govt supplied service or product any different than a private business supplied one?

LuvRPgrl

12-29-2007, 05:08 AM

I don't need anything more. One person gets a lower price than another.

What don't you understand about discounts?

I didn't run from your numbers. I ignored them. They're irrelevant. The issue never was the distribution of taxes. It was the distribution of tax cuts.

NO, one group, not one PERSON. And the basis for that discount is not because of income. It does not vary from "person to person", it varies from group to group. That discount is applied for a reason completly foreign than a persons income.

LuvRPgrl

12-29-2007, 05:10 AM

Tax burden.

The rich can afford to pay more taxes. Allowing them to pay less is immoral.

And so it is immoral to charge them the same amount as the normal person, for a burger?

It is immoral for them to have to give the same amount of time to watch duty, as a normal income person?

LuvRPgrl

12-29-2007, 05:21 AM

My point is that the rich get richer at a faster rate than the poor. In fact, the gap between the rich and the poor IS growing. I stated that the net worth of the poor is rising; however, to clarify what I said, it rises at a much slower rate than that of the rich. So, in fact, the gap is increasing.

Now, the truth is that in certain economic times wealth can and does fall, but, generally the maxim that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (compared to the rich that is) holds true.

Immie

The way you state it is true, however, the "old saying", is in fact saying, the poor are getting POORER, and thats what the Libecrats want people to believe, that in fact the purchasing power of the poor is declining, not simply failing to grow as fast as the rich.

The Libecrats do it simply to get the poor persons vote, not because they give one rats ass iota of concern for the plight of the poor.

Personally, who cares if the gap is growing, as long as our "poor" continue to enjoy a higher and higher standard of living, compared to THEIR past standard, not the standard of the rich. If the poor are benefitting, nothing wrong with that. But to try to get them to believe they are being cheated and treated unfairly because the rich are getting so much more richer, is simply creating envy, which can lead to no good. It makes them think and feel they are victims, it makes them envious and jealous, even though they are actually doing better.
So, they are doing better, but feeling worse because certain people are telling them its not fair because they are not doing even more better than the "better" they are already doing.