Tax the rich, eh?

[evolve]

Um, military, police, fire, legal system, fda, transportation, keeping old people off the streets, and all that debt that people voted FOR before they decided, "Nuh-uh! Not MY debt, it's the governments!" Seriously, why is it that when people vote for politicians and decisions that, say, get us stuck in a decade-long war, it's all good, but as soon as those same people are asked to pay for the money borrowed to support that war, it's all, "don't look at me! It's not MY debt."

this.

running a government isnt cheap even under ideal conditions...add in wars on multiple fronts and a government that has a penchant for handing out monetary handjobs to coporations and the upper 2%, and you get massive debt.

[1715382809]

1715382809

[1715382809]

1715382809

[1715382809]

1715382809

[1715382809]

1715382809

[TheGer]

My examples are facts and figures accessible to anyone.  As for Bush and Clinton, creative accounting can do wonders can't it?  Just look at the unemployment rate.  It's more than 20%.  Unless ofcourse you creative accounting it down to less than 10% as is being done.

I don't have to believe.  The numbers are historical and  sourceable online.

"why do you believe that the reduction of tax rates in your examples resulted in the "rich" paying a higher share of tax revenues?"

I posted the graph. Even if you believe in the Laffer curve, it is a curve, not a straight line. There are plenty of contrary examples to any example you could give. As mentioned the Clinton/Bush years are quite indicative of a contrary position.

[Anonymous]

Um, military, police, fire, legal system, fda, transportation, keeping old people off the streets, and all that debt

Um, no. It does not take trillions to run these services.

[TheGer]

Seriously?  I quote historical examples and you say they are only my beliefs?  LOL

Cause - Lower Taxes
Effect - Tax Receipts increase

Really Dude comon.  Making up an argument just to start an argument is just silly.

"Since if all you have is historical examples, without understanding the cause-effect, then you really do only have "belief,"

I don't have to believe.  The numbers are historical and  sourceable online.

"why do you believe that the reduction of tax rates in your examples resulted in the "rich" paying a higher share of tax revenues?"

By "believe" I meant as in, how do you understand this system works? What is your "informed opinion" of it? Since if all you have is historical examples, without understanding the cause-effect, then you really do only have "belief," instead of actual understanding of how the system works.

[Anonymous]

Also, if you get incompetent politicians the majority of time in a democratic system, it's broken. I will not have my money stolen from me by force and accept it because the dumbass populace can't vote.

Also, I don't plan on voting for this reason. I refuse to have anything to do with putting idiots in office.

"Oh but you could vote for SOMEBODY DIFFERENT!"

You're full of shit. There's never been great change through voting. We need a revolution fueled --sadly-- by the blood of patriots.

[TheGer]

I'll settle for the blood of Tyrants thanks lol.

[billyjoeallen]

I'll settle for the blood of Tyrants thanks lol.

word.

[JBDive]

Also, if you get incompetent politicians the majority of time in a democratic system, it's broken. I will not have my money stolen from me by force and accept it because the dumbass populace can't vote.

Also, I don't plan on voting for this reason. I refuse to have anything to do with putting idiots in office.

"Oh but you could vote for SOMEBODY DIFFERENT!"

You're full of shit. There's never been great change through voting. We need a revolution fueled --sadly-- by the blood of patriots.

I am amazed at how the populace still believes that they get to pick who they vote for not to mention that it makes a difference which of the chosen you vote for.

[lemonginger]

My examples are facts and figures accessible to anyone.  As for Bush and Clinton, creative accounting can do wonders can't it?  Just look at the unemployment rate.  It's more than 20%.  Unless ofcourse you creative accounting it down to less than 10% as is being done.

Uhhh, creative account works in both directions you realize?

The relationship between tax rates and tax receipts is complicated and certainly not as unidirectional as you seem to think. Go ahead and put lines in that longitudinal graph showing when tax rates changed and then look at who they changed for, etc.

This is a quite separate issue from whether taxes are moral, whether the electoral system is broken, whether majoritarian democracy is a good idea in theory or practice, etc etc etc.

All I'm asking is that you walk back your statement and admit that sometimes tax cuts have increased taxes received and sometimes they have decreased taxes received. Likewise with raising taxes.

[Rassah]

I was asking you to explain why one causes the other. You gave me two historical occurences that happened at the same time, said, "See? Fact!" and claimed they are related. I'm not saying they are NOT related, but I want you to explain how one causes the change in the other. Specifically the part about lower tax rates making higher-income people participate in paying taxes more. That part doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Were they tax dodgers before? WHY does that happen?

I mean, I can say:
Cause - Inflaton
Effect - Hitler

and then claim "They are both historical facts. They both happened at about the same time." And even though all of those statements are perfectly true, including that Inflation did actually cause Hitler, someone who doesn't know why may balk and get really confused.

Oh, btw, the correct answer to Clinton was "He was president during an unprecedented technological revolution called the Internet, and the subsequent enabling of cheap globalization," so economy would've boomed and tax receipts increased regardless of what he may have done. Not "creative accounting." See? Explaining and supporting the claim.

Seriously?  I quote historical examples and you say they are only my beliefs?  LOL

Cause - Lower Taxes
Effect - Tax Receipts increase

Really Dude comon.  Making up an argument just to start an argument is just silly.

"Since if all you have is historical examples, without understanding the cause-effect, then you really do only have "belief,"

I don't have to believe.  The numbers are historical and  sourceable online.

"why do you believe that the reduction of tax rates in your examples resulted in the "rich" paying a higher share of tax revenues?"

By "believe" I meant as in, how do you understand this system works? What is your "informed opinion" of it? Since if all you have is historical examples, without understanding the cause-effect, then you really do only have "belief," instead of actual understanding of how the system works.

[gigabytecoin]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=286217

If congress imposed a 100% tax on everyone making over $250k, confiscated all of last year's profits by the Fortune 500 companies, and took all assets of America's 400 billionaires...we could fund our gov't for 8 months. Maybe its time to look at the real culprit here: the government and its spending problem.

If the government did that, I would have no incentive to make more money (or get a job)...

[Rassah]

Just realized that the main flaw with the OP statement is that it's tantamount to:

If the bank asked you to pay them your whole paycheck for your monthly mortgage payment amount, you would not have enough money to pay off your mortgage.

Yeah, that's now how debt works.

[TheGer]

Crazy me I thought certain things to be self evident.  I can only assume it consistent with common sense that if you tax someone excessively(take their money away from them) they are less inclined to spend their Income on anything other than the essentials of survival(Food, Housing, items necessary to keep you employed ect.).  Any extra is likely to be saved for a rainy day or an emergency.

Is it not reasonable to assume the same for Business Owners(if we are to categorize the so called Rich we can assume them to be owners/proprietors of business for this example).  When Businesses are taxed excessively we can expect the same contraction in spending.  No expansion is done, layoffs are likely to occur, production is cut back due to less business, excess business income is likely to be invested in Tax Exempt areas sitting stagnant generating no production value to the economy. In essence, businesses will conduct themselves in a similar fashion to an individual.  They will invest in only the essentials to keep the business afloat and perhaps eek out a small profit for themselves.

Let us examine an example where taxes are reasonably lower.  Things sway in the other direction now.  More money is allowed to stay in the pocket of individuals and businesses alike.  For individuals it is consistent with common sense that if you are allowed to keep more of your money then that money will be invested in things considered to be a bit more extravagant than just Survival Needs.  We can all appreciate this given we are all individuals.  Lower taxes on individuals stimulate spending.

Things can be assumed to be the same for Businesses.  If a business is allowed to keep more of its profits what will happen?  Investment in new opportunities, expansion, new workers hired, increased production due to higher demand from consumers, ect.  Money is not left stagnating unused.

When times are good you expand.  When times are bad you contract.  This is a basic tenet in so many areas of life it should be more obvious to people.

I was asking you to explain why one causes the other. You gave me two historical occurences that happened at the same time, said, "See? Fact!" and claimed they are related. I'm not saying they are NOT related, but I want you to explain how one causes the change in the other. Specifically the part about lower tax rates making higher-income people participate in paying taxes more. That part doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Were they tax dodgers before? WHY does that happen?

I mean, I can say:
Cause - Inflaton
Effect - Hitler

and then claim "They are both historical facts. They both happened at about the same time." And even though all of those statements are perfectly true, including that Inflation did actually cause Hitler, someone who doesn't know why may balk and get really confused.

Oh, btw, the correct answer to Clinton was "He was president during an unprecedented technological revolution called the Internet, and the subsequent enabling of cheap globalization," so economy would've boomed and tax receipts increased regardless of what he may have done. Not "creative accounting." See? Explaining and supporting the claim.

Seriously?  I quote historical examples and you say they are only my beliefs?  LOL

Cause - Lower Taxes
Effect - Tax Receipts increase

Really Dude comon.  Making up an argument just to start an argument is just silly.

"Since if all you have is historical examples, without understanding the cause-effect, then you really do only have "belief,"

I don't have to believe.  The numbers are historical and  sourceable online.

"why do you believe that the reduction of tax rates in your examples resulted in the "rich" paying a higher share of tax revenues?"

By "believe" I meant as in, how do you understand this system works? What is your "informed opinion" of it? Since if all you have is historical examples, without understanding the cause-effect, then you really do only have "belief," instead of actual understanding of how the system works.

[lemonginger]

TheGer: As much as we all appreciate your "common sense" explanation - this very problem has been theorized and modeled many times, in many countries, under many tax conditions, with many datasets. Results tend to be muddied by confounding macro-economic factors, but the overall answer is that "it depends". It is certainly not self-evident that decreasing taxation increases economic activity much less that increasing txes actually decreases total tax receipts (or vice-versa), no matter what the supply-siders say.

[onesalt]

It should be noted that before Reagan became president the defecit had been steadily dropping since world war 2, which cost a boatload of money. During and after reagan the defecit has been rising ever since, only slowing down and decreasing when clinton put in place tax reforms and tax rises. This alone should be fairly good evidence then decreasing taxes doesn't actually make more money since every time the tax rate has been decreased it's just resulted in the country getting into more debt.

[lemonginger]

ah, look at that tremendous fiscal responsibility under Reagan!

[JBDive]

ah, look at that tremendous fiscal responsibility under Reagan!

Reagan expanded the military and thankfully increased military pay after years of totally ignoring the armed services. Without those expenses I would argue the collapse of the USSR and the Soviet Bloc would not have happened or would have taken far longer. A united Germany which is now the powerhouse of the EU was a direct result of those expenses. Being able to respond to world issues with a "Big Stick" to back it are a direct result and remember that would include such things as Kosovo or the years of protecting the Kurds in northen Iraq. All that spending only raised the % of GDP going to debt by less than 15%.

Obama and the sloths that run our Gov't in DC on the other hand have increased that percentage by at least 15% and to what end? A bunch of people got cars they cannot afford in order to bail out the auto industry, which BTW failed and resulted in a full bailout. More people got to stay in homes they could not afford which in turn caused a bailout of the financial sector, a bailout or takeover of F&F which will likely need to be repeated as the exposure there exceeds $200 billion. Not to mention a takeover of healthcare which will result in more Gov't payouts of printed money of at least $940 BILLION per the CBO.

Now as a business owner you take on debt in order to expand and in the end become a better business. Do you see anywhere in the current spending or spending plans any attempt to become "better" at anything? At what point has the Gov't public service areas ever done something "Better" than the private sector? I love it when people cite roads and highways, transportation as an example since all the above are contracted out to, you got it, the private sector.

[onesalt]

ah, look at that tremendous fiscal responsibility under Reagan!

Reagan expanded the military and thankfully increased military pay after years of totally ignoring the armed services. Without those expenses I would argue the collapse of the USSR and the Soviet Bloc would not have happened or would have taken far longer. A united Germany which is now the powerhouse of the EU was a direct result of those expenses. Being able to respond to world issues with a "Big Stick" to back it are a direct result and remember that would include such things as Kosovo or the years of protecting the Kurds in northen Iraq. All that spending only raised the % of GDP going to debt by less than 15%.

Obama and the sloths that run our Gov't in DC on the other hand have increased that percentage by at least 15% and to what end? A bunch of people got cars they cannot afford in order to bail out the auto industry, which BTW failed and resulted in a full bailout. More people got to stay in homes they could not afford which in turn caused a bailout of the financial sector, a bailout or takeover of F&F which will likely need to be repeated as the exposure there exceeds $200 billion. Not to mention a takeover of healthcare which will result in more Gov't payouts of printed money of at least $940 BILLION per the CBO.

Now as a business owner you take on debt in order to expand and in the end become a better business. Do you see anywhere in the current spending or spending plans any attempt to become "better" at anything? At what point has the Gov't public service areas ever done something "Better" than the private sector? I love it when people cite roads and highways, transportation as an example since all the above are contracted out to, you got it, the private sector.

Reagan was a monster who wasted tens of billions of US dollars on essentially personnel projects, funding proxy wars against the dastardly commies and funding terrorism overseas. His Tax cuts did nothing but government income and the same reckless disregard for sanity is what has led bush to the idiotic tax cuts that the country is now stuck with. It doesn't help that any attempt to get those tax cuts removed is replied with "nope, heh" from the republicans.

And no, the primary factor as to why the USSR fell apart was because it's economy was a joke by 1980 due to years of economic stagnation due to various factors. Reagan was just a paranoid lunatic who saw communists everywhere and raised the budget for superfluous armed forces because of it.

[Explodicle]

It still bugs me how "rich" is commonly viewed by income, not assets.  I don't know why people care so much about the RATE at which one becomes rich - it just screws over risk-takers and helps old money.

[JBDive]

ah, look at that tremendous fiscal responsibility under Reagan!

Reagan expanded the military and thankfully increased military pay after years of totally ignoring the armed services. Without those expenses I would argue the collapse of the USSR and the Soviet Bloc would not have happened or would have taken far longer. A united Germany which is now the powerhouse of the EU was a direct result of those expenses. Being able to respond to world issues with a "Big Stick" to back it are a direct result and remember that would include such things as Kosovo or the years of protecting the Kurds in northen Iraq. All that spending only raised the % of GDP going to debt by less than 15%.

Obama and the sloths that run our Gov't in DC on the other hand have increased that percentage by at least 15% and to what end? A bunch of people got cars they cannot afford in order to bail out the auto industry, which BTW failed and resulted in a full bailout. More people got to stay in homes they could not afford which in turn caused a bailout of the financial sector, a bailout or takeover of F&F which will likely need to be repeated as the exposure there exceeds $200 billion. Not to mention a takeover of healthcare which will result in more Gov't payouts of printed money of at least $940 BILLION per the CBO.

Now as a business owner you take on debt in order to expand and in the end become a better business. Do you see anywhere in the current spending or spending plans any attempt to become "better" at anything? At what point has the Gov't public service areas ever done something "Better" than the private sector? I love it when people cite roads and highways, transportation as an example since all the above are contracted out to, you got it, the private sector.

Reagan was a monster who wasted tens of billions of US dollars on essentially personnel projects, funding proxy wars against the dastardly commies and funding terrorism overseas. His Tax cuts did nothing but government income and the same reckless disregard for sanity is what has led bush to the idiotic tax cuts that the country is now stuck with. It doesn't help that any attempt to get those tax cuts removed is replied with "nope, heh" from the republicans.

And no, the primary factor as to why the USSR fell apart was because it's economy was a joke by 1980 due to years of economic stagnation due to various factors. Reagan was just a paranoid lunatic who saw communists everywhere and raised the budget for superfluous armed forces because of it.

I do not think i said the primary factor in the fall of the USSR was the US Defense buildup. I said without that buildup the collapse would have taken longer and there are studies that link the two, see Standford papers and papers by the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, yes I had to go find it just to back up my statement.

Second my point was for the money spent in the Reagan years we saw a direct benefit. I take it you have no family in the military, I do and can tell you being on Food Stamps while serving your country is pretty piss poor way to treat your armed services and that was the case under Carter. Without the buildup the US could not have met it's obligations around the world such as Kosovo and without arguing for or against the various activities I don't think you would say we shouldn't have gone into Kosovo, flown thousands of missions over northern Iraq, etc.

At the same time what have you seen from the Trillions spent by the current Gov't?