[MERGE] Historic Tax Rates, Taxation vs. Economic Growth, ETC. [MERGE]

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Then explain why the economy took a shit when Bush lowered taxes.

So long as you believe this I can't explain shit to you.

You have been shown multiple times that revenue want up after the Bush tax cuts.

You have been shown multiple times that spending is the problem.

You have been shown multiple times that the major cause of the last economic downturn was the housing market.

But you continue to ignore facts in favor of liberal talking points.

Can't fix that...

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

So long as you believe this I can't explain shit to you.

You have been shown multiple times that revenue want up after the Bush tax cuts.

You have been shown multiple times that spending is the problem.

You have been shown multiple times that the major cause of the last economic downturn was the housing market.

But you continue to ignore facts in favor of liberal talking points.

Can't fix that...

HeadusInAssus syndrome using Koolade for lube is my best informed guess.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

So long as you believe this I can't explain shit to you.

You have been shown multiple times that revenue want up after the Bush tax cuts.

You have been shown multiple times that spending is the problem.

You have been shown multiple times that the major cause of the last economic downturn was the housing market.

But you continue to ignore facts in favor of liberal talking points.

Can't fix that...

The difference between you and I Chris is that while I accept there needs to be spending cuts, your side does not accept that taxes need to be increased.

As for the tax cuts causing the revenue to go up, I'd suggest reading this.

FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

The difference between you and I Chris is that while I accept there needs to be spending cuts, your side does not accept that taxes need to be increased.

As for the tax cuts causing the revenue to go up, I'd suggest reading this.

FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin

Our "Side" just agreed to tax increases with only the vaguest of bullshit from the POTUS about spending cuts.

Walk the walk, then start telling me what I refuse to accept. (Or Chris for that matter.)

[RedLS1GTO]

EDIT: Nevermind. Been here too many times. Not worth it.

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

The difference between you and I Chris is that while I accept there needs to be spending cuts, your side does not accept that taxes need to be increased.

As for the tax cuts causing the revenue to go up, I'd suggest reading this.

FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin

Who exactly is "my side"?

I have never said that taxes should not go up. What I have said is that you should not raise taxes when the economy is down.

I have also said that the large majority of the problem is spending and you can't even come close to solving the problem without massive reductions.

As for who you want to refer to as "my side", they have asked for matching tax increases with spending reductions, which "your side" flatly refuses.

And as for lowering taxes not increasing revenue I refer you to the tax receipts for the years following the "Bush tax cuts."

[VITE1]

Laffer Curve.

The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future

Tax rate and Tax Revenue are not the same

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publi.../11/ES1124.pdf

The TOTAL taxes paid as % of GDP is 30%.

Total spending by Government is 40% of GDP

We have a spending problem. Not a tax rate or revenue problem.

[Stangkiller]

Here's a thought, why don't we trim the budget to as small as it can be, and adjust the IRS tax brackets to properly support an efficient government?

Blindly changing tax brackets with no goal other than "fair share" doesn't actually do anything to address the problem of too much spending.

Tell me why I should make sacrifices to pay my taxes before asking those receiving my tax money to do the same?

[Stangkiller]

Originally Posted by Stangkiller

Here's a thought, why don't we trim the budget to as small as it can be, and adjust the IRS tax brackets to properly support an efficient government?

Blindly changing tax brackets with no goal other than "fair share" doesn't actually do anything to address the problem of too much spending.

How do I think we should do it? Start weening the people off entitlement programs, ALL of them. Social Security Retirement is not an entitlement. Free health care, free housing, free phones, free anything needs to stop for anybody that's able to work. Then it's time to take a look at how the government administers is contracts. No more Davis Bacon Act, put a project out to bid, and pay the best candidate to do the job at a fixed price. Our education system is upside down when it comes to return on investment. It's time to nationally standardize the public education system, while offering vouchers to attend other schools. Military, well we need strategic planning, set goals for the military and create the budget accordingly, again bid projects solely on fixed rates none of the cost plus bs. No more government pensions, period, civil servants should never get paid over what a market will bear...aka no more of these unrealistic health and retirement plans.

Now, how do we fix the taxes? Everybody in every tax bracket should pay taxes, perhaps more of a fair tax/flat tax system. The government should have a very strict guide as to when and why it can borrow, wars, and infrastructure should be about it. All other activities must be paid in the year it's incurred.

[lander]

Originally Posted by Loco Vette

Our "Side" just agreed to tax increases with only the vaguest of bullshit from the POTUS about spending cuts.

Walk the walk, then start telling me what I refuse to accept. (Or Chris for that matter.)

We absolutely need tax increasese. The Conservatives have been in the forefront of that demand for years!

Those that are not paying taxes, the 47% +-, should absolutely be made to pay their fair share of taxes.

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by Stangkiller

Here's a thought, why don't we trim the budget to as small as it can be, and adjust the IRS tax brackets to properly support an efficient government?

Blindly changing tax brackets with no goal other than "fair share" doesn't actually do anything to address the problem of too much spending.

Tell me why I should make sacrifices to pay my taxes before asking those receiving my tax money to do the same?

The current tax brackets don't have dick to do with fair share. If that was the case, there wouldn't be those who don't pay anything.

The current tax brackets were a compromise to make the libs happy.

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by Stangkiller

How do I think we should do it? Start weening the people off entitlement programs, ALL of them. Social Security Retirement is not an entitlement. Free health care, free housing, free phones, free anything needs to stop for anybody that's able to work. Then it's time to take a look at how the government administers is contracts. No more Davis Bacon Act, put a project out to bid, and pay the best candidate to do the job at a fixed price. Our education system is upside down when it comes to return on investment. It's time to nationally standardize the public education system, while offering vouchers to attend other schools. Military, well we need strategic planning, set goals for the military and create the budget accordingly, again bid projects solely on fixed rates none of the cost plus bs. No more government pensions, period, civil servants should never get paid over what a market will bear...aka no more of these unrealistic health and retirement plans.

Now, how do we fix the taxes? Everybody in every tax bracket should pay taxes, perhaps more of a fair tax/flat tax system. The government should have a very strict guide as to when and why it can borrow, wars, and infrastructure should be about it. All other activities must be paid in the year it's incurred.

Can't agree on nationally standardizing education. It's working sooooo welll now. Let the local entities deal with it. Hell, education isn't a power enumerated in the Constitution anyway.

[Stangkiller]

Originally Posted by DJ_Critterus

Can't agree on nationally standardizing education. It's working sooooo welll now. Let the local entities deal with it. Hell, education isn't a power enumerated in the Constitution anyway.

The localities aren't hacking it either. I'd be perfectly fine with the government getting out of the education business, however since it is in the business now, it needs to be run more efficiently. All grade levels should be the same regardless of what state you're in. If you're unable to pass a 5th grade level in one state, that should be the same no matter where you are.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Stangkiller

How do I think we should do it? Start weening the people off entitlement programs, ALL of them. Social Security Retirement is not an entitlement. Free health care, free housing, free phones, free anything needs to stop for anybody that's able to work.

How can someone afford to pay for a place to live and food making minimum wage? You have to have some social services or society will fall apart.

Then it's time to take a look at how the government administers is contracts. No more Davis Bacon Act, put a project out to bid, and pay the best candidate to do the job at a fixed price.

And get rid of the SBA.

Our education system is upside down when it comes to return on investment. It's time to nationally standardize the public education system, while offering vouchers to attend other schools.

Voucher programs are nothing more than subsidies handed out to religious institutions. I do not want my tax money going to churches. And some of you need to think that out, because if the Baptist church can suck off the government tit, you KNOW there will be Muslim, Scientology and all sorts of crazy ass shitbags applying to become schools. How can a student compete in the real world when their biology teacher starts feeding them that earth is only 4000 years old bullshit?

Military, well we need strategic planning, set goals for the military and create the budget accordingly, again bid projects solely on fixed rates none of the cost plus bs. No more government pensions, period, civil servants should never get paid over what a market will bear...aka no more of these unrealistic health and retirement plans.

You really want to end military pensions? About a quarter of the people that post on the forum here live off that.

Now, how do we fix the taxes? Everybody in every tax bracket should pay taxes, perhaps more of a fair tax/flat tax system. The government should have a very strict guide as to when and why it can borrow, wars, and infrastructure should be about it. All other activities must be paid in the year it's incurred.

I wouldn't object to a flat tax, but that will never happen because the wealthy do not want it to happen.

[Stangkiller]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

How can someone afford to pay for a place to live and food making minimum wage? You have to have some social services or society will fall apart.

They can very carefully (this was discussed in a prior thread), or *gasp* they'll have to work harder to find a better job or get a second job. It's not the tax payers fault somebody was unmotivated to educate themselves.

And get rid of the SBA.

Fine

Voucher programs are nothing more than subsidies handed out to religious institutions. I do not want my tax money going to churches. And some of you need to think that out, because if the Baptist church can suck off the government tit, you KNOW there will be Muslim, Scientology and all sorts of crazy ass shitbags applying to become schools. How can a student compete in the real world when their biology teacher starts feeding them that earth is only 4000 years old bullshit?

Sorry, if the school is accredited it should be available for a voucher program, I don't care if it's a religious school or not. I'm worried about students graduating who can't read or do basic math, not what their religious beliefs or artsy feelings are.
.

You really want to end military pensions? About a quarter of the people that post on the forum here live off that.

YES ALL pensions. They aren't offered in the business world any more because they're too expensive, same should go for the government employees. If the government wages were that much less than the business world that'd be one thing, but it's not.

I wouldn't object to a flat tax, but that will never happen because the wealthy do not want it to happen.

It may be more realistic than one would think. Our existing IRS model is being set up to fail.

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Then explain why the economy took a shit when Bush lowered taxes.

Typical. Blame Bush. Pay no attention to the fact that the housing bubble happened under a DEM controlled congress (Dod-Fwank act) and gas prices were on the rise, too.

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

The difference between you and I Chris is that while I accept there needs to be spending cuts, your side does not accept that taxes need to be increased.

As for the tax cuts causing the revenue to go up, I'd suggest reading this.

FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin

Taxes would increase via federal sales tax (think gas) if people had the damn money for it and a flat tax (fair tax). Why not lower spending negating the need for the monumental tax increases, with one exception? Why not tax those who don't pay anything at all? I see you vehemently oppose a fair tax for all based on past postings except for the one above that some how slipped through. Taxing the living shit out of the rich only goes to make people FEEL better.

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by DJ_Critterus

Taxes would increase via federal sales tax (think gas) if people had the damn money for it and a flat tax (fair tax). Why not lower spending negating the need for the monumental tax increases, with one exception? Why not tax those who don't pay anything at all? I see you vehemently oppose a fair tax for all based on past postings except for the one above that some how slipped through. Taxing the living shit out of the rich only goes to make people FEEL better.

Witch is why they Demonized Herman Cain so bad, true or UNtrue, his personal life had NOTHING to do with the reality of modern life, and so they destroyed him ala Alinsky.....his 999 plan was pretty decent and fair....

but did not feed the communists....

[Will]

Gee, this seems eerily familiar.

Oh yeah:

https://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/p...tml#post791215

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Will should love this shit, they have charts!

Growth vs. Tax Rate

HIGHER taxes on the rich means MORE money circulated back into the economy. The economy needs money to circulate. (It's the lubricant that makes the economy work) - The more money moves from one hand to another, the more transactions involved, the healthier it is, and the better it works.

That is why trickle down doesn't work. First, and foremost. The rich don't let it trickle down. They hoard it. How do you think that they got to be rich in the first place?

Secondly, and most importantly, the best thing for an economy is to inject cash and capital at at the lowest level, and from there it passes through the most hands, poor people buy food in local shops, local shops buy other services from local suppliers. OK, yes, some of that money eventually, and inevitably, works its way to the big corporate companies, and from them, into the hands of their wealthy stockholders.

But once its with the rich, they don't spend it..... they don't want to, don't need to, and can avoid doing so until its absolutely necessary.

Just look at the economy today. The big corporations are making record profits. But they are not investing that money back into the economy. Not creating jobs. Record corporate profits + low employment = proof that trickle down is a myth.

Money given to the rich mostly goes dead. Sits in assets, savings, cash on hand. Money given to the poor, goes straight back into the economy buying goods and services.

Want to help the economy. Cut taxes for the middle class, offer benefits to the needy poor, and demand that the uber rich pay their share.

Originally Posted by Will

Also, FYI, if you converted all of today's tax brackets to their equivalent counterparts from the 1950s and 1940s by adjusting for inflation, EVERY BRACKET WOULD BE LOWER.

There were additional upper brackets, BUT the very top brackets back in the day were a political gimmick. FDR's 1935 act creating a new top bracket applied to ONE SINGLE AMERICAN - John Rockefeller Jr.

In fact, I would fully support changing today's current rates to the rates levied in 1940, at the height of the New Deal era before WW2 began.

For individuals, income above $379,000 is currently taxed at the top marginal rate of 35%.

$379,000 today is the equivalent of $25,000 in 1940. The marginal rate for that level in 1940? 31%

For individuals, income above $175,000 and below $380,000 is currently taxed at 33%. $175,000 today is the equivalent of $11,500 in 1940. The marginal rate for that level in 1940? 14%

For individuals, income above $84,000 and below $175,000 is taxed at 28%. $84,000 today is the equivalent of $5,500 in 1940. The marginal rate for that level in 1940? 8%

All income below $61,000 in today's dollars would qualify for the lowest bracket in 1940, 4%.



P.S. --- Highest New Deal Federal Spending as a percentage of GDP?????

10.7% in 1934.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

CRS finds no correlation between a low top marginal tax rate and economic growth

"The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth....lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities."

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/bu...andeconomy.pdf

Originally Posted by Will

Taxation vs. Economic Growth: Weak Negative Correlation

Taxation vs. Economic Growth: Weak Negative Correlation

[Will]

We don't have a rule against bumping old threads in PR&C. Instead of creating a thread, abandoning it when it doesn't go well, and then re-creating the same thread again months later in the hopes that things will turn out differently, just stick with the original.

Merging this thread with the original in 3... 2... 1...