55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 08:48 pm
Yes, JTT,you really claimed that and more!
JTT wrote:
You stick your nose in other people's lives in order to secure more material wealth for yourselves. Helping others doesn't include the deaths of half a million Iraqi children, raping and torturing numerous Central American nationals, napalming villages, ...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 09:06 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Interesting how the federal revenue has only tripled but the GDP has almost quadrupled.
1965-2008 GDP adjusted for inflation

Damn those pesky statistics.

Nothing "pesky" about those statistics, parados. That's wonderful that GDP has almost quadrupled 1965-2008, while top tax rates on top incomes were reduced from about 90% to about 35% over the same period. I betcha those tax rate reductions contributed to that GDP growth. Increasing wealth for the private economy to invest is a good thing.

Oh, I know that the MALs cannot stand that. They want more equality of incomes just to be fair--that is, to subdue their damned envy--even though that reduces and even cripples some of the middle class's ability to improve their lives.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 09:41 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, Tax rates do not increase or decrease GDP. Guess what affects GDP?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 11:37 am
Quote:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R2-Federal-Government-Tax-Revenue.html?CFID=46546947&CFTOKEN=17840460

Federal Government Tax Revenue Has Tripled Since 1965
Government revenue has soared by more than $1.75 trillion since 1965, in part because top marginal income, capital gains, and corporate tax rates were cut.

{SEE GRAPH}
Federal Government Revenue, in Billions, by Major Source, 1965"2008

Source:Rates from Joint Committee on Taxation publication #JCX-6-01; Receipts from FY 2009 Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government


Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 11:39 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Quote:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R2-Federal-Government-Tax-Revenue.html?CFID=46546947&CFTOKEN=17840460

Government Tax Revenue Has Tripled Since 1965
Government revenue has soared by more than $1.75 trillion since 1965, in part because top marginal income, capital gains, and corporate tax rates were cut.

{SEE GRAPH}
Federal Government Revenue, in Billions, by Major Source, 1965"2008

Source:Rates from Joint Committee on Taxation publication #JCX-6-01; Receipts from FY 2009 Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government





Heritage cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything; they are a pack of liars. Just a right-wing think tank that will twist the truth to get whatever answer you desire.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 11:48 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo, You are correct; here's the facts on this subject:

Quote:
American households are sending more of their income to Washington even with the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. For 2006, the average household will pay $20,664, down from $22,647 in 2000 but much higher than $13,017 in 1965. * Data are inflation-adjusted in 2006 dollars.


Where did they get "three times" more? My math shows 74% more.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 11:49 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn and Cicerone, YOU cannot be trusted to KNOW the truth about anything; YOU are FALSIFIERS. Just MAL (I.E., MODERN AMERICAN LIBERALs) IGNORAMUSES WHO twist the truth to get whatever answer you desire.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 11:52 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn, YOU cannot be trusted to KNOW the truth about anything; YOU are A FALSIFIER. Just ANOTHER MAL (I.E., MODERN AMERICAN LIBERAL) IGNORAMIS WHO twistS the truth to get whatever answer you desire.



You ought to attempt to spell 'ignoramus' right when attempting to insult people, Ican.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 11:57 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Naw, that's what people do when they can't challenge what you say by using ad hominems.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 12:09 pm
@ican711nm,
You can't compare tax rates alone.
A tax rate of 90% with the ability to write off 50% of your income results in a lower effective tax rate than a 50% tax rate with no write offs.

Damn those numbers. No matter how you misuse them, someone corrects you.

Here are effective tax rates from 1979 -2005
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 03:43 pm
ANYONE, PROVIDE EVIDENCE--NOT AD HOMINEM--IF YOU CAN, THAT THE FOLLOWING IS FALSE.
Quote:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R2-Federal-Government-Tax-Revenue.html?CFID=46546947&CFTOKEN=17840460

Government Tax Revenue Has Tripled Since 1965
Government revenue has soared by more than $1.75 trillion since 1965, in part because top marginal income, capital gains, and corporate tax rates were cut.

{SEE GRAPH}
Federal Government Revenue, in Billions, by Major Source, 1965"2008

Source:Rates from Joint Committee on Taxation publication #JCX-6-01; Receipts from FY 2009 Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 03:50 pm
ANYONE, PROVIDE EVIDENCE--NOT AD HOMINEM--IF YOU CAN, THAT THE FOLLOWING IS FALSE.



Government revenue has soared by more than $1.75 trillion since 1965, in part because Bill Clinton was president during that time.


0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 03:51 pm
@ican711nm,
Easy; just look at what happened to our economy after GW Bush's tax cuts. It didn't create jobs as he promised, but instead, job creation was the worst since Hoover. That also REDUCED tax revenue. Geez, funny how that works, isn't it?

Another fact: middle class and the poor's pay did not keep up with inflation during the whole eight years of Bush's presidency.

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 03:52 pm
ANYONE, PROVIDE EVIDENCE--NOT AD HOMINEM--IF YOU CAN, THAT THE FOLLOWING IS FALSE.

Government revenue has soared by more than $1.75 trillion since 1965, in part because Dick Cheney was vice president during that time.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 03:55 pm
@ican711nm,

The largest reason for the increase in government revenues is simply the increase in GDP.
Federal revenues as percent of GDP in 1965 was 17%. Federal revenues as percent of GDP in 2008 was 17.8%.

Fact - taxation compared to GDP has gone UP, not down since 1965. Until you can prove that taxation has gone down, your argument is false. Simply pointing to the decrease in the top rate is meaningless since people are paying a higher effective tax rate even with the lower marginal rates.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 04:19 pm
@parados,
It is said that only two things in life are for sure; death and taxes. The third is inflation if one lives long enough; like one decade.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 06:13 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
The largest reason for the increase in government revenues is simply the increase in GDP.
Federal revenues as percent of GDP in 1965 was 17%. Federal revenues as percent of GDP in 2008 was 17.8%.

Fact - taxation compared to GDP has gone UP, not down since 1965. Until you can prove that taxation has gone down, your argument is false. Simply pointing to the decrease in the top rate is meaningless since people are paying a higher effective tax rate even with the lower marginal rates.

GDP increased 1965 to 2007, because more successful businesses were started and more successful businesses started to grow after 1963, when TRs/NI (i.e., tax rates per net income) were decreased. TRs/NI generally decreased as the maximum TR/NI was decreased.

The maximum TR/NI decreased from 91% in 1963, to 77% in 1964, to 70% in 1965. Except for the changes of maximum TR/NI to 75.25% in 1968, to 77% in 1969, to 71.25% in 1970, the tax rate from 1965 to 1980 was 70%.

In 1981, the maximum TR/NI began to decrease again from 69.125% in 1981, to 50% in 1982, to 38.5% in 1987, to 28% in 1988. As the maximum TR/NI decreased in that period, more money became available in the private economy to invest in starting and growing businesses. As the number and sizes of businesses grew, GDP grew.

There was more money available in the private economy after 1963, because the maximum TR/NI had decreased from 91% after 1963 to 28% in 1988, and did not increase again to more than 39.6% thereafter. It was increased to 31% in 1991, to 39.6% in 1993. It was reduced again to 39.1 in 2001, to 38.6 in 2002, to 35% in 2003, triggering even faster growth. The current recession acceleration in 2008 is due to the federal government failing in 2001, 2003, and in 2006 to curtail the irresponsible lending of Fanny & Freddy with its deleterious impact on the USA credit market .
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 09:12 pm
@ican711nm,
We wouldn't want to consider that the number of people increased over that time period, would we?

Population 1965 - 194,302,963
Population: 2008 303,824,640

Hmm. the population increased and productivity increased.. It seems to have nothing to do with businesses.
faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/economics/gordon/Jorgenson_ChiAEA(R1)_071016.ppt -
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 09:15 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:

The maximum TR/NI decreased from 91% in 1963, to 77% in 1964, to 70% in 1965. Except for the changes of maximum TR/NI to 75.25% in 1968, to 77% in 1969, to 71.25% in 1970, the tax rate from 1965 to 1980 was 70%.

That has to be one of you stupidest statments ever ican. The tax rate was 70% from 1965 to 1980? Really? Care to back that up with some facts?

Fact, the federal government only collected about 18 % of GDP from 1965 to 1980. Wages make up about 80% or more of GDP. Your statement is so false it is funny how you would even make such an outrageous claim.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 09:56 pm
@parados,
It's because ican's kaleidoscope has too many colors for him to make it out. It's the result of myopia and conservative brain-wash.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 12:12:56