16
   

The economy is good? Cut taxes! The economy is bad? Cut taxes! Taxes are too low? Cut taxes!

 
 
kuvasz
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2008 01:36 pm
http://aja.freehosting.net/abe_simpsonABC.jpg
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2008 01:43 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

There is unrefutable evidence that responsible tax cuts do spur the economy and that in turn does increase tax revenues into the local, state, and national treasuries. Spending reductions to 'pay for a tax cut' are necessary only within the context of how tax policy affects behavior.

Actually, there is irrefutable evidence it does not.
Foxfyre wrote:

Mostly it all comes down to basic ideology. If you think government does a better job of spending your money than you would do, you are in favor of more taxes. If you think the private sector does a better job spending the money, you are in favor of less taxes.

It's more complicated than that. If you feel that there are collective projects that we as a country need to take on in order to fuel economic growth, projects like infrastructure and education, then you choose to pay for them with taxes. If you feel that Americans fighting in wars abroad should have support from the American public, then you choose to pay for that support with taxes. If you don't feel that improving infrastructure is important and you don't feel that having an educated population is important and you don't support the troops, then you are in favor of less taxes. Conservative Republicans fall into the latter group more often than not.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2008 02:11 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

Actually, there is irrefutable evidence it does not.


If you will look closely, you will see that your question is addressing a different issue than the point I was making, but I'll put the experts in the article I cited up against yours. It should make for a most excellent debate.

Quote:
It's more complicated than that. If you feel that there are collective projects that we as a country need to take on in order to fuel economic growth, projects like infrastructure and education, then you choose to pay for them with taxes. If you feel that Americans fighting in wars abroad should have support from the American public, then you choose to pay for that support with taxes. If you don't feel that improving infrastructure is important and you don't feel that having an educated population is important and you don't support the troops, then you are in favor of less taxes. Conservative Republicans fall into the latter group more often than not.


You will have to show your evidence that "Conservative Republicans fall into the latter group more often than not."

In this context, speaking of the Federal government:

Conservative Republicans are generally neither anti-government nor anti-taxes. They are generally in favor of small, efficient, effective government that does not overstep its constitutional authority, and they generally believe that government should do only that which cannot be done more efficiently, effectively, and economically by the private sector. Conservative Republicans do support funding legitimate functions of government and believe it is proper that we elect representatives who will accomplish those functions always in the interest of promoting the common welfare.

So it come down to whether I prefer that the government take my money and dispense it as charity to somebody it deems more deserving, or whether I prefer to choose what charity I will dispense. It comes down to whether I prefer the government provide me with this or that or whether I prefer to do it myself. It comes down to whether I prefer to have freedoms and choices that do not infringe on the unalienable, constitutional, legal, or civil rights of others, or whether I prefer that the government choose what choices and freedoms I shall have. It comes down to whether communities,parents,teachers prefer to decide what constitutes good education or whether what children are supposed to learn or are allowed to learn is dictated by the government. It comes down to whether the government is the servant of the people as the Constitution intended, or whether the people exist to serve the government.

Conservative Republicans see our government as too big and it costs too much. So long as the government has money for mega millions in earmarks or bribes or departments that do not function or massive charitable outlays or purchase of unnecessary items or grants for ridiculous studies, etc. etc. etc., there is plenty of room for lots of tax cuts.

engineer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2008 02:41 pm
@Foxfyre,
Ok, so let's narrow it down to the war. We are at war. We are currently borrowing the money to fight the war instead of paying for it with our tax dollars. Do you support a "war tax" that is only in effect until the costs of the Iraq and Afganistan wars are paid for? My take is that this is the least Americans can do to support the troops and the war effort.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2008 06:22 pm
@engineer,
The government has responsibility to do many other things beside fighting a war, but yes, as long as we have boots on the ground in harms way, the troops must be equipped and supplied. Providing for the national defense is a specific Constitutional requirement for the federal government. Conservatives also take the position that if you're going to fight a war, you win it, whatever that takes, as it makes no sense in either blood or treasure to end it prematurely which increases the likelihood of having to go back and fight it again or at the very least leaves the people in worse condition than they were before.

The principles of funding the war, however are no different than funding anything. You can raise taxes, but it must be done properly so as not to slow the economy which reduces the income and opportunities for the people. An economic slowdown decreases the amount of new money flowing into the treasury. Conservatives, however, would demand that such a tax be used exclusively for the purpose of funding the war and not diverted to any other purpose. And at such time as the war ends, so would the tax end.

The so-called "Bush tax cuts" were passed with an expiration date and so far Congress has been unwilling to make them permanent. But Congress almost never passes a tax increase with an expiration date on it. They live on in perpetuity approximating the life expectancy of government programs that are just as difficult to end.

JTT
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2008 06:35 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Conservatives also take the position that if you're going to fight a war, you win it, whatever that takes, as it makes no sense in either blood or treasure to end it prematurely which increases the likelihood of having to go back and fight it again or at the very least leaves the people in worse condition than they were before.


You have taken a position that makes you an accomplis to war crimes. You'd better add the reparations that you'll have to make to pay for the damage done and the lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the illegal invasions.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2008 06:55 pm
@JTT,
It's pretty difficult to make a war crime out of an action that was authorized by the U.S. Congress and has been supported by the UN as well as the existing lawfully elected government of the country in which the war occurred.
0 Replies
 
SYNRON
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2008 10:53 pm
@Foxfyre,
Yes, in fact the evidence comes from the Kennedy years and the Reagan years and the Bush II years. Left wingers, fond of taxing, taxing, taxing, do not know that when Kennedy and Reagan and Bush II cut taxes, tax collections went up.

How could that be? That is counter intuitive. How could tax revenues increase if taxes were cut.

Simple. The producers and the entrepreneurs did not put their money in foreign investments or offshore or in tax sheltered municipals, they took the extra money and used it to create more jobs. That also increased the revenue stream.

Debra Law
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 01:00 am
@parados,
Foxfyre stated: "There is unrefutable evidence that responsible tax cuts do spur the economy...."

Pardos responded: "I would love to see your "unrefutable" evidence of that."

Foxfyre says she didn't say what she said, and then she said it again: "I didn't say that it is unrefutable. I said there is unrefutable evidence that responsible tax cuts do spur the economy....There are any number of experts and examples to support my statement...."

*****

Holy cow.

hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 01:06 am
@Debra Law,
the correct statement is that proper taxation levels spur the economy...that would be either higher, lower, or the same as they are currently. Different activities require a different tax levels, and these do change over time.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 01:14 am
Here's one view on the subject:

Myth: A capital gains tax cut will spur the economy.

Fact: Historically, economic slumps and unemployment have followed capital gains tax cuts.


Quote:
Summary

There is no historical evidence that cutting the capital gains tax spurs economic growth. Cuts have usually been followed by economic downturns and reductions in saving and investment. Increases have generally seen the opposite. The theoretical case against cutting capital gains is also strong; most serious economists acknowledge that even eliminating this tax completely will not increase productivity, and may even do significant economic harm.



hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 01:27 am
@Debra Law,
Quote:

There is no historical evidence that cutting the capital gains tax spurs economic growth. Cuts have usually been followed by economic downturns and reductions in saving and investment. Increases have generally seen the opposite. The theoretical case against cutting capital gains is also strong; most serious economists acknowledge that even eliminating this tax completely will not increase productivity, and may even do significant economic harm.


productivity is not everything, tax policy does many things but one thing it needs to do it to encourage the proper allocation of societies resources. Sometimes that will be taking care of kids or taking care of infrastructure, stuff that either does not show up in productivity numbers or does not for years or decades. Looking at our broken families, rotted infrastructure and our over stressed lives how can anyone argue that we properly allocate our resources?

the point: even if we were sure that cutting the capital gains tax would gin up the economic numbers, it might not be the right thing to do. What looks good in the numbers might be bad for people, of not us then for our kids.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 06:16 am
@SYNRON,
A far better argument can be made that it was the deficit spending that caused the growth. If you simply remove the government deficit spending from GDP there is no difference in growth when comparing post war tax rates.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 06:42 am
@engineer,
People like Fox who's clarion call for more tax cuts doesn't seem to understand basic logic. The rich doesn't need any more tax cuts; they don't need to spend the money they have, because they already have everything they want.

The middle-class and the poor, on the other hand, spends a far greater percentage of their income.

The conservatives continue their call for tax cuts for the wealthy whether we have a good or bad economy; what's wrong with this picture?

Then we had Bush for the past eight years, and we have seen the economy tank with tax cuts for the rich, while at the same time he's created the largest deficit for our country; what's wrong with this picture?

Yes, more tax cuts for the wealthy makes sense; why don't we destroy our economy? The conservatives are never wrong. McCain and Palin keeps lying about Obama's wanting to tax people with $42,000 in income. They must lie to put fear into the same people they claim to be "protecting." It's okay that our economy gets worse every day, and people lose their jobs and homes. Those are minor inconveniences for the conservatives who wish to create more jobs with their tax cuts.


Along with those tax cuts for the wealthy, we now learn that our country has lost over 700,000 jobs since the beginning of this year. More tax cuts for the rich? Yeah, makes a whole lot of sense.

Guess who has the most investments in banks and finance companies? Guess? The conservatives wants to give more tax cuts to the wealthy, and have the middle class and the poor pay for their bailout with over $700,000 billion. What's wrong with this picture?

All this while our debt continues to grow. What's wrong with this picture?

Have we had job growth? Is our economy healthy? Is the stock market performing as it should for all - including those middle class workers who must now think about postponing their retirement, because some have lost up to 50% of their retirement savings? What's wrong with this picture?

Are the rich suffering like the the middle class and the poor?

You get only one guess, but I wouldn't expect the conservatives to understand the dynamics of more tax cuts for the rich.



0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 05:47 pm
at some point you have to realize that if you aren't rich by (pick the age where you stopped worrying about it), you pretty much aren't going to be.

it might also be helpful to look around at the people you know. if you don't make $250k, how many of them make $250k ?

if the only one you know is an old school buddy that you exchange xmas cards with, an occasional phone call or see once every 20 years?

if the above is true, ya ain't agonna be rich. lottery maybe... ehh. better chance of getting hit by lightning. twice.
0 Replies
 
SYNRON
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 06:24 pm
@parados,
That's Keynesian bullshit. Each time a president cut taxes the economy prospered. Kennedy cut taxes. Reagan cut taxes and Bush II cut taxes.

What Socialists like you do not understand, Paradox, is that if small businesses don't make enough profit they close their doors and then SIX PEOPLE LOSE THEIR JOBS.

What redistributionists like you don't understand, paradox, is that when large corporations encounter what they consider to be excessive taxation, they go offshore. Socialists do not understand that under our Constitution. thus far until King Obama appoints three more malignant dwarves like Ginsberg, no corporation is forced to continue on these shores if they do not feel their profit margin is high enough.
SYNRON
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 06:29 pm
@JTT,
Will that be like the Marshall Plan, JTT? Or are thinking that the UN will force us to pay off reparations to the stinking AlQueda murderers? I think the Israelis have the best solution. They should use one of their bunker busters on that bearded nincompoop in Iran, just like they did in Iraq years ago and in Syria recently. Anti-Semites like you do not understand that the Israelis have vowed--Never again will they submit to Nazi like Moslems who have pledged to remove them from the Middle East!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 07:20 pm
@SYNRON,
Quote:
That's Keynesian bullshit. Each time a president cut taxes the economy prospered. Kennedy cut taxes. Reagan cut taxes and Bush II cut taxes.
How do you define "prospered"?
Since the Bush tax cuts there has only been one year that the GDP growth has been above the average GDP growth of the post WW2 period.

Counting worst to best, Bush's years have come in 12, 16, 22, 24, 25, and 35th as the worst economic growth over that 61 year period. All of Bush's years but one were below the median growth in that time period and that one was only 0.1 above the median. I guess if you want to count "prospered" as being poorer than average growth then you might be correct but I think you are the one full of bull ****.

Average GDP real growth from preceding year for 1947-2007 ---- 3.33 %
Median GDP real growth from preceding year for 1947-2007 -- 3.5%

Bush's years GDP growth from previous year
2001 -- 0.8
2002 -- 1.6
2003 -- 2.5
2004 -- 3.6
2005 -- 2.9
2006 -- 2.8
2007 -- 2.0

Source BEA - GDP growth percent change from preceding period
BEA.gov

If we don't use real GDP growth but instead use unadjusted growth it gets even worse for Bush's numbers. He has 4 of the 12 worst years for GDP growth.

Maybe you should crawl back under your rock for another 2 years SYNRON.
SYNRON
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 08:43 pm
@parados,
Paradox--Are you mathematically challenged?

I'll give you a problem. If growth is 2.5 on a ten trillion dollar GDP is it more than 3.o on a Seven trillion dollar GDP?

You are obviously unaware that we have the best economy in the world in terms of GDP. No one is even close to us.

In 2006, the world economy (see Wikipedia) had a GDP of 44 trillion rounded off.

In 2006, the USA had a GDP of 12 Trillion rounded off. The next country was Japan at a measly 4 Trillion.

Why don't you go back to the Cuban Paradise you came from. Parados is a Cuban name, is it not?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 09:03 pm
@SYNRON,
let's put this into the context of a family budget..the American GDP is $17 trillion and the societal debt is calculated at about $6o trillion, though there is good reason to think that once unfunded entitlements and pensions (defered income) are factored in the real number is more like $80-$100 trillion. SOOO, if a family which lives on a $34,ooo a year paycheck (2x17 because 17 is too small for this example) and owes at least $120,000 (2x60) in debt or maybe even $200,000, would they be in a good situation?

Just because until a few months ago credit card companies were willing to finance the continuation of their lifestyle we can't assume that all is well. Any day now a notice may come by mail that the credit cards are canceled by the companies. No other companies may be willing to extend credit. Where will our family turn then? How will the ever pay off the debt?

By the same token the foreigners who subsidized the American consumption till now could any day say "no more". Where will the american economy be then??
 

Related Topics

Taxes - Discussion by Buffalo
How will we pay for it all? - Question by FreeDuck
Filing Federal Taxes - Discussion by jcboy
Question about 1099’s - Question by GymBody
Tax the rich! - Discussion by H2O MAN
stimulus check and tax problem.. - Question by OGIONIK
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/04/2022 at 02:41:17