parados
 
  2  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 11:00 am
@H2O MAN,
Wow squirt. You really think that is going to happen? Have you put your money where you mouth is and shorted the stock market?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 11:41 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
The tax hikes are coming!


Of course they are, the books will have to be balanced and we can't get there by spending cuts alone.

Hello, Laffer Curve, hawkeye, perhaps you don't believe in it, but I do. Higher tax rates do not necessarily translate into higher tax revenues, so balancing the books by continually raising tax rates will not work. I believe we need to lower spending, not raising tax rates, to bring things back into balance. To know this, all you have to do is consider your own budget, you and all of us must first figure out what we make, then don't spend more than that. We don's first decide how much to spend, then try to figure out how to pay for it.

Even Obama said he couldn't raise taxes immediately during the recession, but of course Obama doesn't understand it all, he probably said this because of an advisor telling him this. His natural instinct is to spend first, then simply raise taxes to pay for it. He would like to confiscate every dollar anyone makes, as that is his natural tendency and philosophy. He thinks he can take care of everyone with government better than everyone can take care of themselves. That is his mindset.
Advocate
 
  0  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 11:53 am
@okie,
It is mindless beyond belief that anyone would still believe in the Laffer Curve. Since it was first employed by Reagan, it has increased the national debt from $800 B to $11 T. Amazingly, many, many, Reps still believe in it. California is going down the tubes because the Reps will not allow tax increases, and even threaten those who will support them.
okie
 
  1  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 12:02 pm
@Advocate,
Okay, try taxing at 100% and see how much revenue results? If you don't believe in the curve, try it.

Only somebody with no understanding economics, human nature, and math would deny the existence of the curve. Reasonable debate is justified as to where the peak of the curve resides.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 12:15 pm
@okie,
Quote:
Okay, try taxing at 100% and see how much revenue results? If you don't believe in the curve, try it.


Oh please, the American tax rate is low compared to our rates in the past, as well as to Europe for instance. Raising revenue is easy, if the citizens think that it will be well spent.

It may well be that we will need to change our mix of taxes rates, and probably add new (different) taxes. We might want to rethink globalization though, as the ease at which wealth can be transferred out of any one country does make it more difficult for the citizens of any country to dictate terms to the holders of wealth. The threat to punish nations that try to impose terms not agreed to by the wealthy is real, the thieving class will make good on their threat. I don't think that we can solve America's long term problems without redistributing some significant portion of the wealth that currently is in the hands of the top 1%.
parados
 
  1  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 12:57 pm
@okie,
The laffer curve may exist okie, but a 22% of GDP tax rate is NOT in the area that reduces revenues. We are currently about 18% of GDP for a tax rate. There is plenty of room to raise taxes on the laffer curve without causing a revenue reduction.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 01:00 pm
@okie,
Nothing like an appeal to the extreme okie.

Only someone with no understanding of economic, human nature and math would use the extreme ends of the laffer curve to try to prove it's existence. Reduce the tax rate to zero and see how much tax revenues increase would effectively counter your argument of 100% taxation.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 01:29 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Higher tax rates do not necessarily translate into higher tax revenues,
so balancing the books by continually raising tax rates will not work.


You are correct!!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 03:33 pm
@H2O MAN,
You guys are so confused, you can't even translate simple English: Obama promised that 95% of workers will get a TAX CUT. What's so difficult to understand? You guys ever learn English?

Here's Obama's plan:
Quote:
Obama’s Comprehensive Tax Policy Plan for America will:

* Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.
* Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.
* Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.
* Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 05:39 pm
@hawkeye10,
okie is one of those conservative fear-mongers who continues to parrot that idea that Americans already pay too much in taxes, but especially for the top 1% of the rich. They don't want the redistribution of wealth - or to pay down the debt that will accrue to our children. They have absolutely no common sense or evidence to defend their stance; only the GOP rhetoric of fear.

They've repeated the lies so much, even they believe it now.

How often did we all hear Obama say he's cutting taxes for 95% of workers and their families? And yet, these conservatives keep repeating that Obama is going to raise taxes.

There's no cure for stupid.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 05:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Updates:
Congress trims Obama's tax cut for workers

Updated: Tuesday, February 17th, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

One of the bigger pieces of the economic stimulus bill is the "Making Work Pay" tax credit, an initiative that Obama mentioned often during his campaign. If you ever heard Obama say he would give a tax cut to "95 percent of working families," this program is the origin of that claim.

Obama said the credit was intended to offset payroll taxes, which are automatically deducted from most workers' paychecks. Even if workers make so little that they do not owe income tax, the payroll taxes are not refundable. This is supposed to reimburse them for that. Under Obama's plan, the tax credit would be worth about $500 per worker, or $1,000 for working couples.

The initial version of the stimulus bill in the House, like Obama's original promise, was for $500 per worker. But that was reduced in the Senate to $400 per worker as a way of reducing the overall cost of the package. That lower level of $400 per worker, for a total cost of $116.2 billion, made it into the final bill. Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 on Feb. 17, 2009.

We should also note that the stimulus bill provides the tax cut only for 2009 and 2010. If Obama wants the tax cut to continue beyond those years, he will have to include it in future budget legislation. Indeed, it's possible Obama could raise the amount to $500 that way. But for the present, we find Obama tried to fulfill his promise and fell slightly short of the goal because Congress trimmed it to $400. That's what we call Compromise.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 05:57 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You guys are so confused, you can't even translate simple English: Obama promised that 95% of workers will get a TAX CUT. What's so difficult to understand? You guys ever learn English?

Not confused. What Obama said is actually a lie. Around 40% of the American people pay no tax at all, and many of those actually receive money back, so giving them more money is not a tax cut as Obama claims, it is actually giving them more money, it is a social welfare program using the income tax code. It is impossible to cut something that does not exist.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 06:08 pm
@okie,
They're already included; he's not "increasing" their taxes. Where did you learn English? You see, they're part of the 95% of workers.


Quote:
Obama said the credit was intended to offset payroll taxes, which are automatically deducted from most workers' paychecks. Even if workers make so little that they do not owe income tax, the payroll taxes are not refundable. This is supposed to reimburse them for that. Under Obama's plan, the tax credit would be worth about $500 per worker, or $1,000 for working couples.
okie
 
  0  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 06:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You cannot cut something that is zero or less. If an airline either gives the tickets away free or pays up to 40% of their passengers to fly, it would be impossible for them to cut the plane fare for 95% of the passengers.

Around 40% of the potential taxpayers pay no tax at all, so you cannot cut what does not exist, ci.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 06:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
okie, Here's the IRS 2008 tax table: who doesn't pay income taxes?
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf
okie
 
  0  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 06:25 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Okay, try taxing at 100% and see how much revenue results? If you don't believe in the curve, try it.


Oh please, the American tax rate is low compared to our rates in the past, as well as to Europe for instance. Raising revenue is easy, if the citizens think that it will be well spent.

I do not believe raising revenue is easy, not at all. We already pay around 28% of gdp, and I do not believe it is a zero sum game, anytime you raise tax rates, you will impact economic activity.

There are a couple of issues here. One being corporate tax rates, we apparently have one of the highest in the world, I think we should abolish income taxes on businesses and instead extract the tax from individuals only. I actually favor the retail sales tax, but only if we abolish the income tax completely.

I think many European countries are finding out they are near the limits of how much gdp a tax rate can be imposed until you begin experiencing a meltdown in revenues and economic activity, to the point of threatening collapse. I do not want to see the U.S. go that way, I think the path back to health is to cut government spending, no doubt at all in my mind.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 06:28 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I am telling you close to 40% of the people pay no income tax. Look it up. This should be common knowledge. This is old news, I am surprised you don't know it.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 06:29 pm
@okie,
If it's common knowledge, you should be able to produce the evidence/proof that 40% pay no taxes. I want to see the stats by gross income and taxable income figures.

Also, if the worker makes so little that no tax liability is incurred, why should they have to pay any taxes?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 06:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
95% of those workers who pay taxes will see their tax cut.

Obama has included "workers and their families."

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sat 20 Jun, 2009 07:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Everybody pays taxes, at least sales tax and property tax (possibly indirectly through rent payments).
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1295
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/07/2025 at 07:01:51