yo mama Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 You're going to have to be more specific, what period of time, recently, are you speaking of where lower taxes decreased revenue coming into the fed gov? We were talking about Bush II's tax cuts from 2000 to 2010. Look, agree with me, don't agree: I don't really care. But at least go read about the "bush tax cuts" over Wikipedia and read some facts and figures on your own. Punch line: "there is a broad consensus among even conservative economists (including current and former top economists of the Bush Administration such as Greg Mankiw) that the tax cuts have had a substantial net negative impact on revenues (i.e., revenues would have been substantially higher if the tax cuts had not taken place), even taking into account any stimulative effect the tax cuts may have had and any resulting revenue feedback effects." Wiegie is a math major, or something. I'm sure he'll confirm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 You're going to have to be more specific, what period of time, recently, are you speaking of where lower taxes decreased revenue coming into the fed gov? I'll answer myself. You can't say that decreasing the tax rate lowers revenue to the government because were not working in a vacuum. The two are interdependent. On one side yes, say for instance I have a bond for 1,000, when I bought it the yield was 3.2%. The interest rate is lowered, for no apparent reason, to 3.1%, of course I'm making less money. But, what caused the yield to decrease to 3.1%? There had to be some outside force acting on said bond to reduce the yield. TO simply say lowering the tax rate decreases income to the fed govt. is somewhat disingenuous. If you look at the time line from 2004-2008, the government took in more revenue than it did in any single year from 1995 to 1999, times when we had a roaring economy, but when tax rates were higher. In the case of lowering taxes in '01 and '03 the powers that be were looking to help stimulate economic growth by decreasing the tax rate, it appears to have worked as economic activity increased (not just because of lower taxes, there were, of course, other factors) as tax revenue to the fed govt. increased. If the tax rates had stayed the same we might not have seen as "healthy" of economic growth. Thus, even at a higher tax rate the revenue coming to the fed govt. from income taxes may not have been as great as the economic activity in the country may not have been as robust. Similarly, the country is coming out of a very serious economic slump, by increasing taxes you could slow the recovery that is occurring. The economy may also contract due to increased prices of goods due to quantitative easing devaluing the dollar and inflation causing consumer products to increase in price. But, that is a different thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 You clearly aren't reading my posts very well, because it's the opposite of what happened: I got the better rate. I do get your post. That is why I said it was extremely strange that the individual in your case and not BCBS got the better deal... I understand exactly what you are stating Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) We were talking about Bush II's tax cuts from 2000 to 2010. Look, agree with me, don't agree: I don't really care. But at least go read about the "bush tax cuts" over Wikipedia and read some facts and figures on your own. Punch line: "there is a broad consensus among even conservative economists (including current and former top economists of the Bush Administration such as Greg Mankiw) that the tax cuts have had a substantial net negative impact on revenues (i.e., revenues would have been substantially higher if the tax cuts had not taken place), even taking into account any stimulative effect the tax cuts may have had and any resulting revenue feedback effects." Wiegie is a math major, or something. I'm sure he'll confirm. So you have Wiegie the math major, a Washington Post article, and Wikipedia. Not sure I would be siting these sources in your dissertation. As for Mankiw I would hold judgment on him. If I remember correctly, which I may not be, he left the administration and did an about face. A lot of advisers in every administration have folks like this. Edited January 21, 2011 by Grimm74 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 SEC buddy, you're wasting your time. I've argued over and over with ursa that the effective tax rates are what matter, not the nominal. He still insists that Reagan drastically cut taxes in the eighties and truly believes that large numbers of people paid 70% or more in taxes back in the 70's. Tax cuts breed economic activity. You know it, I know it, and Yo knows it. He's facetiously yanking your chain because he can't accept that spending, more accurately vote buying, is the problem. Not taxes. And it is my money. I earn it. The fact that it's taken at the point of a gun doesn't change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 SEC buddy, you're wasting your time. I've argued over and over with ursa that the effective tax rates are what matter, not the nominal. He still insists that Reagan drastically cut taxes in the eighties and truly believes that large numbers of people paid 70% or more in taxes back in the 70's. Tax cuts breed economic activity. You know it, I know it, and Yo knows it. He's facetiously yanking your chain because he can't accept that spending, more accurately vote buying, is the problem. Not taxes. And it is my money. I earn it. The fact that it's taken at the point of a gun doesn't change that. Point of a gun, my ass. It's the price of living in a civilized society. Your theory is about the same as saying the money you pay for gas is still yours. Also, the tax rate argument swings back and forth - it's you guys that say marginal rates don't matter, then when they might go up, they suddenly DO matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Point of a gun, my ass. It's the price of living in a civilized society. Your theory is about the same as saying the money you pay for gas is still yours. Also, the tax rate argument swings back and forth - it's you guys that say marginal rates don't matter, then when they might go up, they suddenly DO matter. We actually get to chose the how much we drive, and the whether or not we drive a fuel efficient vehicle or not, so we actually get to choose whether or not we buy gas, and how much we buy. I'd much rather have a more economical government, but I don't get much say in the matter, and yet I'm still forced to buy "the gas" or go to jail. With regard the rates, what you fail to recognize is the marginal rates of the 70's were much higher but there were 10 times as many loopholes and deductions. If you raise the marginal rate and you don't add loopholes and deductions it does matter. Personally I prefer lower rates and less deductions than higher rates where only those that can afford people to find the loopholes for them benefit. I prefer that we all be treated the same, but that is just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 We actually get to chose the how much we drive You get to choose whether to live in the United States or not and also which state. Try a country where there are no taxes, they must be absolute paradises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 You get to choose whether to live in the United States or not and also which state. Try a country where there are no taxes, they must be absolute paradises. Which is why I live in as state that does not use an income tax to try to persuade my economic behavior, which has minimal BS social programs, the very state you say you want to move to. If Texas were to ever secede from the US, with the federal Tax Dollars we saved, we could have a defense budget 2nd only to the US (slightly higher than China's) and still 1/3 of the money left over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Ursa, the marginal rates matter if ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL. Again, you're twisting what's been said and you look like Sarge in this case. And if you don't think taxes are at the point of a gun, try not paying them. In the credit card thread someone said something about the credit card companies not caring if you've been laid off. Buddy, the GA dept of revenue doesn't give a damn either, and they can't even do math right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Which is why I live in as state that does not use an income tax to try to persuade my economic behavior, which has minimal BS social programs, the very state you say you want to move to. If Texas were to ever secede from the US, with the federal Tax Dollars we saved, we could have a defense budget 2nd only to the US (slightly higher than China's) and still 1/3 of the money left over. Texas is projected to have a budget shortfall of 13 billion for 2012. So if they secede from the union, will that help? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Texas is projected to have a budget shortfall of 13 billion for 2012. So if they secede from the union, will that help? Considering Texans pay 146 Billion in federal taxes, I think that would make up the difference. Besides, how big have the US budget shortfalls since 2006? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Can we get a train running off a cliff into a canyon emoticon? cause it would be very useful in this thread . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Try banging your head against the wall a few times. It helps.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Ursa, the marginal rates matter if ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL. Again, you're twisting what's been said and you look like Sarge in this case. And if you don't think taxes are at the point of a gun, try not paying them. In the credit card thread someone said something about the credit card companies not caring if you've been laid off. Buddy, the GA dept of revenue doesn't give a damn either, and they can't even do math right. Bah. Me twisting things? Your crew are constantly prattling about marginal rates when it suits their purpose and effective rates when it suits their purpose. And the only point I was making about taxes was to challenge the lie that taxes are "our money". Once they've gone to the government, they aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Bah. Me twisting things? Your crew are constantly prattling about marginal rates when it suits their purpose and effective rates when it suits their purpose. And the only point I was making about taxes was to challenge the lie that taxes are "our money". Once they've gone to the government, they aren't. You really are coming across as dense here. We only care about the effective tax rate, but if you raise the marginal tax rate without adding loopholes, deductions, and credits you are raising the effective rate. If you lower the marginal rate, but get rid of loopholes deductions and credits you can still have the same effective rate, a higher rate, or a lower rate. Most of us conservatives would prefer getting rid of the loopholes, deductions, and credits, and have a lower marginal rate, even if it still keeps the effective rate the same. The reason we prefer this, is that the government would have less power through the tax code to dictate our actions. Apparently liberals like you would prefer the government dictating what you have to do in order to keep a larger share of our money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Considering Texans pay 146 Billion in federal taxes, I think that would make up the difference. Besides, how big have the US budget shortfalls since 2006? It seems you guys should suceed and make Texas better. No sarcasm here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Bah. Me twisting things? Your crew are constantly prattling about marginal rates when it suits their purpose and effective rates when it suits their purpose. And the only point I was making about taxes was to challenge the lie that taxes are "our money". Once they've gone to the government, they aren't. I can only answer for me, and I don't have a "crew". Marginal rates matter only when ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL. Back prior to '86 you could deduct CC, car, boat, motorcycle, whatever interest. And a ton of other things. That's why the only way to compare things is with the effective rate. And I see your point, but I can still make the case it's our money. Politicians who don't respond are tossed out on their collective asses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 The best healthcare EVAR!!!! Three SEIU Locals--Including Chicago Chapter--Waived From Obamacare Requirement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 When are you all going to learn that no one is right except for me. You all need to vote for me in the 2012 election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 How can this be??!!!! WASHINGTON -- Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday. The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/26.../#ixzz1CBJdQvEe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 How can this be??!!!! Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/26.../#ixzz1CBJdQvEe AWWWW, YEAH, BOYEEEEEEZZZZZZ!!! You do know you're gonna get murdered for posting the Fox News link, right? 3....2....1.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Fourth Circuit expidites appeal of Obamacare suit. Several states working on nullifiacation, which has been used in varying degress of sucess in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 AWWWW, YEAH, BOYEEEEEEZZZZZZ!!! You do know you're gonna get murdered for posting the Fox News link, right? 3....2....1.... I know man, how dare they post facts in opposition to the obamessiah's statements! It's almost like he thinks if he repeats a lie often enough it will become "truth"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 If you like your coverage, you can keep it! If not, get a waiver! 700 and counting! Come on libs, defend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.