Gecko: $250K is "middle income" LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Why? The Romney/Ryan plan is wildly skewed toward the rich. If you're not rich and vote for Romeny/Ryan you're voting against your own financial interest. So unless you're a single issue voter voting for something that won't change, you really have no reason to vote for Romney/Ryan.

---

So you believe in voting like a child? Someone who will provide for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

So you believe in voting like a child? Someone who will provide for you?

---

Not really. I think voting for someone who is pledging to cut taxes across the Board by 20% when we have medium and long term debt issues while claiming it to be revenue neutral without specifying how it will be revenue neutral is voting like a child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Not really. I think voting for someone who is pledging to cut taxes across the Board by 20% when we have medium and long term debt issues while claiming it to be revenue neutral without specifying how it will be revenue neutral is voting like a child.

---

Do you understand the theory behind the "Laffer Curve?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Do you understand the theory behind the "Laffer Curve?"

---

:lol "proven" pro-growth policy. Shut the fuck up and go cast your vote against you're own financial interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

:lol "proven" pro-growth policy. Shut the fuck up and go cast your vote against you're own financial interest.

---

It's not against my financial interest to vote against Obama.

Besides. That's the problem with our economy and debt.

People are voting for their selfish interest rather than what is best for us all collectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It's not against my financial interest to vote against Obama.

Besides. That's the problem with our economy and debt.

People are voting for their selfish interest rather than what is best for us all collectively.

---

:lmao communist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

:lmao communist

---

Do you think such word association wins you anything in this type of debate?

OK, let's go with your self interest view.

What happens as we make more deductions for the poor, or the economy changes so that about 55% of tax filers pay no taxes? Isn't it in their self interest to vote for the politician who promises to give them everything they want?

Just where is that money going to come from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Do you think such word association wins you anything in this type of debate?

OK, let's go with your self interest view.

What happens as we make more deductions for the poor, or the economy changes so that about 55% of tax filers pay no taxes? Isn't it in their self interest to vote for the politician who promises to give them everything they want?

Just where is that money going to come from?

---

Look WC, Romney/Ryan are proposing $5T in tax cuts over 10 years when we're $16T in debt. to deal with medium and long term debt, taxes are going to have to be raised across the board. That is reality.

Your team is calling it pro-growth, you reference the laffer curve. Anyone paying any sort of attention understands taxes need to be raised, entitlements need to be reformed. The difference is that one side is having a grown up conversation while the other side is actually talking about cutting taxes, which, as a percentage of GDP are at 1950's levels. IOW one side is bullshit crazy. That's your side.

I see you do not understand the concept behind the "Laffer Curve."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I see you do not understand the concept behind the "Laffer Curve."

---

I understand it. Taxes can be raised in the medium and long term without a negative effect on the economy in order to reduce debt. Your side is unwilling to accept that reality.

Now go cast your vote against your own financial interest.

Wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Wrong.

---

Ok. Now go cast your vote again your own financial interest. Moron.

:lol laffer curve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Ok. Now go cast your vote again your own financial interest. Moron.

:lol laffer curve.

---

I will cast my vote for mine and others financial interest by voting against Obama.

u know u cant have a real measure of income, when u have ppl who earn millions part of the equation with low income earners pushin up the avg, what in fact not everyone earns the avg, hence the outlier of those clowns earning millions...

Several analyses of Ryan's budget show it increasing national debt by about $5T over 10 years. He's a typical hardass Repug LIAR. "deficit hawk" really means destroy the social safety net, arts, science, regulatory agencies, while cutting taxes on the corps and wealthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Several analyses of Ryan's budget show it increasing national debt by about $5T over 10 years. He's a typical hardass Repug LIAR. "deficit hawk" really means destroy the social safety net, arts, science, regulatory agencies, while cutting taxes on the corps and wealthy.

---

There is no way to project better numbers without getting full employment back and more better paying jobs.

Again, we need more tax payers.

What does Obama's look like? His current $1.1T deficit and interest would easily be at least $12 trillion over 10 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

There is no way to project better numbers without getting full employment back and more better paying jobs.

Again, we need more tax payers.

What does Obama's look like? His current $1.1T deficit and interest would easily be at least $12 trillion over 10 years.

---

You Lie. There is no "Obama deficit".

It's the REPUG deficit from tax cuts, 2 Repug unnecessary, botched wars, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Part D, the conservative financial deregulation producing, as is always inevitable, a financial crisis of the Banksters Great Depression, corporate push for globalization that has destroyed Ms of good American jobs(taxpayers), 1%/UCA avoidance/evasion of taxes.

Gecko/Ryan have NO plans, specific or vague for increasing jobs, poor or good paying. Did you forget that Repug "hate/destroy govt" ideology says that govt can't create jobs or wealth or anything good at all (other than being owned and operated by and for the 1%'s enrichment).

Mitt says something stupid once again, what's new?

250K is a whole lot of dough even living in LA or NYC

I'd say Middle Class is probably 60K - 200K.

BOth ROmney and Obama are out of touch with reality. But what's new?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Grew up that way so yeah I do. You don't know the meaning of rich.

---

Sorry, but I'd have to think that your definitions are the ones that are off here. Rich doesn't mean private jet. Drachen's description of a lifestyle certainly isn't poor either. Not even close. If you grew up that way and you think thats poor then you certainly have not experienced being poor.

I will say the upper end of the middle class gets really fuzzy but I certainly don't think making over 100k is nessecary to be middle class and certainly not by the way it has been defined in this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Do you understand the theory behind the "Laffer Curve?"

---

Do you? Because you've never demonstrated any understanding of it.

Where does the Laffer curve bend?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr..._curve_be.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dudes Who Actually Study This Shit

Emmanuel Saez, E. Morris Cox professor of economics, University of California at Berkeley:

"The tax rate t maximizing revenue is: t=1/(1+a*e) where a is the Pareto parameter of the income distribution (= 1.5 in the U.S. and easy to measure), and e the elasticity of reported income with respect to 1-t which captures supply side effects. The most reasonable estimates for e vary from 0.12 to 0.40 (see conclusion page 47) so e=.25 seems like a reasonable estimate. Then t=1/(1+1.5*0.25)=73% which means a top federal income tax rate of 69% (when taking into account the extra tax rates created by Medicare payroll taxes, state income tax rates, and sales taxes) much higher than the current 35% or 39.6% currently discussed."

Joel Slemrod, Paul W. McCracken Collegiate Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy, University of Michigan:

"I would venture that the answer is 60% or higher.... The idea that we're on the wrong side has almost no support among academics who have looked at this. Evidence doesn't suggest we're anywhere near the other end of the Laffer curve.... The elasticity of response, which is the key parameter here, isn't some absolute parameter that we just have to deal with. It depends on policies. Let me be specific. There's an article about how the IRS has reorganized itself to crack down on tax evasion of high-income people and corporations moving their operations or assets offshore. That's the kind of policy initiative that can affect the elasticity of response by closing up a loophole. You want to raise tax rates at the same time you look at these kind of initiatives.... If we're talking about just deficit variations, we're not talking about what the government spending, the answer is no. It doesn't matter what this response is. If you're not changing government spending, any change in revenue now will have to offset by some change in revenue in the future. If that's the case, then if the responsiveness is high now, it's going to be high later, too."

---

A very well reasoned point that is often overlooked and/or misunderstood:

Quote:

---

Stephen Moore, senior economic writer and editorial board member, Wall Street Journal:

"The revenue maximizing rate is probably around 40 or 50 percent. But the growth maximizing rate, even given the current deficits, is probaby about 20 percent. So the goal is to get the rate down to 20 to 25 percent. For cap gains the revenue maximizing rate is between 15 and 20 percent."

---

The numbers Mr. Moore quotes are not relevant, but what is relevant (and dead on) is that revenue maximization rate is not the same as the growth maximization rate.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-econom...irlrss5UC27YXi

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-to-the-g-o-p/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce Bartlett

The Laffer curve, named for the economist Arthur Laffer, posits that tax rates may be so high that a tax-rate reduction will raise revenue to the government and a tax-rate increase will lower revenue.

While no economist denies the theoretical possibility of a revenue-raising tax cut or revenue-losing tax increase, Republicans talk as if the United States is always on the high side of the Laffer curve – no matter what the tax rates are – so every tax cut will pay for itself and no tax increase could possibly ever raise net revenue and thus reduce the deficit.

...

My concern is that the Republican effort is just a smokescreen to incorporate phony-baloney factors into revenue estimates to justify unlimited tax cutting. How soon before the C.B.O. is required to incorporate estimates from the right-wing Heritage Foundation in its calculations?

---

But it's all just academic mumbo jumbo. Go back to your Religious adherence to the idea that merely saying the words "Laffer Curve" justifies flawed fiscal policy.