Reply With Quote
Here's one from the U. S. Treasury
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/docs/charts.pdf
The two charts I posted were from conservative-leaning blogs or websites. I wanted to find one from the source for you.
Link?
Here's one from the U. S. Treasury
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/docs/charts.pdf
The two charts I posted were from conservative-leaning blogs or websites. I wanted to find one from the source for you.
Can you find me any confirmed correlation?
A confirmed correlation with what? Tax rates were cut and revenues went up. You do remember ing about the tax cuts, right?
A statistical correlation. You can't base an entire theory on such a small sample.
first, Obama is a socialist pig.
I agree with you we need to cut spending too.
However, lets look at the republican side. They talk the talk but we know they do not walk the walk. Now all of a sudden they are willing to try to show Americans they are fiscally conservatives, but at the sake of sending our economy into a tailspin. I promise you that will be a lot more expensive than any tax hike under Obama's plan.
Second, to cut spending we need to reign in health care expenditures. Now two ways of doing this. Cutting everyone off which we will not do, and morally we shouldn't do. So reducing the cost of medical treatment is the only feasible solution that I can see. The only way to do that is through a "ONE PAYOR" not "ONE PROVIDER". otherwise, adverse selection and the aging of the baby boomers will eat us alive.
third, we can not grow our way out of this. Reducing taxes is not the entire solution. Otherwise, we should cut them to 1%.
fourth, do you not see contradictions in the rhetoric as oppossed to the actions from the republicans?
Sample? It's the Treasury's coffers, you idiot. That's what the took in, in taxes.
Bush signed off on tax cuts in 2003 and the federal till filled up to the tune of 2.4 trillion dollars...a record.
I'll admit I don't know a whole lot about the economy. I'm asking if there is a correlation of cutting taxes to increased revenues. A correlation depends on a larger sample than just a few years.
Well, I'm not going to do your homework for you but, I'll point you in the right direction.
See Reagan tax cuts, Kennedy tax cuts, and the Laffer Curve. Google all three. Every time taxes have been cut, revenues have increased.
I own a company that pays medical claims for a living. One Payor would not be me - or the thirty people I employ. If we make healthcare super-efficient, and reduce expenditures a great, great deal; where is that money coming from? Unless you are talking about a great many people taking pay cuts, you ARE talking about a great many people not having jobs in the health care industry, aren't you?
Trust me, the administration of a healthcare plan is not cheap, but it is small potatoes compared to what the actual cost of care is.
Administration of claims is about 15% of the total cost of the plan for our block (We process claims for about 15,000 people. I'm betting Medicaid/Medicaire are NOT as efficient as my company is. Now I am certainly biased, but a single payor system, since it will be run by the govt. will cost private sector jobs, and increase cost.
I will tell you what I tell my clients, "If you want to save money on your plan, you have to change the claims themselves". THAT is where the bulk of the money is spent. Also, when you are talking about the overall cost of healthcare in the country, "Adverse Selection", by defintion, cannot apply. That is also an entirely different discussion; let's have it after the election.
I agree that reducing taxes is not the solution; I said so in the thread about what we disagree with the candidates on. Getting the deficit under control is paramount.
LOL How does it feel? Now you know why I ain't going back to the Global Cooling thread. There's no way to prove what you're saying. Association is not causation.
"Yet in the 1980s, the initial era of supply-side tax cuts, per capita revenue from personal income taxes, adjusted for inflation, rose just 0.5 percent annually, according to the Office of Management and Budget.That was far below the average annual increase of 6.3 percent in the eight years of the Clinton administration when tax rates at the high end of the income ladder were raised. Since 2002, with the Bush tax cuts in place, the annual per capita increase was 2.3 percent."See Reagan tax cuts, Kennedy tax cuts, and the Laffer Curve. Google all three. Every time taxes have been cut, revenues have increased.
Reagan tax cuts didn't work so well because he thought it was a good idea to spend tons of money.
there absolutely is a correlation, but it doesn't matter because it won't be nearly enough.
Wait a minute cowboy. My posts have already proved that federal revenues rose after the 2003 tax cuts.
You wanted me to do extra credit work. Do it yourself. I told you where to look.
Well, if you increase taxes...you will decrease tax revenues.
Cutting spending is the only way -- at this point -- to reduce the deficit and the debt.
And I did. I already showed you how your "look at Reagan's tax cuts" evidence was wrong.
government should just end all government sponsored plans and send vouchers to everyone to cover the cost of basic care. People who want more benefits can add them, but at their own cost. Everyone can be en led to basic care, but right now we're trying to provide "cadillac" care for everyone. Eliminate any type of tax-deduction for premiums. Then watch how basic coverage is forced to be effecient and less expensive.
No, you didn't. The tax cuts increased federal revenue.
You pointed out that increased spending decreased the affect the tax cuts had. Well, blow me down...
Now, we can debate whether or not Reagan era spending was warranted but, that's a whole other topic...in which I'd like to have former Soviet Premier Gorbachev.
How many Med School graduates will there be by the third year of your plan?
you can increase taxes strategically. For instance, let's say our country makes a drastic shift for oil to natural gas cars. the cost would be dramatically lower for each consumer which would allow the governement to increase the tax they collect. Companies that rely strictly on oil production would suffer, but it's called progress. Just like the beta max.
as far as cutting spending, republicans talk the good fight. I think we may be at the point we get all that we possibly can NOW! People want to be united as Americans, I think, but both parties are splitting us down the middle and it's becoming a free-for-all.
No they didn't.
Here's another opinion!
"While Laffer insists that tax revenue will rise when tax rates are cut, other supply-siders are less categorical. Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist who was the first chairman of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers and now supports McCain, estimates that a 10 percent tax cut would reduce tax revenue, but only by 3 percent to 5 percent."
they will make less, no doubt, but still quite a bit would attend. Medical professionals are not "en led" to huge paychecks either. It's what the market can bear, and our market can no longer bear the expense unless you want our country to crash and burn.
Reasonable. (Got to keep tax deductions for business, however, simply so I can stay in business)
business will still provide some of the extras as a benefit, but you would probably have to delve more into employee benefits. I know that's easy for me to say, so I would be open to a reasonable alternative.
Already there; it, frankly, isn't nearly as interesting (though far more profitable).
Ultimately the country has to do what the country has to do, and I recognize a small fish like myself could very well end up outside looking in. Such is life.
Let me rephrase in simpler terms...taxes were cut and federal revenues, from taxes, increased. Period, end of argument. It happened.
John F. Kennedy cut taxes and tax revenues increased.
Ronald W. Reagan cut taxes and tax revenues increased.
George W. Bush cut taxes and tax revenues increased.
An opinion on future events? That's rebuttal?
Besides, I didn't say you could indefinitely cut taxes and realize increased revenues. That's where the Laffer Curve part of your lesson came in. Come back when you've studied more.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
