Reply With Quote
Tax cuts NEVER pay for themselves.
Not even a question anymore except for economists who get paid by the Repugs or VRWC.
Tax cut policies have the objective of starving the beast with reduced revenues. That's working beautifully.
Article linked to graphic.
Tax cuts NEVER pay for themselves.
Not even a question anymore except for economists who get paid by the Repugs or VRWC.
Tax cut policies have the objective of starving the beast with reduced revenues. That's working beautifully.
Why didn't they just post the revenues themselves, WC? Or the changes in revenue for each of these years?
Article linked to graphic.
Looks pretty cherry picked tbh.
yeah no joke, this theory has been proven wrong in real life, the world we live in
Why is the metric GDP, which isn't constant throughout those years? Heck, it's not even linear going up.
Let's see dollar figures, and actual numbers of taxpayers.
That said, I acknowledge that trying to tax 'the rich' is an exercise in futility. They simply work their way through loopholes to pay what they want. If they're not paying now at whatever rate it is, raising the rate won't make much of a difference.
Next time please point out this comes from Cato so I can avoid wasting my time. Thanks.
Oh, and did you read the comments on that article?
This is how the rich just keep getting richer.. by tricking idiots like WC who aren't smart enough to critically interpret statistics, and then they have these minions (aka parts changers) fight for them and against themselves.
How the Pros do it:
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/...aybook.html?hp
They are.
This schtick has been debunked a long time ago.
It is akin to the science-y kind of stuff you find on creationist websites, that give the ignorant "true-believers" something that they can cling to and reinforce their pre-existing beliefs. Then the believers go out into the wide world, and get their science-y bull shredded by people who actually understand the science.
It is the worst kind of lie, because it uses a modi of truth, but very, very carefully leaves out the part of the truth that overwhelmingly refutes the original premise.
Article linked to graphic.Right wing hack, so therefore you can't believe anthing he says.Mr. Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Ins ute and the author of "Income and Wealth"
1000 Mass. Ave NW.Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-842-0200
Fax: 202-842-3490
The Cato Ins ute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC, was founded in 1977 by Edward Crane and Charles Koch, the billionaire co-owner of Koch Industries, the largest privately held oil company in the U.S.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=21
==========
Cato is nothing but a Kock-sucking mouthpiece for the VRWC.
Ad nym attacks are funny. Spending
StimulTes growth.:thus, Increasing long-term
Tax revenue.
Arguing whether the spending should come from
The government, the rich, or the middle class
Is a totally different argument.
I would argue we need tax cuts for the middle class.
Businesses aren't creating jobs because "customers"
Are scarce. Help the customer and business will
Pick-up.
The problem is that with the job outlook as it is, it's hard to fathom people going on a spending spree.
Jobs are created because of customer demand. One
Step at a time. Let's help the customers that have jobs
Are watch confidence and the job market turn around.
I can agree with customer demand creating some jobs. Not necessarily agree they would be US jobs though.
Exactly.
I am glad somebody picked up on the ad hominem thing. I was beginning to lose hope that anybody would call me on it.
The guy is not wrong because he is a fellow of the Cato ins ute. He is wrong because he is a lying sack of , who is misrepresenting data in a deliberately misleading way.
Middle class doesn't spend much in taxes to begin with, especially on a federal level.
The article in the OP is a ty attempt to counter this:
RoThe one thing that the OP didn't want you to know, is that the only group who has seen its earning power grow in the last 20 years to any degree are the people at the top. This inconvient truth is neatly-side stepped.bert Reich: As Americans get ready to file their taxes, politicians are battling over how much to cut government spending in order to reduce huge deficits. Curiously though, one option for deficit reduction seems to be off the table. That's to raise taxes on the very rich.
For decades now, America's top earners have been pulling in a larger and larger share of the nation's total income. Over the same period though, their tax rates have steadily declined. In the 1950s, the top marginal income tax rate was 91 percent. Now it's 35 percent. Even when you include deductions and credits, the super-rich are now paying a far lower portion of their incomes in taxes than at any time since World War II.
Meanwhile, capital gains and dividends -- a big chunk of their income -- were taxed at 35 percent as recently as the late 1980s. Now, they're taxed at 15 percent. And the estate tax has now vanished for estates under $5 million or $10 million a couple.
If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were taxed a half century ago, they'd be paying some $350 billion more this year in federal taxes. That would be trillions of dollars over the next decade -- a major contribution to eliminating the deficit.
Now yes, of course, clever accountants and tax lawyers would find ways around any tax increases, but this was always the case.
The real difference between now and then is the political power of the super-rich is much greater. After all, that's why their tax rates are so much lower.
But it's just possible that the devastating budget squeezes in Washington and in state capitals, and the slashing of public services vital to the middle class and the poor, may prompt Americans to look back 50 years -- and ask why the super-rich shouldn't pay the same tax rates now as they did then.
We have had this discussion ad infinitum here, and it is the one thing that kills the "give the rich more money and we all benefit" schtick DOA.
Consumer spending is not happening because of a couple of reasons.
People have less access to credit.
People are saving more and borrowing less anyways, somewhat forced into doing that by the fact that credit is tighter (and rightly so, IMO).
We don't need to cut taxes when we have massive deficits. We borrow too much already, and that has to be scaled back.
The problem is most manufacturing is elsewhere. Until we return t6o having a better manufacturing base, we will remain a weakened economy.
A better manufacturing base would not exactly lead to a better economy.
Manufacturing activity in the US generally doesn't lead to a lot of jobs, because it tends to be highly automated.
On the other hand, it would certainly give unions a lot more prospective members.Yeah, I went there.
Maybe we should only let manufacturing CEOs be taxed at the current rates then
"we will remain a weakened economy."
so be it. US corps create more jobs, manufacturing or services, in low-wage, polluted, no-labor-security, no-benefits countries than they do in USA. UCA wanted globalization over the past 30 years for that very reason, to pit "over priced" American workers against cheap foreigners.
Even with the relatively weak dollar, USA can't export itself out of the depression (although is still exports a of a lot) because, eg, China's "industrial policy" of an artificially weak currency wins.
The free market and capitalism nows sucks for all Americans except the very top.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
