Reply With Quote
There were a million ways for smart people to shelter their money.
90%?
Don't disagree, but both parties embrace big government. You and Ryan's voting record ain't kidding anybody.
There were a million ways for smart people to shelter their money.
90%?
I agree with this too. But the whole deduction thing for lower rates was Reagan's doing, and he was another guy that didn't give a about running deficits.
Was it Cheney that said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"?
I'm sure there are a lot more ways now than in 1940-1965. The tax law is lot more complex with a lot more deductions. And tax lawyer/tax accountant sector is also a lot bigger.There were a million ways for smart people to shelter their money.
90%?
It was in reference to Yoni's JFK quote in the OP, what JFK was saying about tax rates has absolutely nothing to to with tax rates today. The quote was idiotic.
I'll ask again, how many Jobs were created under Bush II administration when taxes were drastically cut on the wealthy? That is your argument, is it not? Cut taxes and jobs will be created because of the additional investment. BTW - we are still living under the Bush tax cuts.
You forgot the end of the Y2K scare.
Don't you realize the effect of that?
Please quantify the effect of that on the economy...
It was 91% in 1963.There were a million ways for smart people to shelter their money.
90%?
What these liberals don't realize id the higher rate they tax people, the more wealth the rich ac ulate.
If you can write off a purchase and effectively reduce it's cost 91% by paying that much less in taxes on its value, it only costs you 9%.
You know I can't but it was tremendous. You cannot act as if it had no impact. That would be dishonest.
stupid is as stupid does.
classic example.
1963 long form
If only things were so simple again.
So, why is Obama wanting to raise taxes?
Cut spending. We should all be insisting on government to cut spending.
I belive it should be about 3:1 cuts to revenue increases. the issue is people like you who will not take 10:1 cuts to increase. The intransigence of people like you, Paul ryan and Grover Norquist are the the problem tbh...
Romney misspoke when he called it legislation but, it was a bit more than "policy papers."
CLICK ON IMAGE TO SEE WYDEN/RYAN PLAN
Much of which is still embodied in the Romney/Ryan plan and modeled after the Clinton plan.
Except that every time it's been tried, it's increased revenues; Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush.
Neither team wants to cut spending. Both teams already had full control of government and both love themselves more deficit.
They're all big government: Ryan, Romney, Barry... Ryan already voted for unfunded liabilities like Medicare Plan D, Romney walks in stating he's going to increase military spending, Barry... well... he wants to keep doing what he's doing.
But this isn't new. Reagan loved his deficits and living on the govt credit card too.
Actually, it's Akin.
That's all it was, a proposal. This got included as part of a much larger budget proposal which Wyden had nothing to do with.
Actually, if you go by mittromney.com, not really. There's no longer a "choice" there. It's simply a voucher program.
The only thing it increased is deficits.
You're right but, the point was to demonstrate -- on Medicare, at least -- there has been bi-partisan work.
From www.mittromney.com
Key Elements of Mitt’s Plan
- Nothing changes for current seniors or those nearing retirement
- Medicare is reformed as a premium support system, meaning that existing spending is repackaged as a fixed-amount benefit to each senior that he or she can use to purchase an insurance plan
- All insurance plans must offer coverage at least comparable to what Medicare provides today
- If seniors choose more expensive plans, they will have to pay the difference between the support amount and the premium price; if they choose less expensive plans, they can use any leftover support to pay other medical expenses like co-pays and deductibles
- “Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it; however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option
- Lower income seniors will receive more generous support to ensure that they can afford coverage; wealthier seniors will receive less support
- Compe ion among plans to provide high quality service while charging low premiums will hold costs down while also improving the quality of coverage enjoyed by seniors
That would be a manifestation of out-of-control spending.
Increased revenues rarely, if ever, lead to deficits.
What part you don't understand? Government will issue vouchers for a set amount, and if it pays for govt medicare good, if it doesn't seniors pony up the difference. It's a voucher program. There's no option NOT to receive a voucher.
I'll start believing in glibertarian/conservative/neoliberals' zeal to reduce the size of government when they start wailing about this with the same enthusiasm and urgency in which they attack social spending:
At the height of the American occupation, in the face of Sunni and Shiite insurgencies and a bloody civil war, the Pentagon built 505 bases there, ranging from micro-outposts to mega-bases the size of small American towns -- in one case, with an airport that was at least as busy as Chicago’s O’Hare International. As it happened, during all but the last days of those long, disastrous years of war, Americans could have had no idea how many bases had been built, using taxpayer dollars, in Iraq. Estimates in the press ranged, on rare occasions, up to about 300. Only as U.S. troops prepared to leave was that 505 figure released by the military, without any fanfare whatsoever. Startlingly large, it was simply accepted by reporters who evidently found it too unimpressive to highlight.
And here’s an allied figure that we still don’t have: to this day, no one outside the Pentagon has the faintest idea what it cost to build those bases, no less maintain them, or in the end abandon them to the Iraqi military, to the fate of ghost towns, or simply to be looted and stripped. We have no figures, not even ballpark ones, about what the Pentagon paid crony corporations like KBR to construct and maintain them.
Why, in our zeal to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, we never considered spending a fraction as much to rebuild Detroit, New Orleans, or Cleveland (projects that, unlike Afghanistan and Iraq in their heyday, have never enjoyed widespread support)?
Here’s the bottom line: a nation spends its resources on what’s important to it. Failed reconstruction elsewhere turns out to be more important to us than successful reconstruction here at home. Such is the American way of empire.
Imperial Reconstruction and Its Discontents
Or a reduction of receipts without a similar reduction in spending. It doesn't have to be 'out of control'.
All that said, both teams love themselves bigger and bigger government.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
