Tom Coburn of Oklahoma revealed a budget plan that would cut $9 trillion over ten years

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JONBALLS

even if the libs could tax at 100% it wouldnt be enough.Theres no jobs here because the corporate tax rate is the highest, ask GE.

That is a very uninformed thing to say. Yes our rates are to high but if you throw in the exemptions then they are lower than most.

We should cut out the exemptions and lower the rates.

But Doove post the linbk that we as a country are paying overall lower rates than at anytime in 50 years. That is one rrason why we have this deficit. It is not all about spending as that greedy Grover Norquist would have you believe.

[Guest050715-1]

And our jobs are still being shipped overseas.......

[WTF]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

And our jobs are still being shipped overseas.......

Turns out those free trade agreements weren't so free!

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by WDF

Turns out those free trade agreements weren't so free!

turns out your education wasn't so educating............

[Marshall]

"By this measure (as a percentage of GDP), federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years.[/quote]

worst economy in 60 years....coincidence? HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

you would think Odumbo was intentionally tanking the economy if he didn't extent the Bush tax cuts! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

we don't need more taxes, we need more tax payers!...............and a new president! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Someone

"By this measure (as a percentage of GDP), federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years."

worst economy in 60 years....coincidence? HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Nope. HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by Doofus

Nope. HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

I hit a nerve! and induced cognitive dissonance.....

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by Doove

This entire comment contradicts itself. Tax increases just feed the monster? Through increased revenues is clearly what you mean. But then you go on to say that if we increase revenues through tax cuts, we'll reduce the size of the monster. That's absurd.

The only thing that's consistent is your desire for tax cuts. It's about all you republicans have.

i am perfectly consistent, and so are you. you seemingly view more revenues as just something to spend, i view more revenues as something with which to reduce the deficit and debt.

tax increases as viewed by obama and the dems do just feed the monster. they reduce growth which keeps us in a downward spiral and the dems just will spend it anyway. the plan obama wants, to increase taxes, is anti growth and every time the government has ever raised taxes they have spent even more. the problem we find ourselves in isnt that we need to increase taxes, we need to reduce spending and change policies.

but additionally, you misquoted me or misstated what i said , maybe purposely to make some point thats not there or maybe to make some sort of response against a straw man. i never said "that if we increase revenues through tax cuts, we will reduce the size of the monster" or anything remotely close to it. First i never mentioned tax cuts (although that isnt a bad suggestion you have there), secondly, i never said increased revenues will reduce the monster. i said "WHILE reducing the size of the monster", which means holding the line on spending and reducing it to something manageable (and it means using the increased revenues for deficit and debt reduction, not additional spending). increasing revenues by changing policies to pro-growth, pro-capitalism from what it currently is, is what we need.

there is a difference, maybe too subtle for you to grasp, between a tax increase and tax revenues increasing from growth.

This is what i said "the issue is getting a pro-business, pro-job, pro-capitalism government and the revenues will grow without tax increases while reducing the size of the monster".

those are the issues, getting a pro-growth government which certainly will increase revenues without a tax increase and reducing the monster. both of those need to be done. we do one, while doing the other, we can do two things if we put our minds to it. read things a little closer please.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

That is a very uninformed thing to say. Yes our rates are to high but if you throw in the exemptions then they are lower than most.

Here you are correct (but then again, even some broken clocks are right twice a day).

From the Wall Street Journal
NOVEMBER 26, 2010
There's No Escaping Hauser's Law
Tax revenues as a share of GDP have averaged just under 19%, whether tax rates are cut or raised. Better to cut rates and get 19% of a larger pie.
By W. KURT HAUSER
Even amoebas learn by trial and error, but some economists and politicians do not. The Obama administration's budget projections claim that raising taxes on the top 2% of taxpayers, those individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning $250,000 or more, will increase revenues to the U.S. Treasury. The empirical evidence suggests otherwise. None of the personal income tax or capital gains tax increases enacted in the post-World War II period has raised the projected tax revenues.
Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."
Over this period there have been more than 30 major changes in the tax code including personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, investment tax credits, depreciation schedules, Social Security taxes, and the number of tax brackets among others. Yet during this period, federal government tax collections as a share of GDP have moved within a narrow band of just under 19% of GDP.
Why? Higher taxes discourage the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurship. When tax rates are raised, taxpayers are encouraged to shift, hide and underreport income. Taxpayers divert their effort from pro-growth productive investments to seeking tax shelters, tax havens and tax exempt investments. This behavior tends to dampen economic growth and job creation. Lower taxes increase the incentives to work, produce, save and invest, thereby encouraging capital formation and jobs. Taxpayers have less incentive to shelter and shift income.
See more @ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...209741952.html

[Guest021824]

The state of the economy has been years in the making. As many as 30 to 40 years in the making. To have all these simple arguments is really not only non production, but many comments are disingenious when you consider the personal tax rate prior to Reagan was over 70%. Prior to that you never had CEO's or Hedge fund managers taking home over 20 to 30 million dollars a year. You had protections that benefited companies to keep jobs here in this country. Trade agreements that made it easier to allow corporations to take jobs overseas and the income made by those companies overseas aren't taxed by the US like they are by every other industrialized nation in the world.

In many ways, the symtoms which took years to developed are being overlooked by the rhetoric that is printed in papers/online or spoken on TV as Gospel. YOu have to wonder why that is the case. Either some really educated americans are being hoodwinked or it is a case of extreme naiveity to believe that this is normal and those that aren't at fault are easiest to blame for it. When those that are at fault are the same one's that most americans support whole hardedly because they look so well when they tell bold face lies on Televison.

The boob tube has taken reality TV to the masses to such an extent where they take lies and nonsense as truth and use the internet to spread it. In the future such a phenomon will be discussed in History classes as a time when educated people overlooked history and allowed their ability to think and reason to be co-opted.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

there is a difference, maybe too subtle for you to grasp, between a tax increase and tax revenues increasing from growth.

.

Damn...wtf are you talking about. The government is just another business. It does not care how or where it gets its revenues from. If they are increased by a larger GDP or higher taxes.

The problem you dimwits are having is that overall taxes are lower than at any time in 50 years.....thus a huge deficit. Fucn simple math.

SOULMANIKE is right on too, not that you even understood wtf he posted

[cptjohnstone]

this says it best



http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v...QQr8&vq=mediumhttp://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v...QQr8&vq=medium

[I B Hankering]

One need only study the history of the AMT to discover that Congress' tax laws aimed at the very rich often hits those on a lower rung of the ladder of success.

Another example is the 1991 Congress tax on high-end yachts, which was promoted in much the same way as the current proposed tax on the corporate jet. The 1991 tax resulted in precipitous decline in the U.S. yacht industry; which meant blue-collar men and women in America saw their jobs disappear as yacht manufacturing moved to Taiwan and registration moved off-shore.

Congress has proved it could better ladle rain water with a tennis racket than they are at pinning a high tax rate on the very rich. "There's no escaping Hauser's Law." A VAT might work, but who can trust Congress to fore go the income tax once [if] they impose a VAT?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

this says it best

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v...QQr8&vq=mediumhttp://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v...QQr8&vq=medium

Actually, this says it better.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by SOULMANIKE

The state of the economy has been years in the making. As many as 30 to 40 years in the making. To have all these simple arguments is really not only non production, but many comments are disingenious when you consider the personal tax rate prior to Reagan was over 70%. Prior to that you never had CEO's or Hedge fund managers taking home over 20 to 30 million dollars a year. You had protections that benefited companies to keep jobs here in this country. Trade agreements that made it easier to allow corporations to take jobs overseas and the income made by those companies overseas aren't taxed by the US like they are by every other industrialized nation in the world.

In many ways, the symtoms which took years to developed are being overlooked by the rhetoric that is printed in papers/online or spoken on TV as Gospel. YOu have to wonder why that is the case. Either some really educated americans are being hoodwinked or it is a case of extreme naiveity to believe that this is normal and those that aren't at fault are easiest to blame for it. When those that are at fault are the same one's that most americans support whole hardedly because they look so well when they tell bold face lies on Televison.

The boob tube has taken reality TV to the masses to such an extent where they take lies and nonsense as truth and use the internet to spread it. In the future such a phenomon will be discussed in History classes as a time when educated people overlooked history and allowed their ability to think and reason to be co-opted.

yes there was a 70% tax rate, i know all about it. it applied mostly to unearned income, calculations were made as to what the income from capital was as used in a given business to determine a capital portion and an earned portion as "earned income" paid a lower rate.


but at the same time (before Reagan), there were depreciation schedules on luxury automobiles that allowed a huge percentage of its cost to be deducted in the year of purchase, there was investment tax credits on those cars which reduced tax by ten percent of the purchase of those same luxury cars, there were complete write offs on meal and entertainment (not limited to 50%), there was no "listed property" rules, there were full tax deductions on just about all forms of interest including credit card interest, there were no limits on business expenses such as the 2% threshold, there were no rules regarding material participation in deducting business "losses" such as ranches or just investments in oil and gas or real estate or limited partnerships such as boat tenders or supply ships that made you money just on tax savings, all designed mostly to screw uncle sam. so you have less than superior knowledge perhaps. No one paid 70%, that was the rate, but i assure you, only idiots paid it, people spent their time and money so arranging their affairs as to defeat tax.

i worked for a man in the mid seventies, who owned casinos in vegas and oil and gas interests in texas, he was a multi millionaire, and i know he paid no taxes, he drilled them away.

we have gone through many iterations and changes in the tax code since Reagan, mostly in attempts to simplify it, make it "fairer" and in so doing we took out about 50% of the people from paying tax, which i think is a mistake.

Reagan came in and saw all that and did away with the write offs for the most part and then lowered the tax rates. in so doing, there was a dislocation in values, as real estate values came down because the tax savings werent the same, tax rules became much more onerous, oil and gas drilling was affected, and low and behold, tax receipts rose. maybe some of what he did was a shock to the system and made losers out of previously smart people. and so how is it that the tax receipts rose, did the poor pay them?