More Taxes to Come

Onceler said:
9/11!

Just kidding. Bush did all that, but he didn't get rid of loopholes, and otherwise pursued a variety of policies that were economically boneheaded. I don't think "cut taxes" is a magic bullet, but I also think that 33% is a reasonable top tax rate & a noble goal for America. Of all the talk right now about new programs (mainly, healthcare), and the need to bring taxes UP, I haven't heard ONE WORD about making gov't more efficient, eliminating wasteful bureacracy & trying to trim costs. Not a peep.

That is a major, major problem. To me, it is lacking in creativity, and shows contempt for the American taxpayer. You want a new program? Show us how you're going to pay for it without putting it on the backs of the so-called "rich," and tell us where you might be able to cut our current spending to make room for it.

We're far too accepting of the fact that our government is incredibly wasteful.
Click to expand...


LOL

I knew someone would use the 9/11! ploy.

Supply side economic, as practiced by Bush is a dismal failure. So, let us agree that mindless "let's cut taxes on investment income and corporations" schemes don't necessarily lead to sustainable economic growth and an expanding middle class. We see what's happened. While america's infrastructure crumbles, and our manufacturing base fades away, all that's happened is that some people got rich on paper. There was nothing that happened that helped build american's infrastructure, or health of the middle class.

And, you are a well read person oncelear. I'm sure your not one of those types who would throw your hands in the air, and declare "well, if we don't do supply side, WHAT are we going to do???!!!"

You know there are all kinds of centrist, and progressive economic policies that have worked over the decades. It would be superflous for me to pretend you don't know what they are.
 
taxes will go up on the two earner yuppy couples making more than 60,000

Taxes will and should stay the same for the investor class.
 
Damocles said:
It doesn't work that way, it is more like pay by the pound. Why should the person paying for 15 pounds be charged more for what he buys than the guy only buying 1 pound of stuff?
Click to expand...

Umm I was comparing slices of the good life gotten in America. Shouldn't those who get the bigger slice pay more ?

How does that scripture go. To those that have more more is asked ? or something like that.
 
Cypress said:
LOL

I knew someone would use the 9/11! ploy.

Supply side economic, as practiced by Bush is a dismal failure. So, let us agree that mindless "let's cut taxes on investment income and corporations" schemes don't necessarily lead to sustainable economic growth and an expanding middle class. We see what's happened. While america's infrastructure crumbles, and our manufacturing base fades away, all that's happened is that some people got rich on paper. There was nothing that happened that helped build american's infrastructure, or health of the middle class.

And, you are a well read person oncelear. I'm sure your not one of those types who would throw your hands in the air, and declare "well, if we don't do supply side, WHAT are we going to do???!!!"

You know there are all kinds of centrist, and progressive economic policies that have worked over the decades. It would be superflous for me to pretend you don't know what they are.
Click to expand...


Because it's not mindless and you can go back and look at the '80's as an example. Mindless is saying tax cuts cause manufactoring jobs to go overseas. You cannot tax yourself into wealth. All one has to do is look at France and its punitive tax rates for why they have so low of job growth and chronically high unemployment.

You do not create jobs by punishing the entrepreneurs.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm I was comparing slices of the good life gotten in America. Shouldn't those who get the bigger slice pay more ?

How does that scripture go. To those that have more more is asked ? or something like that.
Click to expand...

Come to California where all state taxes are paid by the rich. We have a lovely $14 billion deficit because money they collected from the rich went down. You can pay taxes until your hearts content in our lovely state.
 
cawacko said:
Because it's not mindless and you can go back and look at the '80's as an example. Mindless is saying tax cuts cause manufactoring jobs to go overseas. You cannot tax yourself into wealth. All one has to do is look at France and its punitive tax rates for why they have so low of job growth and chronically high unemployment.

You do not create jobs by punishing the entrepreneurs.
Click to expand...


Reagan wasn't a supply sider. At least, not after 1982.

The reagan adminstration abandoned supply side economics in 1982-93. Reagan's own OMB Director, David Stockman, wrote a book about it. Reagan's 1981 tax cuts caused massive Hemorrhaging in the nation's budgets and fiscal affairs, and was followed by one of the worst recessions in history in 1983. After 83, Reagan abandoned supply side, and became one of the greatest tax increasers in history. And he spent enourmous amounts of money, particually on our military industrial base. Nothing free market or supply side about that.

Bruce Bartlett, who was a top official in the reagan adminstration, has an article in National Review, that documents reagan's massive tax increases.
 
turbo-libs always cut and paste the moveon.org negatives stuff about Reagan and leave out the job creation in stock market gains in the billions.
 
Topspin said:
turbo-libs always cut and paste the moveon.org negatives stuff about Reagan and leave out the job creation in stock market gains in the billions.
Click to expand...

There's myth, and then there's reality.

Reagan and the 1980's wasn't some golden age of supply side economics.

The reality is Reagan abandoned supply side economics, for something that was a bit closer to Keynes, than it was to University of Chicago Supply side fantasy.

I already documented the extent to which reagan raised taxes, and supported government intervention in the economy, using public money to prime it. Defense for one. The semi-conductor wars with Japan, for the other. Reagan definetly supported government intervention and investment there, when it looked like Japan might over take us on the technology front.
 
Cypress said:
Reagan wasn't a supply sider. At least, not after 1982.

The reagan adminstration abandoned supply side economics in 1982-93. Reagan's own OMB Director, David Stockman, wrote a book about it. Reagan's 1981 tax cuts caused massive Hemorrhaging in the nation's budgets and fiscal affairs, and was followed by one of the worst recessions in history in 1983. After 83, Reagan abandoned supply side, and became one of the greatest tax increasers in history. And he spent enourmous amounts of money, particually on our military industrial base. Nothing free market or supply side about that.

Bruce Bartlett, who was a top official in the reagan adminstration, has an article in National Review, that documents reagan's massive tax increases.
Click to expand...

Please oh wise one.... enlighten us on this great recession of 1983.

Also, instead of saying that Bartlett wrote an article that documented reagans tax increases, why don't you provide us an example of these massive increases? vs. his tax cuts.
 
cypress why don't you comment on the average income and wealth gains during that time. Why becuase you'd show yourself for the partisan hack tool you are.
Reagan was an imbecile letting his wife do a Hillary in starting the war on drugs. He was a God to investors and ambitious hard working americans.
 
LadyT said:
To be fair, I am waging a war on children.
Click to expand...


:rolleyes: btw...Lady T's choice of a BF is how should I say it ..oh yeah in need of Cialis..or whatever keeps it up..she wants a kid so bad that she attacks all who can produce...take a vacation Lady T...maybe the Bahamas or whatever...find your real mate!...:cof1:
 
According to Bartlett...

"The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion."

Yet what really happened in that act? Oh yeah, it REDUCED income tax brackets on individuals, eliminated some subsidies and breaks to corporations and raised tax REVENUES by $37.5 billion.

You see, Bartlett confuses raising tax REVENUES with raising tax RATES. Reagan LOWERED income tax rates on individuals.
 
From Bartlett...

"According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.:

Again... the act according to YOUR source Cypress, successfully raised tax REVENUES by more than any other act in history.... and he did it at the same time as lowering individual income tax rates.... and eliminating tax loopholes on corps.
 
I lost income averaging just when I needed it. My deductions on federal gas tax, etc..
Yeah regan was a friend to the working man all right.
 
uscitizen said:
I lost income averaging just when I needed it. My deductions on federal gas tax, etc..
Yeah regan was a friend to the working man all right.
Click to expand...


Not. I lost my student loans for college in 84, I think it was. Becasue reagan cut pell grants.
 
Superfreak said:
According to Bartlett...

"The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion."

Yet what really happened in that act? Oh yeah, it REDUCED income tax brackets on individuals, eliminated some subsidies and breaks to corporations and raised tax REVENUES by $37.5 billion.

You see, Bartlett confuses raising tax REVENUES with raising tax RATES. Reagan LOWERED income tax rates on individuals.
Click to expand...

Yeah and as I said he also lowered the amount of deductions the averagwe working man could get.

Spin , regean spin.

strange how republicans call it a tax increase if we remove tax breaks from big oil.
but a tax cut if we do it to the working guy.
 
Perhaps Gumby can explain to us how any of the bills Bartlett is referring to raised our individual tax rates rather than simply saying they raised tax revenues and acting as though that means we paid a higher tax rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top