Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Who the hell says cutting subsidies to oil companies is a tax increase? Or that cutting deductions to individuals is a tax cut?
Me thinks you be creating your own personal strawman.
More Taxes to Come
- Thread starter LadyT
- Start date
Who the hell says cutting subsidies to oil companies is a tax increase? Or that cutting deductions to individuals is a tax cut?
Me thinks you be creating your own personal strawman.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Of course not... Cypress throws out his bullshit and then... nothing... and for some reason US is determined to take his place in the strawman competition.
You assume Bartlett was talking solely about income taxes. He wasn't. He was talking about taxes generally. There are taxes other than the income tax you know.
All Bartlett said is that Reagan increased taxes, which is true.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I am still waiting to hear more on this "one of the worst recessions in our history" that occured in 1983.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I am not assuming any such thing. Bartlett shows that tax REVENUES increased. That does not equate to taxes were raised.
Yes, there were some.... like the gas tax and elimination of corp subsidies and loopholes where taxes were raised.... but look at Bartletts article....
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp
He continually talks of "raising taxes" by "x" dollars. That is raising REVENUE... and that does not mean that the increased revenues was due to increase in tax rates.... whether those rates are on the gas tax, corporations or individuals.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Side note Dung.... I would be willing to bet Cypress would never bring up Bartletts last comment....
"Earlier this year, Reagan's chief of staff, James A. Baker III, wrote a sort of mea culpa in the Wall Street Journal, saying that he had underestimated the positive economic effects of tax-rate reductions"
"Earlier this year, Reagan's chief of staff, James A. Baker III, wrote a sort of mea culpa in the Wall Street Journal, saying that he had underestimated the positive economic effects of tax-rate reductions"
Thank you, SF for admitting historical fact: Regan increased taxes. It's OK to admit facts.
As for the side note, for some reason I have to continually remind people that, while tax cuts can have a positive economic impact, it does not follow that tax cuts increase revenues.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Regan never increased or decreased taxes.
Reagan raised tax revenues. He lowered individual tax rates. He eliminated corporate loopholes and subsidies (defacto tax increase on the corps). He added to consumption taxes. (gas tax increase etc..)
His tax cuts on individuals were a positive on the revenue flow because he offset those cuts with increases in areas that were not as efficient. He put the money back in the hands of the populace.
Acting like he turned around and raised taxes on individuals and abandoned supply side economics is not only dishonest, it is a pathetic attempt to distort what occured.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The GDP is the same as what everyone earns, unless money just magically disappeards.
How are you sure that they didn't look up the total tax revenue of all governments and use that? Otherwise, the system would be seriously unfair to countries with unified governmental system. Damo, why do you always talk about things you know nothing about as if you're the utmost authority on the subject?
Epicurus
Reasonable
You are seriously hilarious.
"FREE MARKET ECONOMICS AND DEREGULATION HAS BEEN RUINING US SINCE TEH REGAN YEARS!"
"Reagan increased taxes and spent extravagantly! NOTHING FREE MARKET OR SUPPLY SIDE ABOUT THAT."
You are a self-contained world of truly laughable contradictions. If you sat down and wrote out 50 core assumptions you make about the world, I bet you would find every one of them contradicting each other.
I used to think you were a genuine liberal, but now I see that you have no clue what you believe.
Epicurus
Reasonable
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Perhaps you will have better luck than I did at getting him to tell us all about that great recession of 1983.
We were talking about supply side economics. Not “free markets”. “Free markets” is just jargon, used to describe any economy in which goods and services are arranged and traded by mutual consent of private sellers and buyers. Perhaps you could re-enroll in Econ 101 to learn what the specific definition supply side economics is. Hint: it’s about tax policy. Not about “free markets”, or neoliberal deregulation and trade policy.
Raising your fist in the air and -- in Mel Gibson/Braveheart-style -- yelling “Freeeeeeeeeeeee Markets!” adds nothing to the debate, since it’s a generic and fairly non-descriptive word. Every country in the prosperous developed world practices “Freeeeeeeeee Markets”. (Hat tip, to Mel Gibson).
Superfreak, google is your friend. The recession we experienced in the early 1980s was the worst economic downturn since the great depression. With over 10% unemployment. The Reagan-worshipping books you’ve been reading, evidently left out that little factoid.
Little-Acorn
New member
To make up an example:
A guy who makes $50K/yr, may find that he has to pay $5,000 in taxes this year.
A guy who makes $100K/yr, finds that he has to pay $15,000.
The guy who makes $150K/yr, finds that he has to pay $40,000.
Those numbers aren't accurate, but the progression of them is.
And what's the leftists' justification for such a weird way to "charge" people for what they get from government?
Same as a famous gangster's "justification" when someone asked him why he kept robbing banks. He wouldn't bother robbing ordinary people on the street, but would always go after the big institutions. He replied, "Because that's where the money is!"
The gangster, at least, didn't try to pretend it was somehow "right" that the banks hand him the money. And he didn't try to claim the banks were "evil" and should be punished, by turning over the money they held, to someone like himself. And he certainly didn't try to pretend the banks (or their depositors large and small) were getting anything in return for their money when they "gave" it to him.
Leftists and other big-government types, in both parties, similarly don't try to pretend people paying increasing amounts of progressive taxes, are getting increased govt goods and services in proportion to what they pay.
But here's where it gets really strange: The leftists DO try to claim that people who make more money are somehow "evil", and deserve to be punished by having MUCH more taken away from them. And they swear up and down that what the government is doing, is "right" and even "fair" when it confiscates far more than those taxpayers will ever get back in goods and services. They provide no evidence or even common sense to back that up, of course. Just more castigation of the people giving them the most money.
I wish the leftists would some day raise their morals, and their honesty, up to the level of the bank robber's. Who knows, if they do that, maybe some day they will even be able to rise above bank-robber morality, and start treating the big taxpayers as being almost as deserving of "fair" treatment, as the small taxpayers!
Well, probably won't happen in my lifetime. But I can dream.....
A guy who makes $50K/yr, may find that he has to pay $5,000 in taxes this year.
A guy who makes $100K/yr, finds that he has to pay $15,000.
The guy who makes $150K/yr, finds that he has to pay $40,000.
Those numbers aren't accurate, but the progression of them is.
And what's the leftists' justification for such a weird way to "charge" people for what they get from government?
Same as a famous gangster's "justification" when someone asked him why he kept robbing banks. He wouldn't bother robbing ordinary people on the street, but would always go after the big institutions. He replied, "Because that's where the money is!"
The gangster, at least, didn't try to pretend it was somehow "right" that the banks hand him the money. And he didn't try to claim the banks were "evil" and should be punished, by turning over the money they held, to someone like himself. And he certainly didn't try to pretend the banks (or their depositors large and small) were getting anything in return for their money when they "gave" it to him.
Leftists and other big-government types, in both parties, similarly don't try to pretend people paying increasing amounts of progressive taxes, are getting increased govt goods and services in proportion to what they pay.
But here's where it gets really strange: The leftists DO try to claim that people who make more money are somehow "evil", and deserve to be punished by having MUCH more taken away from them. And they swear up and down that what the government is doing, is "right" and even "fair" when it confiscates far more than those taxpayers will ever get back in goods and services. They provide no evidence or even common sense to back that up, of course. Just more castigation of the people giving them the most money.
I wish the leftists would some day raise their morals, and their honesty, up to the level of the bank robber's. Who knows, if they do that, maybe some day they will even be able to rise above bank-robber morality, and start treating the big taxpayers as being almost as deserving of "fair" treatment, as the small taxpayers!
Well, probably won't happen in my lifetime. But I can dream.....
Last edited:
Epicurus
Reasonable
http://www.economics.emory.edu/allcourses.htm
ECON 101: Principles of Microeconomics
This course meets GER Requirement III.
Prerequisites: None.
Description:
Introduction to the theory of markets, including consumer and producer choice and how they interact to determine prices and resource allocations. Applications include price controls, production, market structures, environmental economics, governmental regulation of the economy, labor and capital markets, and international exchange.
Oh Cypress...
Did you even go to college?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
To make up an example:
A guy who makes $50K/yr, may find that he has to pay $5,000 in taxes this year.
A guy who makes $100K/yr, finds that he has to pay $15,000.
The guy who makes $150K/yr, finds that he has to pay $40,000.
Those numbers aren't accurate, but the progression of them is.
And what's the leftists' justification for such a weird way to "charge" people for what they get from government?
Same as a famous gangster's "justification" when someone asked him why he kept robbing banks. He wouldn't bother robbing ordinary people on the street, but would always go after the big institutions. He replied, "Because that's where the money is!"
The gangster, at least, didn't try to pretend it was somehow "right" that the banks hand him the money. And he didn't try to claim the banks were "evil" and should be punished, by turning over the money they held, to someone like himself. And he certainly didn't try to pretend the banks (or their depositors large and small) were getting anything in return for their money when they "gave" it to him.
Leftists and other big-government types, in both parties, similarly don't try to pretend people paying increasing amounts of progressive taxes, are getting increased govt goods and services in proportion to what they pay.
But here's where it gets really strange: The leftists DO try to claim that people who make more money are somehow "evil", and deserve to be punished by having MUCH more taken away from them. And they swear up and down that what the government is doing, is "right" and even "fair" when it confiscates far more than those taxpayers will ever get back in goods and services. They provide no evidence or even common sense to back that up, of course. Just more castigation of the people giving them the most money.
I wish the leftists would some day raise their morals, and their honesty, up to the level of the bank robber's. Who knows, if they do that, maybe some day they will even be able to rise above bank-robber morality, and start treating the big taxpayers as being almost as deserving of "fair" treatment, as the small taxpayers!
Well, probably won't happen in my lifetime. But I can dream.....
Yay for rich peoples rights.
Honestly, if the German government can manage to tax its citizens less than us, with their humongous welfare state, soemthing is going the fuck wrong with our money.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
We need a person to stand up for rich people. A Bill X.
I’m embarrassed for you, that you can’t acknowledge that the debate was about supply side economics, and not about the ill defined generic term “free markets”. Socretease is right. You either don’t read what people write, or you’re just being an ass.
I’m further embarrassed that you felt a need to cut and paste some class you took in your college. Kid, your elders and superiors here, have resumes with vast experience in the professional, business, and financial world. Trotting out some introductory class you took doesn’t impress anyone, anymore than your thin and virtually blank resume with your taco bell jobs on it.
If your not going to read what anyone wrote, please ignore me or find someone else to pester. I can’t waste my time on this.
Epicurus
Reasonable
Haha actually I noticed when I previewing my post, but since I'd already gone to all the trouble of writing it I just went ahead and posted it anyway.