More Taxes to Come

Damocles said:
Let me explain even more clearly.

If I made just 75K last year, and invested 10K. Both my earnings and the money I spent investing are counted, even though the investment is not earnings for anybody.

Then if I get robbed, because money changed hands, the money I lost is counted for the GDP. So it was counted when I earned it, then when it was forcibly taken from me. When the government takes my money, it is counted again. Then when I buy a car, the earnings (profit) isn't what is counted, it is the entire price of the car, including the taxes and fees that go to the government. Again that same money is recounted as both income and then as government income when it is taken in taxes.

It is NOT the sum of all earnings, it is FAR more than that.
Click to expand...


Damo,

Income changes hands just as fast as consumption. It's a two step process - someone consumption is another persons earnings.
 
Cypress said:
Superfreak, did you ever wonder why so many people on the board don't like you anymore, and why so many people ignore you now?

Because of shit like this. Your anger. Your dishonesty.

So I was off by a few months, when I said 1983. Big fucking deal. It was a quarter century ago. And now your spiking the ball in the end zone, like you caught me in some kind of "gotcha". How childish.

I never once said reagans tax cuts caused the 1982 recession. You just lied about that. I said reagan's 1981 tax cuts, were followed by a recession. That's a factual statement. I never said not one word about what caused the recession. This whole thread was about whether classic "supply side" economics was practiced in the 1980s, and was responsible for economic growth in the 1980s. I just used Reagans own top adminstration officials like Stockman and Barlett, to show that, by 1983, they were actually abandoning the tenets of classic supply side economics.

This is why a lot of people don't like you anymore. You argue relentlessly over minor little points, get angry at the drop of a hat, and make dishonest statements.

Later.
Click to expand...

1) off by a few months? How dishonest can you be? You were off by three years. You blamed the recession of "83" on Reagans tax cuts of 1981. The recession began in 1980... before Reagan ever took office.... and now you say you were just off by three months? LMAO.... you are pathetic Gumby.

2) Again... you claim now the recession was in 1982. It was not just 1982 Gumby.... it began in 1980.

3) The recession came about because Volker tightened the money supply to get control of the insane inflationary envirnoment. It was the right thing to do by Volker. So even though the recession began under CARTER.... it was not Carters fault. His appointment of Volker was without question the right choice.

4) Take a look at Bartletts article Gumby.... He continually says that taxes were increased... but what he shows is that tax REVENUES increased. Again, Reagan cut taxes for individuals. He did not raise them. He did raise consumption tax on gas and eliminate subsidies and loopholes on corps which offset the tax deductions on individuals.

5) If you are so unbelievably moronic that you cannot see the bull market and boom in the economy began in late 1982 and continued on until 2000 then you are not only an idiot, but a dishonest idiot.
 
Watermark said:
Damo,

Income changes hands just as fast as consumption. It's a two step process - someone consumption is another persons earnings.
Click to expand...
One more time. Explain how saving money is earnings. It is not. The GDP is NOT the sum of all earnings it is MORE THAN THAT, FAR, FAR MORE.

And not all consumption is earnings.

The GDP does not remove depreciation, the reality is that it is far more than what you want it to be.
 
Damocles said:
Okay, it lowered with the tax cuts. Good.

However 32.7% is still far more than your rather low 11% of "all earnings" as you thought the GDP was. It is, in fact, three times what you said we get taken for our taxes.

Lower than the 50% that I remembered on the last tax freedom day that I remembered (slightly exaggerated it was really just above 40%)...
Click to expand...

Different sources come up with different numbers.
 
From Cypress....

"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."

"I never once said reagans tax cuts caused the 1982 recession"

Now who is lying Cypress? Do you really expect anyone to beleive that you were not suggesting that Reagans tax cuts that led to "Hemorrhaging in the nation's budgets and fiscal affairs" wasn't responsible for the recession that you claim followed the tax cuts?
 
Superfreak said:
From Cypress....

"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."

"I never once said reagans tax cuts caused the 1982 recession"

Now who is lying Cypress? Do you really expect anyone to beleive that you were not suggesting that Reagans tax cuts that led to "Hemorrhaging in the nation's budgets and fiscal affairs" wasn't responsible for the recession that you claim followed the tax cuts?
Click to expand...

I caused the recession.
 
Epicurus said:
I think only people like Grind are arguing for NO taxes.

But I personally think we could and should aim for a top rate of around 25-35%.
Click to expand...

not true....

I would be fine with either a flat tax or a land value tax, or the fairtax.

In an ideal world I believe however, that we shouldn't have to pay taxes, and it is an end goal of mine, but it's something I see waaaaaaaaaaaay down the road. Practically speaking, fairtax, flat, or land value are all a fine replacement to the p.o.s. system we have currently
 
cypress might even be dumber than lorax and asshat on economics. All he does is spew left wing bullshit. He said he worked in the oil industry, he most certainly does not have a business, or engineering or geology degree. He must be a human resoursces person. He's such a caring soul, ignorant on econmics but he desparately cares for the undereducated.
 
Topspin said:
cypress might even be dumber than lorax and asshat on economics. All he does is spew left wing bullshit. He said he worked in the oil industry, he most certainly does not have a business, or engineering or geology degree. He must be a human resoursces person. He's such a caring soul, ignorant on econmics but he desparately cares for the undereducated.
Click to expand...

And this is a problem?
 
his ignorance on economics is the problem, it's not a requirement for dem men to be business illiterate wusses. On social issue's he's 100%.
New dems can be on both.
 
Topspin said:
his ignorance on economics is the problem, it's not a requirement for dem men to be business illiterate wusses. On social issue's he's 100%.
New dems can be on both.
Click to expand...

I hope you aren't voting McCain, he has claimed to be ignorant when it comes to economics and he wants to be our President! Now that worries me more than what dem men know about economics, unless their name is Obama.
 
froggie said:
I hope you aren't voting McCain, he has claimed to be ignorant when it comes to economics and he wants to be our President! Now that worries me more than what dem men know about economics, unless their name is Obama.
Click to expand...
Nah, that would only worry me if he couldn't have anybody helping him and he actually was telling us he did know about it when he didn't have the capability.
 
froggie said:
I hope you aren't voting McCain, he has claimed to be ignorant when it comes to economics and he wants to be our President! Now that worries me more than what dem men know about economics, unless their name is Obama.
Click to expand...

Naah spinner isn't voting for McCain, at least that is his story this month. He was a hillary man till he dumped her. I never was really sure why he did that though.
 
Damocles said:
Nah, that would only worry me if he couldn't have anybody helping him and he actually was telling us he did know about it when he didn't have the capability.
Click to expand...

true dat Damo, McCain does seem to have the Bush machine working on his campaign for him and I assume he will also keep them in his cabinet and such if he is elected. Nothing to worry about then.
 
uscitizen said:
true dat Damo, McCain does seem to have the Bush machine working on his campaign for him and I assume he will also keep them in his cabinet and such if he is elected. Nothing to worry about then.
Click to expand...
Total Rubbish. The Bush machine "worked" for Thompson's campaign.
 
Damocles said:
Total Rubbish. The Bush machine "worked" for Thompson's campaign.
Click to expand...

Not at all rubbish, there was a post on it here not too many days ago. Keep up Damo.
Rove has even admitted to working on it.
I forget Bush's campaign manager but he is working with McCain too....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top