End partisan politics

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

i rarely attack the source...i didn't think you could support your wild assertions, but you didn't have pull the ad hom routine

i don't care to fall into your little world view boxes...i've constantly said i lean conservative, but i also have liberal views....why don't you spend less time on focusing on yurt and putting him into a box and more time backing your claims up...

thanks

Here's the thing, Yurt... You might believe this not being confined to a box thing makes you cool and hip, and seem like a fair and impartial kinda guy, but it actually makes you an abject moron who doesn't have a clue as to what his core values are. Your viewpoints fail because you have no foundational support for what you believe, you're all over the board. Mostly, this seems to be emotive, based on your feelings and sentiments, as opposed to your objective intellect. It's like you are a Liberal trapped in a Conservative body! You either believe it is better for the people to keep their own money and spend it as they wish, or it's better for government to take their money and spend as they wish, because they know better. You simply can't believe one way until a certain criteria is reached, then switch your principles and beliefs, it doesn't work, you have nothing to support your view. If it's wrong for government to take my money when I make $50k a year, it's just as wrong for them to take it when I make $1 million a year!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And oh by the way... here is your obligatory link:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Here's the thing, Yurt... You might believe this not being confined to a box thing makes you cool and hip, and seem like a fair and impartial kinda guy, but it actually makes you an abject moron who doesn't have a clue as to what his core values are. Your viewpoints fail because you have no foundational support for what you believe, you're all over the board. Mostly, this seems to be emotive, based on your feelings and sentiments, as opposed to your objective intellect. It's like you are a Liberal trapped in a Conservative body! You either believe it is better for the people to keep their own money and spend it as they wish, or it's better for government to take their money and spend as they wish, because they know better. You simply can't believe one way until a certain criteria is reached, then switch your principles and beliefs, it doesn't work, you have nothing to support your view. If it's wrong for government to take my money when I make $50k a year, it's just as wrong for them to take it when I make $1 million a year!

dixie, you have your head so far up your ass all you spew is shit

i don't care if its cool or not, these are MY beliefs and opinions...i take shit from both sides, and you think i'm doing this to be "cool"...lmao...

what is not cool is being a blind partisan hack like yourself, you are all things right, not matter how wrong your beliefs are...if you were truly unbiased you wouldn't have the need to run around and put people into boxes because you don't agree with their opinions and they don't fit your world view of how people should think or be labeled....i don't think taxes are inherently bad and i don't think it is wrong for the government to take "your" money...without this government you wouldn't be making shit

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

And oh by the way... here is your obligatory link:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

thats great dixie...but it doesn't support your view that "everytime" taxes are raised it results in less revenue....that link supports my view of too high taxes, that i agree with

but letting the rate go on the very wealthy is only a 3% tax rise from the current rate....that is NOT excessive and you cannot show anywhere that bringing the rate back to 1999 levels will cause economic harm...

good lord...if we believe you, then the 90's were economical horrible and the rich didn't spend any money

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

thats great dixie...but it doesn't support your view that "everytime" taxes are raised it results in less revenue....that link supports my view of too high taxes, that i agree with

Yes, it does support everything I said, read carefully, it details how this same pattern occurred with Kennedy's tax cuts and with tax cuts in the 1920s. That pretty much constitutes "every time" we've lowered the top marginal rates. You have to go way back to the Revolution, to find an instance where we increased revenues by increasing the top marginal rates.

but letting the rate go on the very wealthy is only a 3% tax rise from the current rate....that is NOT excessive and you cannot show anywhere that bringing the rate back to 1999 levels will cause economic harm...

It is not the tax rate or the money, it is the principle. If you take money out of the pocket of ANY person who pays tax, it can NOT stimulate the economy! In other words, it stifles the economy to do that! It doesn't matter if it's a rich person or a poor person, they can't spend what they don't have!

good lord...if we believe you, then the 90's were economical horrible and the rich didn't spend any money

Well, if it were 1990, and our economy was growing by leaps and bounds again, then I might tend to agree, a nominal increase in top marginals might be okay, but I would insist it be exclusively earmarked to pay down the debt. We're currently in the longest recessionary period we've seen since the Great Depression, and analysts are talking like it's not nearly over yet. Unemployment remains at record high levels, and apparently, we are somehow obligated to just keep paying extended unemployment benefits indefinitely now, no one seems to know what point we have to stop. It's almost guaranteed we will see massive inflation over the next 12-18 months, things are going to cost more, but we aren't making more, if we even have a job. In this environment, you don't increase the taxes on the people who have the money to boost the economy and create jobs, it's just plain stupid.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

OTE=Dixie;740653]Yes, it does support everything I said, read carefully, it details how this same pattern occurred with Kennedy's tax cuts and with tax cuts in the 1920s. That pretty much constitutes "every time" we've lowered the top marginal rates. You have to go way back to the Revolution, to find an instance where we increased revenues by increasing the top marginal rates.



It is not the tax rate or the money, it is the principle. If you take money out of the pocket of ANY person who pays tax, it can NOT stimulate the economy! In other words, it stifles the economy to do that! It doesn't matter if it's a rich person or a poor person, they can't spend what they don't have!

i don't believe that is accurate...for example, the super wealthy put much of their money into savings or somewhere where it does not go directly back into the economy...if they were to pay a mere 3% more on their over a MILLION dollar income, it will not significantly alter what they do, if at all....whereas if the government took that money, reduced and put shovels to the dirt, that would stimulate the economy....at one time our freeway system was the envy of the entire world and you know what, that freeway system came from taxes and it enable one of, if not the strongest, economies in the world

take a look at this:

and consider this:

What’s the best tax rate?

We really don’t know what the optimum tax rate would be that maintains revenues at 18-20% of GDP while allowing for maximum GDP growth, but we do know that economic growth is good for everyone and as the economy grows, tax revenues grow automatically. Ideally, our leaders in Washington would try to figure out the optimum tax structure to generate revenues at 18-20% of GDP while stimulating economic growth. Once that level is determined, I believe they should set the rate and forget it.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/

i'm not saying soak the rich dixie, i'm saying that this current rate is not a brightline rate...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

i don't believe that is accurate...for example, the super wealthy put much of their money into savings or somewhere where it does not go directly back into the economy...if they were to pay a mere 3% more on their over a MILLION dollar income, it will not significantly alter what they do, if at all....whereas if the government took that money, reduced and put shovels to the dirt, that would stimulate the economy....at one time our freeway system was the envy of the entire world and you know what, that freeway system came from taxes and it enable one of, if not the strongest, economies in the world

take a look at this:

and consider this:

What’s the best tax rate?

We really don’t know what the optimum tax rate would be that maintains revenues at 18-20% of GDP while allowing for maximum GDP growth, but we do know that economic growth is good for everyone and as the economy grows, tax revenues grow automatically. Ideally, our leaders in Washington would try to figure out the optimum tax structure to generate revenues at 18-20% of GDP while stimulating economic growth. Once that level is determined, I believe they should set the rate and forget it.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/

i'm not saying soak the rich dixie, i'm saying that this current rate is not a brightline rate...

Yurt, you are entitled to believe it's not accurate, but the history speaks for itself. Raising taxes, specifically on the top income earners, is not a good idea for economic stimulation or tax revenue growth. It's a wrongheaded approach, and has a detrimental effect every time it is tried. Even if all "rich people" behaved in the exact same way (which they don't) and put all of their tax savings into a bank account, it still has a stimulative effect, I went over this, they put the money in a bank who makes loans with it.

Not sure what kind of "shovel ready" projects you're thinking of, but according to Obama, they don't exist. Our Federal Government is never going to be able to hire enough "make-work" employees to make a dent in national unemployment. Oh, it's fine and dandy to TALK about this or that, and pretend that is how the real world works, but that's not practical here. You've got to understand, the best and quickest way to stimulate the economy, is by letting people keep more of their earnings, whether they are rich or poor, doesn't matter. You've managed to get your emotions caught up in the Liberal talking points, and you think you're being all caring and feeling by allowing that tax increases on "the wealthy" is the right thing to do. It's not the right thing to do, it's not "more fair" it's not justified in principle, and it would have bad economic consequences anyway! You're on the wrong philosophical end of a dead end argument, and you seem to not even know that.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

OTE=Dixie;740740]Yurt, you are entitled to believe it's not accurate, but the history speaks for itself. Raising taxes, specifically on the top income earners, is not a good idea for economic stimulation or tax revenue growth. It's a wrongheaded approach, and has a detrimental effect every time it is tried. Even if all "rich people" behaved in the exact same way (which they don't) and put all of their tax savings into a bank account, it still has a stimulative effect, I went over this, they put the money in a bank who makes loans with it.

it is not a "belief" dixie...i provided you with a chart and a link...you however cannot provide anything to support your stance, thus, you are the one with the "belief"....

it is naive in the extreme to think banks make loans with all the money deposited into them....that is so wrong i can't even believe you posted it...the banks invest the money as well as loan, but they invest heavily in order to make the bank more money dixie....this does not go directly to the economy

Not sure what kind of "shovel ready" projects you're thinking of, but according to Obama, they don't exist. Our Federal Government is never going to be able to hire enough "make-work" employees to make a dent in national unemployment. Oh, it's fine and dandy to TALK about this or that, and pretend that is how the real world works, but that's not practical here. You've got to understand, the best and quickest way to stimulate the economy, is by letting people keep more of their earnings, whether they are rich or poor, doesn't matter. You've managed to get your emotions caught up in the Liberal talking points, and you think you're being all caring and feeling by allowing that tax increases on "the wealthy" is the right thing to do. It's not the right thing to do, it's not "more fair" it's not justified in principle, and it would have bad economic consequences anyway! You're on the wrong philosophical end of a dead end argument, and you seem to not even know that.

i know obama said they don't exist and he is a tool...the guy takes close to a trillion tax dollars and two years later there are no shovel ready jobs...eg, nothing going to the economy....where the hell is the money obama?

the best way is not always simply to give the people less taxes....dixie...the government is a major economic force, too big....yes...but they are a major force and for a SHORT period, when the government spends money properly and injects that into the economy, it can and does stimulate the economy

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

it is not a "belief" dixie...i provided you with a chart and a link...you however cannot provide anything to support your stance, thus, you are the one with the "belief"....

Well, no, Yurt, I posted a link and it has a graph as well. Mine was from the Joint Economic Committee of Congres, yours is from some obscure left-wing blog. Your graph even illustrates my point, that reducing the top marginal rates produces an increase in revenues-to-GDP. It doesn't 'appear' to be a significant increase, but that is all in the perspectives of how the graph is set up. It's designed to show something intentionally different than the facts, which are, that every time we've lowered top marginal rates, tax revenues (as percentage of GDP) have increased.

it is naive in the extreme to think banks make loans with all the money deposited into them....that is so wrong i can't even believe you posted it...the banks invest the money as well as loan, but they invest heavily in order to make the bank more money dixie....this does not go directly to the economy

That's exactly what banks do and how they operate, why do you say it's naive? So you claim they "invest" some of it... okay, well doesn't their "investment" do something to stimulate the economy, as opposed to if they didn't have the money to invest? It doesn't matter how you choose to look at it, leaving the money in the pocket of the taxpayer is better for the economy than letting politicians squander it paying off donors.

i know obama said they don't exist and he is a tool...the guy takes close to a trillion tax dollars and two years later there are no shovel ready jobs...eg, nothing going to the economy....where the hell is the money obama?

You're ready to sign off on giving him more! With you, it's like, thank you sir, may I have another? YOU are the tool! Being duped by the Left who knew just which heartstrings of yours to pull! Just how to get you all riled up at those greedy mean old rich people who have more than they deserve or need! Ready to sock them with a 3% tax increase, KNOWING that it will result in less economic stimulation, less economic growth, fewer jobs created, and less tax revenue being generated... you STILL want to cling to the Liberal Class Warfare template and run with it!

the best way is not always simply to give the people less taxes....dixie...the government is a major economic force, too big....yes...but they are a major force and for a SHORT period, when the government spends money properly and injects that into the economy, it can and does stimulate the economy

YES... the best way is ALWAYS to give people less taxes! The government is NOT an economic force, the government doesn't generate profit, wealth, jobs, or any damn thing else, except bureaucracy, regulations, and roadblocks to freedom. Yes, as we've seen in the past 2 years, it is entirely possible to print and borrow enough currency to keep the economy from totally collapsing, but this just isn't going to be sustainable. You're still yapping this idiotic Keynesian bullshit, that everyone except the extreme left, knows will not work. The government is not our Savior here, they can't fix this problem for us! The solution and answer lies where it's always been, in the capitalist free market free enterprise system, and through letting people keep more of their own money.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

i don't believe that is accurate...for example, the super wealthy put much of their money into savings or somewhere where it does not go directly back into the economy...if they were to pay a mere 3% more on their over a MILLION dollar income, it will not significantly alter what they do, if at all....whereas if the government took that money, reduced and put shovels to the dirt, that would stimulate the economy....at one time our freeway system was the envy of the entire world and you know what, that freeway system came from taxes and it enable one of, if not the strongest, economies in the world

take a look at this:

and consider this:

What’s the best tax rate?

We really don’t know what the optimum tax rate would be that maintains revenues at 18-20% of GDP while allowing for maximum GDP growth, but we do know that economic growth is good for everyone and as the economy grows, tax revenues grow automatically. Ideally, our leaders in Washington would try to figure out the optimum tax structure to generate revenues at 18-20% of GDP while stimulating economic growth. Once that level is determined, I believe they should set the rate and forget it.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/

i'm not saying soak the rich dixie, i'm saying that this current rate is not a brightline rate...

It's possible to get more than 18%-20%. You shouldn't just look at the US experience and call it a day.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Not sure what kind of "shovel ready" projects you're thinking of, but according to Obama, they don't exist. Our Federal Government is never going to be able to hire enough "make-work" employees to make a dent in national unemployment.

WWII says that it can.

However, the intention of the stimulus bill was never for the government to hire enough workers to directly influence the unemployment numbers, the main intent was so that we'd be purchasing unused resources and putting them back to work being useful, pumping money back into the economy to get it back to optimum levels.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Well, no, Yurt, I posted a link and it has a graph as well. Mine was from the Joint Economic Committee of Congres, yours is from some obscure left-wing blog.

It's not really a left-wing concept. The graph is usually used in a poorly constructed attempt to argue for a flat tax IE unprecedented middle class tax raise.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It's possible to get more than 18%-20%. You shouldn't just look at the US experience and call it a day.

i didn't post that to state such an assumption....

only to show dixie how wrong he is about taxes

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

i didn't post that to state such an assumption....

only to show dixie how wrong he is about taxes

But you didn't show how Dixie was wrong, you showed how Dixie was absolutely right. Decreasing the top marginal rates, resulted in increased tax revenue, according to the very graph you posted. The JEC Report I linked, indicates this is the pattern for every such reduction in the top marginal rates, going back to the 1920s. It further explains why that is believed to be the case, and it all makes perfect sense, but you lack sense, you had rather cling to some mindless emotive liberal talking point and be jealous of those who make more money than you. Rather than face the facts and admit the truth, it's better for you to remain uninformed, argumentative and defiant.

You think that makes you cool and hip. You think people look at you and see someone who is a deep-thinker, someone objective and fair-minded, who weighs both sides and has an informed centrist opinion... what people see, is someone who has no core principles, who doesn't know the basic fundamentals of economics or understand conservatism, and someone who has the tendency to follow along behind the emotive liberal talking points because you lack enough sense to figure it all out.