Page 3 of 36 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 358

Thread: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Porchev View Post
    Reagan dropped tax rates across the board, to include reducing the top income tax rate from 70% to 28%. So where are you getting these numbers?

    EDIT: I found where you got all that:
    Ronald Reagan: His Actual Record Sibboleth Nation
    Thankyou I lost the site, what numbers do you quible with?

  2. #22
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,733

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    The whole tax system needs a rewrite. Unfortunately, our government is incapable of doing the job that needs to be done.
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Which means Reagan was engaging in class warfare, correct? Raising rates for the wealthiest, but lowering rates in the aggregate for everyone else? How is that substantively different from what Obama is saying when he talks about tax credits for small businesses, payroll tax cut, and the like, while raising rates for the wealthy?



    What you've provided here is nothing more than a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I'm not saying Reagan's policies weren't helpful, but the evidence that they had a rather significant impact on the 1980s recovery, as opposed to, say, a natural rebound, is murky at best. Meanwhile, the national debt tripled.



    When has Obama argued that he should be allowed to raise taxes on everyone, including small businesses? Do you like to put words in other people's mouths when it's convenient? How about the fact that Reagan engaged in what today's conservatives would call "class warfare," as I mentioned above?
    Another thing you have to remember is congress promised Reagan that if he raised taxes they would reduce spending. A promise they reneged on big time.

    Baker assured his boss that Congress would approve three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. To Reagan, TEFRA looked like a pretty good "70 percent" deal. But Congress wound up cutting less than twenty-seven cents for every new tax dollar. What had seemed to be an acceptable 70-30 compromise turned out to be a 30-70 surrender. Ed Meese described TEFRA as "the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration," although it did leave untouched the individual tax rate reductions approved the previous year. (TEFRA was built on a series of business and excise taxes plus the removal of business tax deductions.)[xxx]

    The basic problem was that Reagan believed, as Lyn Nofziger put it, that members of Congress "wouldn't lie to him when he should have known better."[xxxi] As a result of TEFRA, Reagan learned to "trust but verify," whether he was dealing with a Speaker of the House or a president of the Soviet Union.

    Ronald Reagan: The Heritage Foundation Remembers

  4. #24
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    Another thing you have to remember is congress promised Reagan that if he raised taxes they would reduce spending. A promise they reneged on big time.

    Baker assured his boss that Congress would approve three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. To Reagan, TEFRA looked like a pretty good "70 percent" deal. But Congress wound up cutting less than twenty-seven cents for every new tax dollar. What had seemed to be an acceptable 70-30 compromise turned out to be a 30-70 surrender. Ed Meese described TEFRA as "the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration," although it did leave untouched the individual tax rate reductions approved the previous year. (TEFRA was built on a series of business and excise taxes plus the removal of business tax deductions.)[xxx]

    The basic problem was that Reagan believed, as Lyn Nofziger put it, that members of Congress "wouldn't lie to him when he should have known better."[xxxi] As a result of TEFRA, Reagan learned to "trust but verify," whether he was dealing with a Speaker of the House or a president of the Soviet Union.

    Ronald Reagan: The Heritage Foundation Remembers
    All this crap is inherent to the democratic legislative process. The reality is that compromises happen all the time, and in fact NEED to happen in order to get anything done. Every President has faced the same difficulties, not just Reagan.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    All this crap is inherent to the democratic legislative process. The reality is that compromises happen all the time, and in fact NEED to happen in order to get anything done. Every President has faced the same difficulties, not just Reagan.
    What you are failing to recognize when you say Reagan raised taxes is he did it as part of a huge spending cut deal with Dem's. obama wants to raise taxes and spending, surly you see the difference.

  6. #26
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    What you are failing to recognize when you say Reagan raised taxes is he did it as part of a huge spending cut deal with Dem's. obama wants to raise taxes and spending, surly you see the difference.
    I don't see evidence that Obama wants to increase spending in the aggregate. Tax increases yes. Spending increases? Not so much, at least when compared to the built-in baseline increases.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  7. #27
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    This country needs a check-up-from-the-neck-up. Federal taxes are presently at the lowest rate relative to GDP that they've been since the 1950s. The last time we had debt problems like this, following WWII, presidents like Truman and Eisenhower established top tax rates north of 90%. Certainly there were plenty of loopholes, but the top effective rate was still far higher than what's being proposed. On top of that, almost all of the economic gains that have been realized over the last 30+ years have accrued to the top 1% and higher.

    Why is my tax rate 7% higher than Mitt Romney's?
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  8. #28
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,733

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    This country needs a check-up-from-the-neck-up. Federal taxes are presently at the lowest rate relative to GDP that they've been since the 1950s. The last time we had debt problems like this, following WWII, presidents like Truman and Eisenhower established top tax rates north of 90%. Certainly there were plenty of loopholes, but the top effective rate was still far higher than what's being proposed. On top of that, almost all of the economic gains that have been realized over the last 30+ years have accrued to the top 1% and higher.

    Why is my tax rate 7% higher than Mitt Romney's?
    The loopholes are really the interesting part. The government had a tool to focus investment where they wanted it.

    For the federal tax rates, are you saying the rates are low, or the income from the tax rates is low?
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

  9. #29
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,794

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    This country needs a check-up-from-the-neck-up. Federal taxes are presently at the lowest rate relative to GDP that they've been since the 1950s. The last time we had debt problems like this, following WWII, presidents like Truman and Eisenhower established top tax rates north of 90%. Certainly there were plenty of loopholes, but the top effective rate was still far higher than what's being proposed. On top of that, almost all of the economic gains that have been realized over the last 30+ years have accrued to the top 1% and higher.

    Why is my tax rate 7% higher than Mitt Romney's?
    Your effective tax rate is 21%. that puts you most likely in the top 2%. Those of us making 1 to 5 million a year generally have an effective rate of 24%

    but you don't pay a higher rate on like income than Romney does and that is what really matters

    and of course those who are the best able to compete are going to make more and more money. I don't spend all I make-indeed less than (not counting taxes) 20% of my gross income and the rest I invest.

    You seem to think the problem is not taxing those of us who already pay far too much enough

    I see the problem is that people like you are content with the spending levels but not willing to pay for them

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    I don't see evidence that Obama wants to increase spending in the aggregate. Tax increases yes. Spending increases? Not so much, at least when compared to the built-in baseline increases.
    The fact is Reagan ONLY agreed to increase taxes when congress promised to cut spending 3 dollars for every dollar Reagan raised taxes. If the Dem's would have kept their promise we would be a different country today and when you libs run around saying Reagan raised taxes without putting it in context you are at best distorting the truth at worst telling a bald face lie.

Page 3 of 36 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •