• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Walmart says it will kill plans to build 3 new stores if DC wage bill passes

rabbitcaebannog said:
You mean no regulations? The market is creating higher cost when new and improved technology is available. Also, pharmaceutical cost here are much more expensive than anywhere else in the world. Also, we have a large aging population to consider who will have more health problems.
Click to expand...

No, I mean fewer regulations.
 
mac said:
Increasing tax receipts...personal income tax receipts.
Click to expand...

Your premise is false because you can't cherry pick information and claim it raises revenue. You need to look at other variables which you refuse to acknowlege. Do we need to go in a circle again?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Your premise is false because you can't cherry pick information and claim it raises revenue. You need to look at other variables which you refuse to acknowlege. Do we need to go in a circle again?
Click to expand...

Historically, lower tax rates equals more tax revenue. It's very simple, and not cherry picking. :shrug:
 
mac said:
Historically, lower tax rates equals more tax revenue. It's very simple, and not cherry picking. :shrug:
Click to expand...

That has never been proven. You are cherry picking because you are not including inflation or population growth.
 
mac said:
It very well has.
Click to expand...

Let's see:



Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenue? Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenue

It is a widely held belief in the U.S. that cutting tax rates actually increases government tax revenues, as people work harder to make more money, and having more money (either from working longer hours or simply because they have more income after paying lower taxes), they spend more. This increased consumption stimulates growth in the business sector of the economy, increasing business profits, allowing businesses to hire more employees, etc. and the economy grows. Economic growth then leads to more tax revenues for the government, even though taxes have been reduced.

While this view has gained political currency, there is little evidence to support it. Indeed, as evident in the following graph, the evidence suggests that tax cuts do not increase revenues to the government in any meaningful way, but instead increase government deficits. Likewise, tax increases are often criticized as harmful to the economy and opponents argue that they do not actually increase government revenues. Again, the available evidence suggests that the opposite is true.

Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME

Economists Agree: Tax Cuts Cost Revenue - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I'm not presenting an "either/or fallacy". I'm merely stating that without a sufficient tax base, we can't afford rising health care cost. Feel free to bring up other methods to support the rising costs.
Click to expand...

go after the real systemic problems of the system, instead of trying to punish the success of peoples labor to give to those whom have no drive to attain it for themselves.
 
j-mac said:
go after the real systemic problems of the system, instead of trying to punish the success of peoples labor to give to those whom have no drive to attain it for themselves.
Click to expand...

I agree. The success from labor should not be punished in a system that favors passive income. That does not address rising health care costs though.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Let's see:



Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenue? Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenue

It is a widely held belief in the U.S. that cutting tax rates actually increases government tax revenues, as people work harder to make more money, and having more money (either from working longer hours or simply because they have more income after paying lower taxes), they spend more. This increased consumption stimulates growth in the business sector of the economy, increasing business profits, allowing businesses to hire more employees, etc. and the economy grows. Economic growth then leads to more tax revenues for the government, even though taxes have been reduced.

While this view has gained political currency, there is little evidence to support it. Indeed, as evident in the following graph, the evidence suggests that tax cuts do not increase revenues to the government in any meaningful way, but instead increase government deficits. Likewise, tax increases are often criticized as harmful to the economy and opponents argue that they do not actually increase government revenues. Again, the available evidence suggests that the opposite is true.

Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME

Economists Agree: Tax Cuts Cost Revenue - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)
Click to expand...

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue? - Forbes

Might help if you looked at the whole history, not just a snapshot.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I agree. The success from labor should not be punished in a system that favors passive income. That does not address rising health care costs though.
Click to expand...

What do you want? I am a truck driver, a middle class guy that was raised by a small business owning father. I am not an economics student, or professor, nor am I presumptuous enough to speak about matters in macro terms in which I have only my limited experience about. But from that, I would say a start would be instead of attacking those of us out here scratching for our existence, and building a life to give to those who don't, maybe you should start with the Pharma companies, and tort lawyers driving the costs?
 
mac said:
Do you think I'm a proponent of tax breaks for the rich only?



Reagan made a drastic cut as he came into office, greatly improving the American economy. He then, over time, adjusted them up. Taxes were still well below what they were when he came in, when he left office.
Click to expand...

And look how much our debt has grown.
 
j-mac said:
What do you want? I am a truck driver, a middle class guy that was raised by a small business owning father. I am not an economics student, or professor, nor am I presumptuous enough to speak about matters in macro terms in which I have only my limited experience about. But from that, I would say a start would be instead of attacking those of us out here scratching for our existence, and building a life to give to those who don't, maybe you should start with the Pharma companies, and tort lawyers driving the costs?
Click to expand...

Pharm. drug costs are not up because of law suits. Large Pharm. companies want you to believe that so they are protected from law suits if something goes wrong. Less consumer protection is not the answer.

Here are the reasons: Prescription Drug Costs: Issue Modules, Background Brief - KaiserEDU.org, Health Policy Education from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
 
mac said:
As a result of spending more than we take in. Believe it or not, our gov can spend less.
Click to expand...

Oh, I do agree our government can spend less. They don't and Reagan certainly didn't fix that as he said he would. When government spends less wake me up.:july_4th:
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Oh, I do agree our government can spend less. They don't and Reagan certainly didn't fix that as he said he would. When government spends less wake me up.:july_4th:
Click to expand...

So, instead of addressing what the current President is doing, you take the opportunity to attack a President from 30 years ago, and you think that justifies the current administration not doing anything to curb out of control spending? The old "they did it too" excuse? Weak....Very weak.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Pharm. drug costs are not up because of law suits. Large Pharm. companies want you to believe that so they are protected from law suits if something goes wrong. Less consumer protection is not the answer.

Here are the reasons: Prescription Drug Costs: Issue Modules, Background Brief - KaiserEDU.org, Health Policy Education from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Click to expand...

Typical leftist line....protect the lawyers, protect the central control, and offer a report from an institution that not only takes every chance to defend Obamacare, but probably got payoffs to do so....in short, propaganda.
 
j-mac said:
Typical leftist line....protect the lawyers, protect the central control, and offer a report from an institution that not only takes every chance to defend Obamacare, but probably got payoffs to do so....in short, propaganda.
Click to expand...

I'm not protecting lawyers:roll: I'm interested in protecting consumer rights. You are the one feeding into Big Pharm propaganda.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I'm not protecting lawyers:roll: I'm interested in protecting consumer rights. You are the one feeding into Big Pharm propaganda.
Click to expand...

Nope, not be girly....I am all for opening up the market to price negotiation...You on the other hand seem to be saying that the ACA will make it all just fine, and we should go back to sleep...Sorry, I don't trust that at all.
 
j-mac said:
Nope, not be girly....I am all for opening up the market to price negotiation...You on the other hand seem to be saying that the ACA will make it all just fine, and we should go back to sleep...Sorry, I don't trust that at all.
Click to expand...

No I didn't. You're making sh*t up now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom