Page 91 of 95 FirstFirst ... 41818990919293 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 910 of 947

Thread: Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

  1. #901
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,488

    Re: Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Results matter and results are something you don't seem to understand. How old were you during the Reagan term? Do you always believe what you are told by the left? There were no tax hikes, the tax laws were enforced, rates were cut, elimination of deductions returned the law to previous levels and apparently didn't hurt Reagan at all as indicated by the 1984 election results. Economic expansion occurred, jobs were created, America's standard in the world regained so yes, it was a liberal nightmare. Not sure what you are looking at but I prefer Treasury numbers, feel free to look them up. I lived it and worked it, the best years of my life.
    None of that is what I asked you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You claimed that the increase in revenue is solely attributable to employment figures. So, please, explain to me how a net job creation of 1 million in 1981 yielded $41.8 billion more in income tax revenue than the year prior. Do you honestly expect me to believe that 1 million new workers paid $41,800 in income taxes each and when the median household income was only $17,743? You can argue that those new workers contributed to an increase in income tax revenue but the vast majority of that increase came about some other way.
    Last edited by Napoleon; 02-02-15 at 10:40 PM.

  2. #902
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,296

    Re: Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    None of that is what I asked you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You claimed that the increase in revenue is solely attributable to employment figures. So, please, explain to me how a net job creation of 1 million in 1981 yielded $41.8 billion more in income tax revenue than the year prior. Do you honestly expect me to believe that 1 million new workers paid $41,800 in income taxes each and when the median household income was only $17,743? You can argue that those new workers contributed to an increase in income tax revenue but the vast majority of that increase came about some other way.
    At this point I really don't care what you think, I know what happened. I lived it, worked it, and prospered during that period of time as did millions which is why Reagan won the largest landslide victory in modern history. I am not going to waste any more time trying to convince you the value of you keeping more of what you earn when you get your first job. Keep promoting bigger govt, more entitlement spending and programs, Obamanomics, higher taxes on the producers. Tell what liberals are going to do when they run out of rich people to tax?

  3. #903
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,488

    Re: Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    At this point I really don't care what you think, I know what happened. I lived it, worked it, and prospered during that period of time as did millions which is why Reagan won the largest landslide victory in modern history. I am not going to waste any more time trying to convince you the value of you keeping more of what you earn when you get your first job. Keep promoting bigger govt, more entitlement spending and programs, Obamanomics, higher taxes on the producers. Tell what liberals are going to do when they run out of rich people to tax?
    So basically you're withering before the actual facts and figures. Got it. I don't care what you think either, but I do care that you make specious arguments and talk down to people when you have nothing to back up your position but your personal anecdotes and fading recollections of the 1980s, which are contrary to the actual data as I've just demonstrated.
    Last edited by Napoleon; 02-02-15 at 11:00 PM.

  4. #904
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,296

    Re: Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    So basically you're withering before the actual facts and figures. Got it.
    Yep, got it, doubling GDP, 17 million jobs, tax cuts for all taxpayers, 62% increase in FIT

    Educate yourself and stop buying the media spin. In order to understand the Reagan years you first need to understand what he inherited and the economic conditions at the time including the misery index. What you want to ignore is how Reaganomics impacted the middle and lower classes which helped create the largest landslide election victory in modern history. All those stupid people voting their pocketbooks


    The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy

    Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

    http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f.../pdf/pa261.pdf

  5. #905
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,488

    Re: Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Yep, got it, doubling GDP, 17 million jobs, tax cuts for all taxpayers, 62% increase in FIT

    Educate yourself and stop buying the media spin. In order to understand the Reagan years you first need to understand what he inherited and the economic conditions at the time including the misery index. What you want to ignore is how Reaganomics impacted the middle and lower classes which helped create the largest landslide election victory in modern history. All those stupid people voting their pocketbooks


    The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy

    Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

    http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f.../pdf/pa261.pdf

    None of which is what we were talking about. We were talking about whether or not job creation was primarily responsible for the increase in income tax revenue. It was a contributing factor but it clearly was not the primary source as I demonstrated.

  6. #906
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,296

    Re: Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    None of which is what we were talking about. We were talking about whether or not job creation was primarily responsible for the increase in income tax revenue. It was a contributing factor but it clearly was not the primary source as I demonstrated.
    17 million new taxpayers, higher personal income due to a doubling of GDP equaled higher taxes so not sure what you want but the reality is listed in the comparisons I posted and the reality of the election results.

  7. #907
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,488

    Re: Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    17 million new taxpayers, higher personal income due to a doubling of GDP equaled higher taxes so not sure what you want but the reality is listed in the comparisons I posted and the reality of the election results.
    How do the following facts jive with your claim that job grown was solely or primarily responsible for increases in income tax receipts:

    1981

    FIT: +$41.8 billion
    EM: +1 million jobs

    1982

    FIT: +$11.8 billion
    EM: - 871,000 jobs

    1983

    FIT: - $8.8 billion
    EM: + 130,800 jobs

    Seems to me they don't and you're just throwing stuff out there in the hope that people don't dig too deeply into the numbers.
    Last edited by Napoleon; 02-02-15 at 11:49 PM.

  8. #908
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,296

    Re: Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    How do the following facts jive with your claim that job grown was solely or primarily responsible for increases in income tax receipts:

    1981

    FIT: +$41.8 billion
    EM: +1 million jobs

    1982

    FIT: +$11.8 billion
    EM: - 871,000 jobs

    1983

    FIT: - $8.8 billion
    EM: + 130,800 jobs

    Seems to me they don't and you're just throwing stuff out there in the hope that people don't dig too deeply into the numbers.
    Right, BLS got it wrong

    Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
    Original Data Value

    Series Id: LNS12000000
    Seasonally Adjusted
    Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
    Labor force status: Employed
    Type of data: Number in thousands
    Age: 16 years and over
    Years: 1980 to 2014

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
    1980 99879 99995 99713 99233 98945 98682 98796 98824 99077 99317 99545 99634
    1981 99955 100191 100571 101056 101048 100298 100693 100689 100064 100378 100207 99645
    1982 99692 99762 99672 99576 100116 99543 99493 99633 99504 99215 99112
    99032
    1983 99161 99089 99179 99560 99642 100633 101208 101608 102016 102039 102729 102996
    1984 103201 103824 103967 104336 105193 105591 105435 105163 105490 105638 105972 106223
    1985 106302 106555 106989 106936 106932 106505 106807 107095 107657 107847 108007 108216
    1986 108887 108480 108837 108952 109089 109576 109810 110015 110085 110273 110475 110728
    1987 110953 111257 111408 111794 112434 112246 112634 113057 112909 113282 113505 113793
    1988 114016 114227 114037 114650 114292 114927 115060 115282 115356 115638 116100 116104
    1989 116708 116776 117022 117097 117099 117418 117472 117655 117354 117581 117912 117830
    Recession dates in bold

  9. #909
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,488

    Re: Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Right, BLS got it wrong
    Not unless they falsified their own data during the Reagan years. Why are you just looking at monthly figures anyway? If you're going to compare employment figures with income tax receipts then they have to be annualized..which is what the data I noted is in a year-over-year comparison using the BLS data I just linked to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Recession dates in bold
    And? Given your position on the source of the increase in revenue you still have to explain how an $11.8 billion increase happened when there was a net job loss of 871,000 and a $8.8 billion decrease happened when there was a net job increase of 130,800. Not to mention those pesky figures relating to '81. Clearly your position is mistaken and the increases were not due solely or primarily to an increase in employment.
    Last edited by Napoleon; 02-03-15 at 12:26 AM.

  10. #910
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,363

    Re: Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    It is, isn't it. I assume it's because we have a need to compare presidents against other presidents to establish a baseline.

    Like the 3.9 trillion budget that Obama may propose in the next week or so. That number means nothing, without comparing it to something else.

    A 3.9 million dollar budget might sound outrageously high, unless someone realized that we haven't had a budget that low since George Washington's days.

    These discussions often end up also involving most recent presidents.
    At least for me looking at some key elements is more important than following presidents as a baseline. For example, in 2008/9 we were fighting two wars that with an aggregate cost of about 150-200 billion; in 2015/16 we will be essentially out of both with some relatively small costs fighting ISIS. Interest costs where rates were about 5% under Bush are now less than 2%, with the Fed kicking about the money they collect on the expanded balance sheet. Social Security has to be up because of a) inflation increases and b) the aging of our population.

    So saying Bush spent X and Obama wants to spend Y as out only baseline, at least to be is not very valuable.

Page 91 of 95 FirstFirst ... 41818990919293 ... 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
  •