Last edited by zimmer; 12-05-10 at 10:56 AM.
I AM DEPLORABLE.
NEVER CRIMINAL HILLARY (S-NY)
it's a lot like greece bitching out germany for not wanting to bail em out (again)
Or suppose a government took a clean 10% of the GDP as tasks, through all different means of course, and this economy was worth $100. That would mean the government was taking 10 dollars as revenue and the rest was in the economy. Now if the government reduced its tax rate to 5% of GDP, again taken from different sources but amounting to 5%, that the economy with that injection of an extra 5% of GDP would in fact grow to being worth over $200? That would be required to exceed the 10 dollars the government was originally getting in taxes, a full doubling of the entire economy.
Is that what you are saying is reality?
"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy." -Reagan
CORPORATE GREED AND UNION GREEDDEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANSDESTROYING THE BEST OF AMERICA ONE DAY AT A TIME
This is the worst kind of discrimination. The kind against ME! ~ Bender
John... I figured you:
1. Were totally clueless about what JFK had said and...
2. Would ignore the statistics in the NYT piece attached in my post.
You can go back and read the NYT piece... and here is what JFK had to say. You know... JFK... the guy who said a rising tide raises all boats.
We shall, therefore, neither postpone our tax cut plans nor cut into essential national security programs. This administration is determined to protect America's security and survival and we are also determined to step up its economic growth. I think we must do both.
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records.
In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment.
The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve--and I believe this can be done--a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.
Last edited by zimmer; 12-05-10 at 12:04 PM.
I AM DEPLORABLE.
NEVER CRIMINAL HILLARY (S-NY)
Tax is assessed per transaction. Whether it be income earned, money spent, investment earnings, corporate profits, death tax, tolls, or the owning of property in yearly increments, etc.
1) If one keeps tax levels frozen, but increases the number of taxed transactions in any given time frame, as you know revenue increases. That is the plan with keeping the tax rates as they are now.
2) Or if one increases taxes but is able to maintain the same level of transactions, revenue increases. This is usually seen as being unlikely to result this way, as raising taxes puts direct pressure on reducing the number of transactions. This is borne out by the net result of millionaire taxes in NY and MD generating less revenue from millionaires, as they took their transactins elsewhere. It is also seen as a very bad idea in a recession.
3) Or if one reduces the tax rate, such as by 5%, but increases transaction rate, by such as 10%, then that is your "less is more" model. This was successfully demonstrated by JFK, Reagan, and W. After suffering the tranaction decreasing effects of the Clinton Recession and 9-11, once W had the tax cuts in place, revenue increased smartly from 2003 to 2007. Our current recession is all the fault of the Housing Bubble burst, which had nothing to do with the Bush Tax Cuts, and was due entirely to the intervention of Government in the housing market, bastardizing capitalism. It was a process that got legs in the late 90's, and continued unabated until the pop.
Look it up liberals. Reagan's tax cuts had a profound positive effect in increasing revenue. He also never had a Congressional majority, and for every $2 increase in revenue, Congress spent $3. Even so, he paved the way for the boom 90's, when a Republican House worked with a Democrat President and were collectively very effective.