Page 64 of 66 FirstFirst ... 14546263646566 LastLast
Results 631 to 640 of 656

Thread: Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

  1. #631
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,303

    Re: Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Wrong numbers!

    You are mixing up your numbers once again, Cons. The numbers above are not Federal Income taxes by total receipts, including social security. We discussed this once before. Total federal income tax revenue has NEVER exceeded $1.5T, which it did in 2007. See table, Schedule 2.1 of the budget which is a table of actual receipts. The Income tax columns are highlighted as well as totaled on the far right.

    Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2010

    Attachment 67120476
    Yes, you are right, I posted total revenue and not just FIT revenue but your chart shows FIT revenue by year. How do you explain it going up AFTER the full implementation of the Bush tax cuts which happened in July 2003, almost the end of fiscal year 2003 which ended in September? You do notice that FIT revenue did go UP after full implementation?

  2. #632
    Educator

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of Nigh
    Last Seen
    10-13-17 @ 11:25 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,152

    Re: Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by treedancer View Post
    Did you not say in post #565 the following?” The Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts increased revenue to the treasury. “

    To which I replied with a graph, which showed that, wasn’t the case with Clinton; who raised taxes in 1993, and the economy took off shortly thereafter. Your statement about the Clinton tax increase that “the economy was strong enough to handle it” kinda makes me wonder, when you consider the state of the economy at the time.



    10 million unemployed, record deficits, poverty and welfare rolls growing, incomes losing ground to inflation, jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression. Looks like a microseism of what we are now facing doesn’t it?
    The economy in 1992-1993 was pretty decent.

    If you would have read the rest of my posts on this issue you would understand just WHY the tax hikes paid off during the early Clinton years, I stated where FIRST you lower tax rates to jump start the economy. AFTER the economy recovers, tax rates raise to staff off inflation. Both in combination result in higher revenue.

    The tax hikes under Clinton were OK because the economy could handle it, it was strong, it had a lot going for it; dot com boom, computer revolution, good strong trade etc...but his mistake on taxes came at the end of his tenure when the economy was slacking and they didnt lower the rates, that led to a sluggish economy from 1998-2000.

    The Bush tax cuts jump started the economy but they failed to raise them to staff off inflation.

    This administration wants to raise taxes in a horrid economy....thats a killing blow...taxes can not be raised in a bad economy. There is already little money flowing now, tax it higher and there will be even less flowing.

    2 solutions to solve the economic problems;
    1- cut taxes dramatically and keep the yo-yo of taxation going...thats the only way this Progressive tax system will work half right
    or
    2- replace the current system with H.R. 25
    Know the truth and the truth will make you mad, because the truth has no agenda.

  3. #633
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,151

    Re: Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    you always have to tell part of the story and give half truths. I have to believe that you are here for distortion. The Bush tax cuts were in two phases, 2001 tax rebate was implemented the end of fiscal year 2001 and accellerated in July 2003. Further it seems like you don't remember 9/11/2001. How do you explain 2004-2007 with those tax cuts?

    Such passion you have for higher taxes, wonder why and please don't tell me it has to do with the deficit?
    What does 911 have to do with anything? GDP continued to grow 2000 to 2001 to 2002 to 2003, etc., yet income tax revenues fell (see below). Why? Because Bush cut taxes.

    Moreover, is with this "full implementation" rationalization? The real guts of the tax cuts were in 2001, and they resulted in reduction of tax revenue. The 2003 addition primarily expanded capital writeoffs and lowered cap gain/ dividend rates. It really wasn't that substantive. For all intents and purposes, the tax cuts happened in 2001, and tax revenues immediately preceded to fall 19%.

    Yes, over time, the economy grew, which resulted in increasing income tax revenues, but it took six (6) years for taxes to return to their pre-tax cut levels. Tax receipts grew 5%, while GDP grew 20%. How does that work? If tax cuts were truly neutral, they would grow at or better than the rate of GDP growth (after all, income taxes are progressive, so their resulting revenue should actually grow faster than GDP). GDP growth and tax receipts are destined to climb; you want to suggest the tax cuts grew the GDP, but there is NO evidence of that (give me 3 notable economists that support this.... don't waste your time looking, there aren't any) ... there is evidence, however, that the tax cuts resulted in lower tax receipts (note relationship between GDP growth and tax receipt decline)

    The Congressional Research Service has estimated the 10-year revenue loss from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to be in excess of $1T, and extending these cuts beyond 2010 to cost an $3.5 trillion over the next 10 years.


    http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/148790.pdf

    There... a refute to your claim that no one has ever challenged you assertion that the Bush tax cuts led to increased income tax revenue. Frankly, in making the argument that one item resulted in the other, I would say the burden of proof is really on you. Afterall, GDP and tax revenues naturally trend up. Cutting taxes usually result in less tax revenue. Both of these events clearly happened in the last decade, but there is almost zero evidence that the Bush tax actually did a thing to help the economy (yet plenty of evidence they actually hurt).
    Attached Images Attached Images

  4. #634
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,303

    Re: Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    What does 911 have to do with anything? GDP continued to grow 2000 to 2001 to 2002 to 2003, etc., yet income tax revenues fell (see below). Why? Because Bush cut taxes.

    Moreover, is with this "full implementation" rationalization? The real guts of the tax cuts were in 2001, and they resulted in reduction of tax revenue. The 2003 addition primarily expanded capital writeoffs and lowered cap gain/ dividend rates. It really wasn't that substantive. For all intents and purposes, the tax cuts happened in 2001, and tax revenues immediately preceded to fall 19%.

    Yes, over time, the economy grew, which resulted in increasing income tax revenues, but it took six (6) years for taxes to return to their pre-tax cut levels. Tax receipts grew 5%, while GDP grew 20%. How does that work? If tax cuts were truly neutral, they would grow at or better than the rate of GDP growth (after all, income taxes are progressive, so their resulting revenue should actually grow faster than GDP). GDP growth and tax receipts are destined to climb; you want to suggest the tax cuts grew the GDP, but there is NO evidence of that (give me 3 notable economists that support this.... don't waste your time looking, there aren't any) ... there is evidence, however, that the tax cuts resulted in lower tax receipts (note relationship between GDP growth and tax receipt decline)

    The Congressional Research Service has estimated the 10-year revenue loss from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to be in excess of $1T, and extending these cuts beyond 2010 to cost an $3.5 trillion over the next 10 years.


    http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/148790.pdf

    There... a refute to your claim that no one has ever challenged you assertion that the Bush tax cuts led to increased income tax revenue. Frankly, in making the argument that one item resulted in the other, I would say the burden of proof is really on you. Afterall, GDP and tax revenues naturally trend up. Cutting taxes usually result in less tax revenue. Both of these events clearly happened in the last decade, but there is almost zero evidence that the Bush tax actually did a thing to help the economy (yet plenty of evidence they actually hurt).
    In the liberal world the only entity that doesn't have to do on a diet is the Federal Govt. As your chart shows tax revenue increased AFTER the Bush tax cuts, please explain why?

    9/11 cost the U.S. a lot of taxpayers thus hurting the economy and govt. revenue.

    I know this is really hard to understand especially for a liberal ideologue but you keeping more of your money benefits the economy just like what happened after 2003. Interesting how much passion you have for higher taxes. Do you work for the Federal Govt? What is your problem with keeping more of what you earn and how is that an expense to the Federal Govt?

  5. #635
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    In the liberal world the only entity that doesn't have to do on a diet is the Federal Govt. As your chart shows tax revenue increased AFTER the Bush tax cuts, please explain why?
    Couple layers: #1: Tax cuts are pro-business, pro-investment, pro-get-rich-in-our-country, which is kickass awesome. Also though (#2), the Bush cuts coincided with Greenspan trading in the dot-com bubble for the housing bubble, so a lot of money was being made that boosted revenues, but not in any sort of sustainable way. To put it really simply, a lot of the growth was fake.

    I know this is really hard to understand especially for a liberal ideologue but you keeping more of your money benefits the economy just like what happened after 2003.
    Agreed, as per my point #1 above, and disagreed as per my point #2.

  6. #636
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,151

    Re: Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    In the liberal world the only entity that doesn't have to do on a diet is the Federal Govt. As your chart shows tax revenue increased AFTER the Bush tax cuts, please explain why?

    9/11 cost the U.S. a lot of taxpayers thus hurting the economy and govt. revenue.

    I know this is really hard to understand especially for a liberal ideologue but you keeping more of your money benefits the economy just like what happened after 2003. Interesting how much passion you have for higher taxes. Do you work for the Federal Govt? What is your problem with keeping more of what you earn and how is that an expense to the Federal Govt?
    Once again you ignore what is posted and move on with your rants.....
    Please explain why did tax revenue FALL for three straight years and take 6 years to return to 2000 levels yet the GDP rose every year?

    A) GDP slowed but did not fall after 9/11, yet tax revenues went down (Bush tax cuts);
    B) GDP and tax revenue will generally always trend up, but after the Bush tax cuts a) it took 6 (SIX) years for tax revenues to return to 2000 level yet GDP continued to grow.... why, the bush tax cuts were just a cut (at a cost to the US govt of $1T). Tax revenue grew at a much slower rate than GDP.,.... if the tax cuts were neutral or effective, the tax revenues would have grown faster.

    Sorry, there is no evidence these the Bush tax cuts did anything but skew the distribution of our wealth.

    Unbelievable.... the symbol of the Republican party should be the ostrich .

  7. #637
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,303

    Re: Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Once again you ignore what is posted and move on with your rants.....
    Please explain why did tax revenue FALL for three straight years and take 6 years to return to 2000 levels yet the GDP rose every year?

    A) GDP slowed but did not fall after 9/11, yet tax revenues went down (Bush tax cuts);
    B) GDP and tax revenue will generally always trend up, but after the Bush tax cuts a) it took 6 (SIX) years for tax revenues to return to 2000 level yet GDP continued to grow.... why, the bush tax cuts were just a cut (at a cost to the US govt of $1T). Tax revenue grew at a much slower rate than GDP.,.... if the tax cuts were neutral or effective, the tax revenues would have grown faster.

    Sorry, there is no evidence these the Bush tax cuts did anything but skew the distribution of our wealth.

    Unbelievable.... the symbol of the Republican party should be the ostrich .
    GDP fell because of the recession that Bush inherited due to the dot.com bubble bursting. 9/11 led to higher unemployment thus lower tax revenue. Tax revenue grew after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003.

    If you don't want to keep more of what you earn, send that contribution to the govt. You could pull a Clinton and have a lemonade stand and earn money to pay down the deficit.

    Sorry, but you don't understand the economy at all if you believe people keeping more of their money doesn't stimulate the economy and job creation. BLS.gov and BEA.gov disagree with you.

    You are absolutely wrong, tax revenue exceeded 2000 levels in 2004 as tax cuts stimulated demand and job growth. Notice the unemployment numbers

    Year Total Taxes Unemploy
    2000 3,132 2202.8
    2001 3,118 2163.7 7142
    2002 2,987 2002.1 8251
    2003 3,043 2047.9 8921
    2004 3,265 2213.2 7927
    2005 3,659 2546.8 7553
    2006 3,996 2807.4 6853
    2007 4,197 2951.2 7200
    2008 4,072 2790.3 9569

  8. #638
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    That's correct, but you realize there is a cult that thinks they do. Hell, not even President Reagan believed that, he raised taxes 11 times.
    And the capital gains tax rate during the conservative Reagan's Administration was 33% as opposed to 15% today. He would be considered a socialist by the tea party wing of the GOP.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  9. #639
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,151

    Re: Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    GDP fell because of the recession that Bush inherited due to the dot.com bubble bursting. 9/11 led to higher unemployment thus lower tax revenue. Tax revenue grew after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003.

    If you don't want to keep more of what you earn, send that contribution to the govt. You could pull a Clinton and have a lemonade stand and earn money to pay down the deficit.

    Sorry, but you don't understand the economy at all if you believe people keeping more of their money doesn't stimulate the economy and job creation. BLS.gov and BEA.gov disagree with you.

    You are absolutely wrong, tax revenue exceeded 2000 levels in 2004 as tax cuts stimulated demand and job growth. Notice the unemployment numbers

    Year Total Taxes Unemploy
    2000 3,132 2202.8
    2001 3,118 2163.7 7142
    2002 2,987 2002.1 8251
    2003 3,043 2047.9 8921
    2004 3,265 2213.2 7927
    2005 3,659 2546.8 7553
    2006 3,996 2807.4 6853
    2007 4,197 2951.2 7200
    2008 4,072 2790.3 9569
    Again, you don't read, think and respond. You just respond.

    Had you actually read and pondered before responding, you would have recognized that GDP grew after 9/11; it did not fall (see my chart per previous post). It is not the explanation for tax revenues falling. My direct challenge to you was to explain why income tax revenue fell after the tax cuts while GDP rose. I also asked why if these tax cuts were so effective that it took five years for income tax revenues to return to the pre-tax cut levels. I also challenged you on why when tax revenues began to increase they grew at a significantly slower rate than GDP. Now I was gracious enough to help you with the answer here by explaining that the Bush tax cuts did nothing other than cut government revenues ($1T in the last decade and another 3T in the next decade --- http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/148790.pdf.) That is conventional wisdom; the prevailing opinion of economists, liberal and conservative, but not yours.

    I simply asked you to support your assertion that the Bush tax cuts had something to do with the recovery and/or were revenue. You could not. Instead, you chose you usual tactics of 1) not responding to the issues at hand, 2) condescendence and 3) obfuscation of the issue by introducing unemployment information (I wasn't talking about unemployment) and the merits of tax decreases (I was not discussing the moral merits, only the result.) Sorry, but the burden of proof of the effectiveness of Bush tax cuts is on you. Simply stating tax revenues rose after tax cuts doesn't cut it as there is no discernible correlation, much less an argument for causation.


    That 1-2-3 punch of yours is pretty impressive. I guess that is why you won the Asshat of the Year award so convincingly.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 01-04-12 at 03:00 AM.

  10. #640
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,303

    Re: Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Again, you don't read, think and respond. You just respond.

    Had you actually read and pondered before responding, you would have recognized that GDP grew after 9/11; it did not fall (see my chart per previous post). It is not the explanation for tax revenues falling. My direct challenge to you was to explain why income tax revenue fell after the tax cuts while GDP rose. I also asked why if these tax cuts were so effective that it took five years for income tax revenues to return to the pre-tax cut levels. I also challenged you on why when tax revenues began to increase they grew at a significantly slower rate than GDP. Now I was gracious enough to help you with the answer here by explaining that the Bush tax cuts did nothing other than cut government revenues ($1T in the last decade and another 3T in the next decade --- http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/148790.pdf.) That is conventional wisdom; the prevailing opinion of economists, liberal and conservative, but not yours.

    I simply asked you to support your assertion that the Bush tax cuts had something to do with the recovery and/or were revenue. You could not. Instead, you chose you usual tactics of 1) not responding to the issues at hand, 2) condescendence and 3) obfuscation of the issue by introducing unemployment information (I wasn't talking about unemployment) and the merits of tax decreases (I was not discussing the moral merits, only the result.) Sorry, but the burden of proof of the effectiveness of Bush tax cuts is on you. Simply stating tax revenues rose after tax cuts doesn't cut it as there is no discernible correlation, much less an argument for causation.


    That 1-2-3 punch of yours is pretty impressive. I guess that is why you won the Asshat of the Year award so convincingly.
    Here is what you said and my post refutes that

    Please explain why did tax revenue FALL for three straight years and take 6 years to return to 2000 levels yet the GDP rose every year?

    What I am waiting for some liberal to do is explain why tax revenue grew AFTER the Tax cuts were fully implemented?

    What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? Do your part and send your tax cuts back out of each paycheck since you believe the govt. needs the money more than you do?

Posting Permissions

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