Page 15 of 87 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 862

Thread: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

  1. #141
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by donc View Post
    Sure thing,(puts on winger thought cap )… this should be right in your wheelhouse, it takes only a tiny bit of winger logic to justify, which you have in abundance. “ERTA”, gippers tax cut was signed in August of 1981, zoom went the unemployment rate for the following 15 months, it peaked at around 10 percent. So what did the gippper do to correct his mess?

    Why he did the right thing, (an extremely rare occurrence for his presidency) he raised taxes, the largest tax increase up to that time in the nations history. “TEFRA”was signed in September of 1992; unemployment started dropping almost immediately. Any time the unemployment drops it helps not only the middleclass, it also helps America.

    In this case it only slowed the gippers assault on the middleclass. Alas, it was only a brief pause in the winger’s relentless war on the middleclass, which we are witnesses to now.
    Are you saying that the tax cut caused the immediate increase in unemployment, while the tax hike caused the immediate drop in unemployment?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  2. #142
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    I know that's how they ran their campaigns. That said, I don't recall it being quite as vitriolic. Granted I was like 12 at the time and didn't pay as much attention.

    And actually, I was just looking at this chart (Presidential Approval Ratings History - Interactive Comparison Graph - WSJ.com) and it appears he may have even had a lower approval rating than Obama.

    It gets more interesting...
    The downside for Obama (if he wants to draw parallels) is that the unemployment rate was in the low 7s and falling while Reagan was running for reelection, while it's projected to remain between 8-10 percent through 2012.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #143
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Are you saying that the tax cut caused the immediate increase in unemployment, while the tax hike caused the immediate drop in unemployment?
    It is proof that tax cuts don't necessarily lead to job creation. Just as the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts did little to create job growth and DEFINITELY didn't lead to income growth for most Americans (as I've already pointed out several times and backed with many sources). JobWatch Indeed, nearly all private job growth between 2001 and 2005 was in the defense industries (according to the source, personally, I would like to investigate this further), which means it was government spending that was creating jobs and not the tax cuts.

    Tax cuts are not a magical band-aids that cure all ills.

  4. #144
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Are you saying that the tax cut caused the immediate increase in unemployment, while the tax hike caused the immediate drop in unemployment?
    When someone uses the kinda logic that Obamas vote, in the brief time he was in the Senate, somehow caused the mess were in don’t be surprised when its thrown back at them. Note this part of my post. (puts on winger thought cap )
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  5. #145
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    The downside for Obama (if he wants to draw parallels) is that the unemployment rate was in the low 7s and falling while Reagan was running for reelection, while it's projected to remain between 8-10 percent through 2012.
    This is true. Which is why I think (and not for his politics - but for the country) that a tax incentive for hiring would help the economy. Companies are sitting on HUGE cash reserves - offer them a tax incentive for hiring full-time employees, and I suspect they would.

    They damn well know that the more people who are working leads to greater demand for their product, which leads to even more profits. They're holding their profits hostage in order to get something. I think a tax-incentive for hiring would give them what they want.

  6. #146
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    But what good did it do? Sure, people took home a little bit more, but it didn't stimulate job or income growth at all. All it did is (in conjunction with two wars) increase the deficit and grow incomes for the top 10%.

    It didn't help the middle classes at all, because their income growth didn't match inflation during the 2000s. Who care if you pay 2% less in taxes if inflation is eating everything up that you earn?
    EITC and the other refundable tax credits aren't a "little bit of income."

    I got a check from the .gov that after taxes accounted for 20% of my take home pay.

    Deficit spending is a bipartisan problem, independent of tax cuts.

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    What GOOD did it do? It was supposed to improve the economy. It didn't.

    Debunking the claim that higher income-tax rates reduce GDP. - By Eliot Spitzer - Slate Magazine

    There is ample proof that the top tax rate has zero relationship to GDP growth. Indeed, as quoted in the article, The Yale Law Journal suggest that moderate increases on the top marginal rate have never shown to slow down the economy.

    We had remarkable growth (an average of 3.71%) when the top marginal rate was a ridiculously high 91%. During the Bush years, when the top marginal rate was lowered to 35%, we had average growth of 1.7%.
    Correlation does not equal causation.
    Growth can happen independent of taxes but it can't always happen with punitively high taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    I understand the simplistic argument that yes, lower taxes puts more money in peoples pockets. But if most people's income can't keep up with inflation, if most people's net worth decreased, if the deficit grew in realtion to GDP, what good did it really do? I'm just trying to see beyond the simplistic "more money in the pocket" thing. If your income didn't grow, and your tax cuts were minimal (which, for most working people, they were about 2.3%), what good did it do you?
    Then you're arguing against the actions of the federal reserve.
    There isn't a whole hell of a lot that congress can do to stop them from continuously inflating the money supply.
    The best thing is to stop spending so much, good luck with that.

    Not to mention that there has been a shift in our economy from unskilled labor to skill labor.
    Those people are competing for a smaller and smaller pool of jobs, which puts downward pressure on wages.

    There are grants for school available but you can't make people take them.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #147
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    It is proof that tax cuts don't necessarily lead to job creation. Just as the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts did little to create job growth and DEFINITELY didn't lead to income growth for most Americans (as I've already pointed out several times and backed with many sources). JobWatch Indeed, nearly all private job growth between 2001 and 2005 was in the defense industries (according to the source, personally, I would like to investigate this further), which means it was government spending that was creating jobs and not the tax cuts.

    Tax cuts are not a magical band-aids that cure all ills.
    I don't think it's proof of anything. The economy is far more complex than "tax cut = immediate (increase/decrease) in unemployment," and I don't think it's possible to draw any conclusions about the long-term effects of changes to the tax code by looking at such a narrow set of numbers.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #148
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I don't think it's proof of anything. The economy is far more complex than "tax cut = immediate (increase/decrease) in unemployment," and I don't think it's possible to draw any conclusions about the long-term effects of changes to the tax code by looking at such a narrow set of numbers.
    Basically that.

    The only time tax cuts, possibly, could have a significant effect; is in total extremes.

    Like a 90% tax on all forms of compensation or a 10% tax on all forms of compensation.
    You move in either extreme, there is bound to be something to happen.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  9. #149
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Basically that.

    The only time tax cuts, possibly, could have a significant effect; is in total extremes.

    Like a 90% tax on all forms of compensation or a 10% tax on all forms of compensation.
    You move in either extreme, there is bound to be something to happen.
    Thank you. Now you all are making my point for me. Tax cuts - unless they're extremely dramatic don't do anything.

    Sure, you get a little more take-home pay (and I know people don't admit it, but most of them are taking home even more under Obama - at least those under $250,000 got a little stimulus in their checks) - but it doesn't have an impact on the overall economy.

    Weren't we told that the Bush tax cuts would create jobs and grow the economy? They didn't.

    If your argument is merely, it's a good thing for people to have more take-home pay and that's the end of it, then I'm okay with that argument.

    But there is no proof that it has an impact on the economy at large - so these people saying that they're going to either fix or destroy the economy if we let them lapse on the top earning bracket really don't have an argument.

    As has been pointed out, the top brackets don't need more money to spend money. They already make more than they spend, so I don't see how letting the top rate rise a little bit is going to destroy the economy.

    It's going to be a necessary part of ending the deficit - combined with cuts in spending in all areas - including everyone's sacred cow, the Department of Defense.

    Conservatives in Britain understand this.
    Last edited by FilmFestGuy; 08-15-10 at 02:29 PM.

  10. #150
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    Yes, the ridiculous spending of the Republican Party between 2000 and 2006 is part of it.

    BUT a tax cut without cutting spending to match IS just the same as spending and contributes to the deficit. Tax Cuts, if they are not properly targeted and matched with spending cuts, are the same as spending and contribute to the deficit.

    If you take a job that pays you $4000 less in revenue, isn't that about the same as if you kept the same job and spent the $4000?

    Tax Cuts are magically little glorious things that make the economy grow. Sometimes they do. Sometimes, as was the case with the Bush tax cuts, they merely redistribute wealth - in this case upwards. They are the reason that you saw growth in the economy, but you saw it concentrated in the top 10% of earners while the bottom 90% of earners split 12% of the growth post-early 2000s recession. Even before the Great Recession began, his period in office was THE WORST for creating jobs growth since Hoover. I thought those tax cuts were supposed to create jobs? They didn't. They didn't work.

    The only way to create jobs right now is to create demand for American products and services. Right now, the wealthiest Americans are still spending for products and services because they still have money. All signs point to the fact that their economy has improved (Wealthiest Americans see their net worth bounce back sharply - MSN Money), while for the middle and working classes, things have not improved.

    You fix the economy by focusing on the middle class and the working class. Give them the stimulus of further tax cuts. I would also cut all interest on student loans (those in good standing), reducing monthly payments which will spur more spending. When people start spending more, then they will increase demand, which will create more jobs, which will get people back to work.

    For the wealthiest classes and corporations, I would eliminate the Bush tax rate (go back to Clinton rates), but I would institute a tax incentive based on number of new hires of American employees. If they hire enough new people (only full-time with benefits would count), they could actually pay $0 in taxes. But they have to do it through hiring, not through hoarding cash (Companies pile up cash but remain hesitant to add jobs).

    I don't think these are crazy liberal ideas. It's just a more fair way of using tax code to spur the economy into action.

    Call it crazy liberal if you want. But I think it would work. Simply cutting taxes for the rich hasn't done damn thing for the working and middle classes, as their economy during the 2000s was essentially stagnant and was a terrible decade: Rising prices, stagnant income pinch families
    Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers - washingtonpost.com - and it was bad for them even before the recession.

    The recession was such a disaster because their income had been stagnant since 2000, which means they weren't prepared for crisis.

    How can you not see that when it was there all along?

    The Bush tax cuts did dick for the economy; except contribute to the deficit (because they weren't matched with spending cuts, and we were not asked to sacrifice a thing for TWO wars). CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
    Film, what exactly is wrong with you? Why are you so against keeping more of your money and please, please tell me how income tax revenue WENT UP after the tax cuts according to the checkbook of the United States? I just don't get it, ranting against keeping more of what you earn, you do realize it is your money first, right? How can anything that grows revenue cause a deficit? It is the spending, not the tax cuts!!!!

Page 15 of 87 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... 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
  •