• 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!

Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

what you are discussing is only a matter of instant revenue. over longer periods of time, the "sweet range" is actually quite broad. and the growth effects are generally immediate as well.

which is why you shouldn't only cut taxes, but also cut government.

Oh God, here is this argument again. You want to cut taxes further? Your party can't even come up with a plan to get a budget surplus with taxes as low as they are, and you want to cut taxes even more? So, what taxes will you cut and on whom? Also, what government will you cut as to create a balanced budget?

Not to mention, your entire Laffer Curve "analysis" left much to the imagination - aka there was none.
 
They all have their own agendas. There are certain common themes that run through them. Eventually, if the movement takes off, the common themes will become its agenda. This isn't like the Tea Party. There's no Dick Armey and no Koch Bros. running the show.
True. It is not as if the OWS want to return government to constitutional limits or be fiscally responsible.
 
In the 60s a family only needed to have one person working 40 hours a week to provide housing, health care, food, transportation, etc. Now it takes two or more people working and they're being expected to work 50 or 60 hours a week. Despite that, they're having a harder time covering those same basics.
What is the impact of the massive increase in the scope, reach and size of government? What impact do those 80,000 regulations that cost the people more than one trillion additional dollars have?
 
The Great Society legislation was passed between 1964 and 1966. In 1963 the top income tax bracket was taxed at 91%. Today it is 35%. Long term capital gains were taxed at 50% in 1963, where today they are taxed at 15%. The top estate tax bracket in 1963 was 70%. Today it is 35%. Etc.
Why do you behave as if you are unaware of the difference between marginal rates and effective rates? I believe you do. So are you intentionally misrepresenting?
 
Would you explain marginal rates versus effective rates please?

Why do you behave as if you are unaware of the difference between marginal rates and effective rates? I believe you do. So are you intentionally misrepresenting?

Marginal tax rate is the top rate you pay, effective is the overall rate you pay. So, like if you make $15k and there is a 0-$10k tax bracket with a rate of 5% and a $10k-$20k bracket with a rate of 10%, your marginal tax rate is 10%, your effective is 6.67% ((5% * $10k + 10% * $5k) / $15k).

Not sure how you think that is misleading or related to what I am saying at all. Can you explain?
 
Of course, like today, people didn't pay the full rate, but the wealthy did pay a much higher effective rate than they do now. And the country has never been stronger than it was during that period.
What makes you think that is true?
 
Marginal tax rate is the top rate you pay, effective is the overall rate you pay. So, like if you make $15k and there is a 0-$10k tax bracket with a rate of 5% and a $10k-$20k bracket with a rate of 10%, your marginal tax rate is 10%, your effective is 6.67% ((5% * $10k + 10% * $5k) / $15k).

Not sure how you think that is misleading or related to what I am saying at all. Can you explain?
Yes. you mix and match. I believe you know that as the top marginal rate came down the exemptions that kept the effective rate reasonable were taken away. So even through the top marginal rate came down the effective tax rate increased somewhat. If what I am saying is true, and if you know it then your are being deceptive.
 
Yes. you mix and match. I believe you know that as the top marginal rate came down the exemptions that kept the effective rate reasonable were taken away. So even through the top marginal rate came down the effective tax rate increased somewhat. If what I am saying is true, and if you know it then your are being deceptive.

The only historical data I'm finding on historical effective tax rates only goes back to 1979, but it shows the top 1% paying 37% in 1979 and 27% today. It also shows corporations paying 14% in 1979 and 9% now. The middle's effective tax rates dropped substantially during that period too, from 19% to 14%. And that's just half the time range I'm talking about. If you have data going back to the 60s, please post it, but it seems like the effective tax rate story is consistent with what you would expect to result from a slashing of the top tax rates.
 
The only historical data I'm finding on historical effective tax rates only goes back to 1979, but it shows the top 1% paying 37% in 1979 and 27% today. It also shows corporations paying 14% in 1979 and 9% now. The middle's effective tax rates dropped substantially during that period too, from 19% to 14%. And that's just half the time range I'm talking about. If you have data going back to the 60s, please post it, but it seems like the effective tax rate story is consistent with what you would expect to result from a slashing of the top tax rates.

Could you please post that historical data for reference? (assuming it's a link) Thank you in advance :)
 
Then you would have been wrong.

No - that would be right. The push to a double income did not get its big push until the ME ME ME attitude took over in the 80's and that was Reagan. Ronnie wasthe one who blew the budget and brought back rising public debt.
 
Federal government hasn't actually grown much as a portion of GDP since the great society. It goes up and down as we get in and out of wars and the GDP booms and busts, but it's almost always been between 30% and 35% since the great society. The only exception is the Bush calamity of launching two simultaneous wars and crashing the economy at the same time. That knocked it up to 42% briefly. It's going back down again now as the economy picks up and we pull out of the wars somewhat.

Raising taxes certainly needs to be part of any deficit reduction program, yes. IMO we need to do three things- raise taxes on the rich, cut entitlement spending and cut military spending. With the deficit the size it is today, there really isn't any way we can close it if we leave any of those three off the table.

Total Government Employment Since 1962

In raw numbers, not a % of GDP, the number of federal employees has been going down since Reagan left office

19794939
19804965
19814982
19824972
19835039
19845088
19855256
19865228
19875301
19885289
19895292
19905234
19915152
19924931
19934758
19944620
19954475
19964354
19974226
19984196
19994135
2000 4129
20014132
20024152
20034210
20044187
20054138
20064133
20074127
20084206
20094430
20104443
 
The only historical data I'm finding on historical effective tax rates only goes back to 1979, but it shows the top 1% paying 37% in 1979 and 27% today. It also shows corporations paying 14% in 1979 and 9% now. The middle's effective tax rates dropped substantially during that period too, from 19% to 14%. And that's just half the time range I'm talking about. If you have data going back to the 60s, please post it, but it seems like the effective tax rate story is consistent with what you would expect to result from a slashing of the top tax rates.
I actually started looking a while back. I did not find reliable data prior to 1979 either.

The story you paint here shows that all rates were reduced and not just for the rich. So the percentage of the taxes paid by the rich continues to be very large compared to the middle class.

This story is far more honest than using marginal rats out of contect. It is the effective rates and the percentage of the total taxes collected that, in my opinion, gives an honest assessment.
 
The story you paint here shows that all rates were reduced and not just for the rich. So the percentage of the taxes paid by the rich continues to be very large compared to the middle class.

It's been a mix. The huge cuts JFK did benefited every bracket, but were more concentrated on reducing the tax burden on the middle class. The cuts Reagan, Bush2 and Clinton made all benefited every bracket to some extent, but were all more focused on the rich. They cut the hell out of capital gains in particular. But, overall, taxes are definitely lower for all brackets today than they were before the great society. Unfortunately, they're actually too low. We can't afford to keep them this low. For a while the GOP was refusing to acknowledge that, but I'm glad to see that they're starting to accept it in the GOP as well in recent weeks. That's a good sign that we might actually have a shot at real deficit reduction.
 
You don't have to travel across the pond for this. You can actually look closer to home. From 1932 until 1980 the top marginal rate ranged from 63% to 94%. Of course, like today, people didn't pay the full rate, but the wealthy did pay a much higher effective rate than they do now. And the country has never been stronger than it was during that period.

You are making claims which are unsupported by facts. From 1932 until WWII the country was in the Great Depression. The 70's had serious inflation and the sort of dissatisfaction we see in the country now. Reagan turned it around in the early 80's and that was only interrupted by a downturn in the final year of the Clinton Presidency and the same with the Bush Presidency.

It does seen clear though that an average man can no longer support a wife and family. What has been the cause of this change if not the growth of government and greater government intervention in society?
 
You should report me. :ssst:


Let me ask, if i linked to world net daily or newsmax would it be more/less or the same as far as bias?

Is that why you didn't link, because you knew we would laugh our heads off if it was WND? Never mind - we don't want to know.:roll:
 
Is that why you didn't link, because you knew we would laugh our heads off if it was WND? Never mind - we don't want to know.:roll:


Oh, how rich. You post a snarky misleading and over sized screen shot taken from a liberal leaning, pop culture, collection blog and think that it should be taken seriously but the retort to that if that it were came from say a WND, or NewsMax is to be laughed at is just the type of dishonest debate of late from posers that do NOT further any sort of dialogue.

Got it?

j-mac
 
Oh, how rich. You post a snarky misleading and over sized screen shot taken from a liberal leaning, pop culture, collection blog and think that it should be taken seriously but the retort to that if that it were came from say a WND, or NewsMax is to be laughed at is just the type of dishonest debate of late from posers that do NOT further any sort of dialogue.

Got it?

j-mac

Even Republicans know WND is a joke, but if you believe them, that explains a lot.

Wiki:
WND has published articles that have created controversies and criticism of the site by other media outlets.
[edit]9/11 attacks

On September 13, 2001, WND published a commentary by Anthony C. LoBaido regarding the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., two days earlier. In his column, LoBaido outlined what he regarded as the moral depravity of America in general and New York in particular, asking whether, "God (has) raised up Shiite Islam as a sword against America."[SUP][21][/SUP] Commentators Virginia Postrel of Reason magazine and James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal criticized LoBaido and Joseph Farah for the piece and called for columnists Hugh Hewitt and Bill O'Reilly to sever their ties with WND, prompting Farah to respond with a column of his own explaining that the article did not reflect the viewpoint of WND, and that it, like most other commentary pieces, had not been reviewed before being published.[SUP][22][/SUP]

[edit]Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

WorldNetDaily has emerged as a leading outlet publicizing conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's citizenship status, claiming that Obama is not a natural-born American citizen and is thus not eligible to serve as president.[SUP][23][/SUP][SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][25][/SUP] Such claims are considered unsubstantiated or debunked by most news sources. After the 2008 presidential campaign, WND began an online petition to have Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate released to the public. The website also unsuccessfully urged Supreme Court justices to hear several lawsuits aiming to release Obama's birth certificate.[SUP][26][/SUP][SUP][non-primary source needed][/SUP]
[edit]Libel lawsuit

On September 20, 2000, WND published an article[SUP][27][/SUP] claiming that a Savannah, Tennessee car dealer, and fund-raiser for then-Vice President Al Gore, had interfered with a criminal investigation, had been a "subject" of a criminal investigation, was listed on law enforcement computers as a "dope dealer," and implied that he had ties to others involved in alleged criminal activity. In 2001 the car dealer, Clark Jones, filed a lawsuit[SUP][28][/SUP] against WND; the reporters, Charles C. Thompson II and Tony Hays; the Center for Public Integrity, which had underwritten Thompson and Hays' reporting on the article and related ones[SUP][29][/SUP] and various Tennessee publications and broadcasters who he accused of repeating the claim, claiming libel and defamation. The lawsuit had been scheduled to go to trial in March 2008;[SUP][30][/SUP] but, on February 13, 2008, WND announced that a confidential out-of-court settlement had been reached with Jones.[SUP][31][/SUP]A settlement statement jointly drafted by all parties in the lawsuit stated that a Freedom of Information Act request showed that the allegations had been false, and that WND had misquoted sources.[SUP][31][/SUP]

[edit]Feud with LGBT conservatives


WND has also come out against LGBT participants in the Republican party and their associates. In 2010, when writer and pundit Ann Coulter accepted the invitation to attend and speak at GOProud's Homocon 2010 event, Farah announced the withdrawal of Coulter's name from the list of speakers at the company's Taking America Back conference.[SUP][32][/SUP][SUP][non-primary source needed][/SUP] Coulter responded by saying that speaking engagements do not imply endorsement of the hosting organization; however, after Farah published private emails between himself and Coulter, Coulter called him a “publicity whore” and a “swine” in an email to the Daily Caller blog.
 
So do these idiots blocking people from using the subway think it will help or hurt thier image?


Cause you know the"1%" all gots metro cardz......
 
Back
Top Bottom