China's president says infrastructure development key to recovery

cpwill said:

Unfortunately that is not correct.

Click to expand...

Thanks, for showing that chart because it shows that the more taxes the rich paid, the more revenue there was and backs up what I said, revenues come from taxes.

Marginal rates actually have a small effect on revenue. What does have large direct impact is GDP growth and the relative size of government. Because government does not tax itself the same way that it taxes corporations and workers, the larger the share of GDP government takes, the less is available for tax-farming.

If you want to increase revenues, therefore, you need strong pro-Growth policies that at the same time reduce the Federal Government relative to GDP.

Click to expand...

Interesting, the chart shows spending increased during Republican presidencies and went down during Democrat presidencies. Also worth noting is that revenue decreased under Republican presidencies largely due to tax cuts for the wealthy. Alan Greenspan warned congress clear back in 2004 that the Bush tax cuts would only work if they cut spending....instead congress increased it and created a $12 trillion debt. That would highly suggest that the wealthy's taxes need to be raised back up and spending decreased back to the level it was in the 1990s to help create an equilibrium in the revenue to spending ratio.

frogloe said:

Obama proposed $140 billion in spending on infrastructure about a year ago. It was Paul Ryan and his budget plans that attempted to halt this action. But continue to drone on about how Obama wants to redistribute wealth and such. In fact, why don't you just copy paste that quote to every thread? Save yourself the time of typing, you're going to sound like a broken record no matter how you decide to spice it up.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the jobs bill?

Fletch said:

Infrastructure helps a place like China because China is still a developing country. Many places are not connected by quality roads, bridges, electricity, dams, sewers, etc. Infrastructure spending in China actually improves and facilitates commerce and economic activity. The US is a developed country where infrastructure spending only repairs what is already there and does nothing to facilitate economic activity. So what works for them wont do much for us.

Click to expand...

our electrical grid is outdated, i believe i read somewhere that a full 30-50% of our bridges are in need of major repairs, we have underspent on our roads for years now, just trying to patch them, when many need to be repaved.......infrastructure is something we should be pouring money into...

Moot said:

With the money we save on defense spending and raising the capital gains tax on the wealthy and closing the loopholes so corporations have to pay taxes, too.

Click to expand...

I must have missed when that actually happened. Not to sound smarmy towards you, but the idea that our gov't can save money somewhere has become at minimum a fallacy and at most a legitimate subject for a sitcom. I agree with you on the defense spending, notsamuch on the capital gains tax and loopholes. I would rather see a simplified tax system similar to the one in Ryan's budget. I do agree with you on the defense spending though. I would even take a hit on my retirement benefits if I knew that it would go to a good cause. But then, that would redirect us to the second sentence of this post.

Moot said:

Thanks, for showing that chart because it shows that the more taxes the rich paid, the more revenue there was and backs up what I said, revenues come from taxes.

Click to expand...

:lamo


Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is that you???



The chart demonstrates that wild swings in the top marginal rates have not produced swings in revenue. But "deny all reality" is a new tactic for you

Interesting, the chart shows spending increased during Republican presidencies and went down during Democrat presidencies.

Click to expand...

Yup. Gosh if only there was a conservative movement dedicated to primarying out the Republicans who spent like that.... surely you would support such an endevour, am I right?

Also worth noting is that revenue decreased under Republican presidencies largely due to tax cuts for the wealthy.

Click to expand...

That is incorrect on two levels: 1. Republican Presidency revenue decreases were driven the same thing revenue is consistently driven by: GDP and relative size of government. When you see dips on that top chart, generally you are seeing the effect of a recession, not a tax cut. In fact you will notice that the average revenue rate is higher in the period with the lower top marginal rates.

2. even if you score statically, it is the middle class tax cuts that cost us the real money - $3T v $800bn

gotta run

Alan Greenspan warned congress clear back in 2004 that the Bush tax cuts would only work if they cut spending....instead congress increased it and created a $12 trillion debt. That would highly suggest that the wealthy's taxes need to be raised back up and spending decreased back to the level it was in the 1990s to help create an equilibrium in the revenue to spending ratio.

Click to expand...

cpwill said:

lamo


Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is that you???

The chart demonstrates that wild swings in the top marginal rates have not produced swings in revenue. But "deny all reality" is a new tactic for you

Click to expand...

Oh my, how embarrassing, I thought it said "taxpayer" instead of "tax revenue". :3oops: Well, thats different........or is it?

The chart you posted is "Hauser's Law" and supposedly "there is no escaping Hausers Law". But actually, if you take a closer look at Hauser's narrow band of tax revenue you'll find that it flucuates quite a bit during periods of tax cuts and tax hikes.......



Well looky there, tax revenues went down 5% because of Bush tax cuts. Phew, thats a lot when you consider the highest that revenues have ever been was about 21% of GDP. Thats like cutting off 1/4 of the nations revenue and a lot more than Hauser's chart would have you believe. Now heres the revenues going up 4% because of Clinton's tax hikes....





That's a huge difference if the baseline is 18% and we're talking about billions in revenue. Note how the revenues go up during Carter, go down during Reagan and BushSr, goes back up during Clinton and goes back down, down, down during Bush. Man, no wonder there's a huge debt.

Moot said:

Oh my, how embarrassing, I thought it said "taxpayer" instead of "tax revenue". :3oops:

Click to expand...

we all make mistakes.

The chart you posted is "Hauser's Law" and supposedly "there is no escaping Hausers Law". But actually, if you take a closer look at Hauser's narrow band of tax revenue you'll find that it flucuates quite a bit during periods of tax cuts and tax hikes.......

Well looky there, tax revenues went down 5% because of Bush tax cuts. Phew, thats a lot when you consider the highest that revenues have ever been was about 21% of GDP. Thats like cutting off 1/4 of the nations revenue and a lot more than Hauser's chart would have you believe. Now heres the revenues going up 4% because of Clinton's tax hikes....

Click to expand...

:lol: clinton's revenue spikes up highest after his tax cuts; specifically his cuts to capital gains, which helped fuel the dot-com bubble. the chart you have posted above mirrors' economic performance; you will notice that revenues fall from 2000-2003 with the dot-com bubble burst, and then begin to rise once the tax cuts of 2003 take effect in 2004... Then revenues dive relatively sharply in 2009-2012, thereby following economic performance, but with no significant change to tax rates.

Your own chart demonstrates that you are incorrect.