• 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!

SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

Conservative said:
You know, I never hear any liberal talking about spending less or the fact that SS and Medicare were robbed to pay for the Vietnam War and continued well into the 80's.
Click to expand...

As best I can tell (Table 1.4 here: Historical Tables | The White House), the trust funds ran a surplus (reduced operating deficits) by about $45 billion from 1967 to 1973. The trust funds ran a $472 billion surplus (10 times greater) during the Reagan years (82-89). I talk about the latter all the time.

I never hear any liberal talk about the 3.9 trillion dollar budget Obama has proposed or the fact that there will never be enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite. It is amazing to me that since Obama took office the debt increased over 7 trillion dollars with very little of that due to the wars. Just goes to show how little liberals truly know.
Click to expand...

The last POTUS to 'balance' the budget was Clinton..... in part because he raised tax rates to what have been historical spending levels as a % of GDP. Republicans have spent about what Clinton did, but were too gutless to raise taxes high enough to fund that spending.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
You can, but you're not proving a thing.

The top rate only affects a small part of total revenues. Let's do some math. The top 1% pay about 33% of individual INCOME taxes now, and about 20% in 1980. A lot of that tax is capital gains, which was only taxed at the top rate for a couple of years under Reagan, so isn't affected by the top marginal rate. And the 1% starts at around $350k, but the top bracket now only applies to income over about $450k. So there are a lot of 1%ers who don't pay the top rate. But let's say that 25% of personal income is subject to the highest rate. It's lower than that, but we'll go with that number. In 1980 it couldn't have been higher than 15%.

Individual income taxes are about 45% of collections. So of that, about 11% (.25 X 45) is subject to the top rate. Again, that's too high, because even 1%ers have a lot of income taxed at lower rates - 0 to about $450k - and we're assuming ALL their income is subject to the top rate.

So on the left hand side you have total revenues (the dependent variable) and on the right side (independent variable) you have ONE rate that at the very most affects 11% of total revenues. So 89% of revenues is completely unaffected your ONE independent variable, changes in that top rate. Now why would anyone do a serious analysis and use an independent variable that AT BEST, would explain only 11% of changes in the dependent variable (if tax rates explained 100% of the changes in revenues - which is ludicrous)? No economist would, such an analysis would be laughed out of any room.

The TL/DR version of that above is at best the analysis shows a correlation. And of course correlation =/= causation. My favorite correlation is GOP/Democratic Presidents and economic growth.

Presidents and growth: Timing is everything | The Economist



Based on this, why would anyone ever vote for a Republican POTUS? It's clear I've just proved that the economy, stock market, GDP growth and jobs all do better when Democrats are in charge! QED.

And the truth is my conclusion is more defensible (read the article for details) than the hackery Forbes published.
Click to expand...

All discussions of tax rates always focus on the top rate. As for who has managed the economy better, I agree with you. RWR is the Repub exception. What's your point?
 
Jack Hays said:
All discussions of tax rates always focus on the top rate.
Click to expand...

I agree that's the common way republicans discuss the magic of the Laffer Curve and the existence of a Tax Santa Clause, but because they do it often doesn't make the analysis valid or conclusions true.

Let's put it this way, do you think the downside of the cost of socialized medicine is that we'll have to cut taxes further to pay for it?
 
JasperL said:
I agree that's the common way republicans discuss the magic of the Laffer Curve and the existence of a Tax Santa Clause, but because they do it often doesn't make the analysis valid or conclusions true.

Let's put it this way, do you think the downside of the cost of socialized medicine is that we'll have to cut taxes further to pay for it?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure socialized medicine (whatever that means) would cost more.
 
JasperL said:
Yeah, OK, you don't like liberals. Understood.

The point is there is no Tax Santa Clause, and a party that relies on one as a foundation of its fiscal policy shouldn't be taken seriously, so I don't.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the basic concept that the tax revenue in the Federal Treasury comes from the people and not vice versa? The govt. taking money from the taxpayers is Robin Hood not Santa Claus and we don't need the massive central govt. that liberals are creating.

You easily buy what you are told that the Federal Govt. NEEDS the money more than the American people and allowing people to keep more of what they earns means less need for liberalism. That is the bottomline and your real problem
 
JasperL said:
As best I can tell (Table 1.4 here: Historical Tables | The White House), the trust funds ran a surplus (reduced operating deficits) by about $45 billion from 1967 to 1973. The trust funds ran a $472 billion surplus (10 times greater) during the Reagan years (82-89). I talk about the latter all the time.



The last POTUS to 'balance' the budget was Clinton..... in part because he raised tax rates to what have been historical spending levels as a % of GDP. Republicans have spent about what Clinton did, but were too gutless to raise taxes high enough to fund that spending.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to get it, that so called surplus was stealing from future recipients of the money they were entitled to from their contributions to SS and Medicare. There was no surplus because those were future obligations.

Please explain to me how Clinton increased the debt 1.4 trillion and had a balanced budget? You really are nothing more than a liberal parrot who doesn't understand their are two sides to the budget, public and intergovt. holdings. Taking money from intergovernment holdings and putting it on the public budget doesn't create a complete budget surplus which is why Clinton increased the debt

Keep spouting the party line and showing that you really have no clue as to what actually happened.
 
Jack Hays said:
There is no point to avoid. What IS your point?
Click to expand...

Obviously the question was do spending increases get paid for with more tax cuts?

Or, is there a Tax Santa Clause?
 
Conservative said:
Do you understand the basic concept that the tax revenue in the Federal Treasury comes from the people and not vice versa? The govt. taking money from the taxpayers is Robin Hood not Santa Claus and we don't need the massive central govt. that liberals are creating.

You easily buy what you are told that the Federal Govt. NEEDS the money more than the American people and allowing people to keep more of what they earns means less need for liberalism. That is the bottomline and your real problem
Click to expand...

What you buy is there is a free lunch on taxes, tax cuts pay for themselves, and if us liberals want to spend more money, we can pay for that additional spending with tax CUTS on the wealthy. I don't buy that because it is a fairy tale and I quit believing in fairy tales sometime around age 4.
 
JasperL said:
What you buy is there is a free lunch on taxes, tax cuts pay for themselves, and if us liberals want to spend more money, we can pay for that additional spending with tax CUTS on the wealthy. I don't buy that because it is a fairy tale and I quit believing in fairy tales sometime around age 4.
Click to expand...

What you buy is the government needs the money more than the American people. You cannot pay for the liberal spending appetite by taxing the rich and you ought to know that. Pluse the fact that you don't seem to have any concept as to what the rich do with their money and why it is the govt. that needs it more?

I believe in the facts, Reagan cut taxes three years in a row and generated 17 million jobs. Tax cuts put more money into the hands of the consumer and that stimulates and grows the economy. It is wrong to punish people for what they earn regardless of class. You buy the need for a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt?
 
Conservative said:
What you buy is the government needs the money more than the American people. You cannot pay for the liberal spending appetite by taxing the rich and you ought to know that. Pluse the fact that you don't seem to have any concept as to what the rich do with their money and why it is the govt. that needs it more?
Click to expand...

I recognize that taxes are required to fund government. We disagree on the appropriate level of spending, and that conflict and tension between liberals and conservatives is a good thing.

I believe in the facts, Reagan cut taxes three years in a row and generated 17 million jobs. Tax cuts put more money into the hands of the consumer and that stimulates and grows the economy. It is wrong to punish people for what they earn regardless of class. You buy the need for a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt?
Click to expand...

You should probably avoid directly following, "I believe in facts" with something that isn't true.

ERTA '81 was a very large tax cut. For the 4 years following, it averaged $143 billion per year tax cut.
TEFRA 82 was a large tax INCREASE of $38 billion per year for the first 4 years.
The tax changes in 83, 84, 85 and 87 were also net tax INCREASES. TRA 86 was essentially revenue neutral.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf
 
JasperL said:
Obviously the question was do spending increases get paid for with more tax cuts?

Or, is there a Tax Santa Clause?
Click to expand...

The answer depends on the level of taxation we're talking about. My view is summed up by another poster in #328.
 
JasperL said:
I recognize that taxes are required to fund government. We disagree on the appropriate level of spending, and that conflict and tension between liberals and conservatives is a good thing.



You should probably avoid directly following, "I believe in facts" with something that isn't true.

ERTA '81 was a very large tax cut. For the 4 years following, it averaged $143 billion per year tax cut.
TEFRA 82 was a large tax INCREASE of $38 billion per year for the first 4 years.
The tax changes in 83, 84, 85 and 87 were also net tax INCREASES. TRA 86 was essentially revenue neutral.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf
Click to expand...


As someone who claims to understand taxes you show no such tendency here. Do you know what a use tax is and how it compares to FIT? FICA funds SS and Medicare and is a use tax. It comes back to the taxpayers, Income taxes fund the Federal Govt. or at least should and yes we have a problem with you understanding the role of the Federal Govt. Our Founders created a limited central govt. and part time legislature. Compare that to what we have today?

Do you understand that all people don't pay into SS and Medicare? Do you understand that use taxes are only paid for by the people who use the services? Sounds like we need massive education reform to help people like you understand the differences between the taxes and what they fund
 
Conservative said:
As someone who claims to understand taxes you show no such tendency here. Do you know what a use tax is and how it compares to FIT? FICA funds SS and Medicare and is a use tax. It comes back to the taxpayers, Income taxes fund the Federal Govt. or at least should and yes we have a problem with you understanding the role of the Federal Govt. Our Founders created a limited central govt. and part time legislature. Compare that to what we have today?

Do you understand that all people don't pay into SS and Medicare? Do you understand that use taxes are only paid for by the people who use the services? Sounds like we need massive education reform to help people like you understand the differences between the taxes and what they fund
Click to expand...

I can promise you I understand how SS and Medicare is funded, etc. Tax people wouldn't call the payroll taxes that fund those things 'use' taxes - that term is normally used in the sales and use tax context - e.g. if you buy an item online and the seller doesn't collect sales tax on the purchase, you'll normally owe a USE tax on that item equal to the sales tax if bought from an instate seller.

I'm not sure what that has to do with Reagan passing a large tax cut in 81 then a series of tax increases every year from 82-87 (TRA 86 was a small tax increase), with the tax increase in 82 a very large one.
 
Jack Hays said:
The answer depends on the level of taxation we're talking about. My view is summed up by another poster in #328.
Click to expand...

Ok, and he said, paraphrased, "It depends."

So, let's take two recent changes.

1) Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003? Did one, both, neither pay for themselves?

2) The recent tax increase in the top rate to 39.6% from 35%. Will that increase or decrease tax revenues?
 
JasperL said:
Ok, and he said, paraphrased, "It depends."

So, let's take two recent changes.

1) Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003? Did one, both, neither pay for themselves?

2) The recent tax increase in the top rate to 39.6% from 35%. Will that increase or decrease tax revenues?
Click to expand...

Onset of war makes #1 impossible to answer. Fiscal environment was fundamentally altered.

Recent tax increase (#2) increases revenues.
 
JasperL;1063911085]I can promise you I understand how SS and Medicare is funded, etc. Tax people wouldn't call the payroll taxes that fund those things 'use' taxes - that term is normally used in the sales and use tax context - e.g. if you buy an item online and the seller doesn't collect sales tax on the purchase, you'll normally owe a USE tax on that item equal to the sales tax if bought from an instate seller.
Click to expand...

Again, you miss the point, SS and Medicare are items used by people. they are forced contributions put into a retirement supplement that are then paid out to those when they reach retirement age. They are indeed use taxes. Your perception is just that. Not all people pay into SS and Medicare thus weren't subject to the FICA increases therefore had no tax increase. LBJ put SS on budget to fund the Vietnam War and it stayed there. People like you are now conditioned to believe it is part of the federal budget. Every year money comes in and goes out, if there are fewer people retiring then there will be a current year surplus but that surplus actually belongs to someone else. You really need to learn how SS works and what your taxes fund. Just because more money comes in than goes out in SS doesn't mean the govt. has to spend it but they do, on everything other than SS

Federal Income taxes on the other hand are paid by everyone who earns income. Those were the taxes cut and those were the taxes that stimulated and helped grow the economy. You are simply wrong on this issue and cannot admit it.

I'm not sure what that has to do with Reagan passing a large tax cut in 81 then a series of tax increases every year from 82-87 (TRA 86 was a small tax increase), with the tax increase in 82 a very large one.[/QUOTE]
 
JasperL said:
Ok, and he said, paraphrased, "It depends."

So, let's take two recent changes.

1) Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003? Did one, both, neither pay for themselves?

2) The recent tax increase in the top rate to 39.6% from 35%. Will that increase or decrease tax revenues?
Click to expand...

Please tell me why you keeping more of what you earn has to be paid for? Where is that line item in the budget of the United States??
 
Conservative said:
Please tell me why you keeping more of what you earn has to be paid for? Where is that line item in the budget of the United States??
Click to expand...

If GOPers want to cut taxes, fine by me. Make the very difficult choices to cut spending to offset the loss in revenue from the tax cuts.

What I'm objecting to as a fairy tale is the notion that "keeping more of what you earn" (i.e. tax cuts) don't require offsetting spending cuts. Instead, GOPers tell us, and Jack quoted an article in Forbes telling us, that tax cuts pay for themselves and increase revenues, or that there is a Tax Santa Clause.
 
JasperL said:
If GOPers want to cut taxes, fine by me. Make the very difficult choices to cut spending to offset the loss in revenue from the tax cuts.

What I'm objecting to as a fairy tale is the notion that "keeping more of what you earn" (i.e. tax cuts) don't require offsetting spending cuts. Instead, GOPers tell us, and Jack quoted an article in Forbes telling us, that tax cuts pay for themselves and increase revenues, or that there is a Tax Santa Clause.
Click to expand...

That makes little sense to me. Why must only the republicants cut spending to the level of tax revenue when the demorats are allowed to not worry about deficit spending? The favorite demorat fairly tale is that borrowing to support current federal spending is "investment" in our future - thus equally sure to pay off "down the road". No matter which fairy tale is accepted the result is that federal spending can "forever" exceed federal revenue - with forever defined as so long as congress critters (of both parties) can get re-elected by "kicking the can down the road".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That makes little sense to me. Why must only the republicants cut spending to the level of tax revenue when the demorats are allowed to not worry about deficit spending? The favorite demorat fairly tale is that borrowing to support current federal spending is "investment" in our future - thus equally sure to pay off "down the road". No matter which fairy tale is accepted the result is that federal spending can "forever" exceed federal revenue - with forever defined as so long as congress critters (of both parties) can get re-elected by "kicking the can down the road".
Click to expand...

Where did I argue that democrats are allowed to not worry about deficit spending? Clinton raised taxes, reduced deficits every year he was POTUS, and came closer to a balanced budget than any POTUS in my lifetime. Bush came in and undid those tax increases, and tax revenues dropped to the lowest level of GDP for decades, with predictable effects on the deficit. We paid for the wars with.... tax cuts.

And if you want to quote democrats saying deficit spending will pay for itself in the future, be my guest. They could be out there, but that's not anything like an accepted "Democratic" position. Does Krugman make that argument? Name any liberal economist who argues deficit spending pays for itself - you can't. If you look at the budgets of the liberal caucus in the House, they include significant tax INCREASES to pay for the proposed spending in those same budgets. Their budgets don't pretend that we can increase spending and then wish into existence more tax revenue from multiplier effects and other magic potions.
 
Removable Mind said:
What would it be worth to you if you knew wiggle your nose and no other party would ever be in competition with your own? Or that there was only one political ideology....yours. Do you think that such a government created out of that single ideology would always serve the best interests of the people it governed? Would your rights and general welfare always be protected? Would your life flourish more?

If you could make a wish today that every person who was in opposition to your fundamental beliefs in all aspects of your life (government, religion, etc.) would instantly disappear...would you make that wish?
Click to expand...


I would definitely wish away the last 6 years of President Obama's incompetence and the effect that its had in tbis county.
 
JasperL said:
Where did I argue that democrats are allowed to not worry about deficit spending? Clinton raised taxes, reduced deficits every year he was POTUS, and came closer to a balanced budget than any POTUS in my lifetime. Bush came in and undid those tax increases, and tax revenues dropped to the lowest level of GDP for decades, with predictable effects on the deficit. We paid for the wars with.... tax cuts.

And if you want to quote democrats saying deficit spending will pay for itself in the future, be my guest. They could be out there, but that's not anything like an accepted "Democratic" position. Does Krugman make that argument? Name any liberal economist who argues deficit spending pays for itself - you can't. If you look at the budgets of the liberal caucus in the House, they include significant tax INCREASES to pay for the proposed spending in those same budgets. Their budgets don't pretend that we can increase spending and then wish into existence more tax revenue from multiplier effects and other magic potions.
Click to expand...


Clinton had a Republican House and he lowered Capital Gains taxes.
 
Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
What would it be worth to you if you knew wiggle your nose and no other party would ever be in competition with your own? Or that there was only one political ideology....yours. Do you think that such a government created out of that single ideology would always serve the best interests of the people it governed? Would your rights and general welfare always be protected? Would your life flourish more?

If you could make a wish today that every person who was in opposition to your fundamental beliefs in all aspects of your life (government, religion, etc.) would instantly disappear...would you make that wish?
Click to expand...

Fenton said:
I would definitely wish away the last 6 years of President Obama's incompetence and the effect that its had in tbis county.
Click to expand...

That's it...if you had such a power? What a waste. There are millions of Obamas. The US is still here despite Obama, or Bush, or Reagan or JFK. Or any other president who wouldn't conform to your beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom