Magox Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Don't know. Don't care. You're not worth the time and you know exactly why that is, as do most of the rest of the !@#$ing drones. That's because he's not old enough to know better. Anyone with experience knows there's little reason to bother. He'll eventually get there and you'll still be throwing out your pitiful (yet arrogant) takes and pretending your "Romper Room" level substance actually amounts to something. Old enough to know better about what? And where will I eventually get to go? If you could provide just a little texture Just sayin' that you can't squeeze enough blood from those turnips to fill the deficit gap. Ok, for ***** and giggles, lets say we squeezed from the more plump turnip, and rates went back the Clinton era tax rates for the wealthy, what sort of impact would that have on the deficit? Obviously you know I know the answer, but I just want to hear it in your words. Edited March 20, 2012 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 "Would a higher top tax rate raise revenues?" With the data provided, the answer is inconclusive. You would need to add in a few more variables for there to be any sort of rational conclusion. The fact that you found this conclusion to be reasonable just displays either one of a couple things which would either be sheer ignorance or partisan hackery on your part. If you have a nation of 150 Million taxpayers, and you have three test cases of different top tax rates of: Example #1 Top tax rate of 1% Example #2 Top tax rate of 90% Example #3 Top tax rate of 30% you would find that the question you posed would give you a very confusing answer. All other variabes remaining the same Example #1 would have a buoyant economy, but there really wouldn't be that much in taxes collected simply because the rate is too low. Which in turn would mean we would have a government that would be virtually nonexistent with no military, safety nets, gov. programs etc. Example #2 would produce more taxes than example #1, but the tax rate would have such a stifling effect on the economy, that you would have permanent slow growth, high unemployment and virtually no innovation coming from the private sector. Not to mention tha the taxes collected wouldn't be all that high as well, due to the factors I just listed. Example #3 would produce more tax revenues then both example #1 and #2. It would promote a more pro-growth economy than example #2, would lead to lower unemployment, higher growth and innovation, along with more government services. So the question is what is the happy medium? This is the dilemma of he Laffer curve, where does it actually begin to bend. What people have to understand is what may be the more pro-growth and higher tax generating revenue top rate isn't a fixed, static rate. People say "look at the Clinton years, look at all the job creation during the ensuing period of after the tax hike, we should just go back to that tax rate". Again, this is either a dishonest partisan argument or one born out of ignorance. I always mention variables, because, well variables are important to consider. Clinton had the luxary of a once in a lifetime tech bubble boom. Another variable that people don't like to mention is that Clinton lowered capital gains from 28% to 20%. Considering that the economy was mainly thriving due to the internet bubble explosion, and that the Nasdaq went through the roof, a hefty portion of those tax revenues were not only fueled by capital gains taxes but by an economy that was powered by a bubbled stock market. During Clintons years, the economy could absorb a higher top tax rate. But in today's climate, I would say returning back to that rate wouldn't produce the results that progressives would hope for. The economy isn't in a fantasy land sort of bubble, it's not in a normal condition status either, hell, it's not even mediocre, the economy is lousy by just about every metric. Real unemployment is well above 8.3%, we have so many hopeless people who have given up looking for work that they aren't even counted in the unemployment rate. Labor participation rate is the lowest its been in almost 2 generations. Having said that, my belief is that in a normal economy, which we are very far away from achieving specially with our presidents economic policies, that the Bush tax cuts fall on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. Sure, it promotes growth, but it also promotes higher deficits. The question is when do you go back to a higher rate? I would say now is out of the question. You know how you can tell that this was written by a partisan? It mentions that Romneys proposed plan cuts income rate on the wealthy from 35 to 28 percent. This leaves the impression that ROmney is soley looking to cut rates for the wealthy. There is no mention of his plan to cut rates for everyone else by 20%. There is no mention of his plan to slash capital gains taxes for anyone making under $200,000. Meaning that if you add in income and capital gains taxes together, that his plan is INDEED a progressive tax rate that is more favorable for the non wealthy. That's a fact! If you are going to be taken seriously here, then I would suggest that if you present facts, that you add proper context and texture. But this does lead me to a point, everyone keeps mentioning, that the Bush tax cuts added a trillion or Trillions to the national debt which is the reason why we should end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Well, to say that this comment is ignorant, doesn't do the word ignorant justice. Did you know that the Bush tax cuts was a tax break for everyone? DId you know that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy only make up 20% of the debt incurred? Meaning for every $5 added to the debt as a result of the Bush tax cuts, only $1 of that comes from the wealthy. My point is if you are serious about reducing the deficit now or sometime in the near future, then everyone has to pay their "fair share" . Awesome post man. I will get back to this with a real response. Glued to the Sabres game right now! Haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 If people stopped thinking there was a magical solution to the deficit, then we could get something done. There is no painless way to eliminate or minimize the deficit. Cuts have to be made in every area and taxes need to be raised. Otherwise, we can hope that people are right about 12/21/12..... Just don't pay up front for a cruise starting 10/22/12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Just sayin' that you can't squeeze enough blood from those turnips to fill the deficit gap. You also know, of course, that if you squeezed all the blood from the "rich" turnips, it STILL wouldn't be enough to fill the gap. Of course you know that. But they have the money, so squeeze away, right? Who cares is it's based on utter stupidity. GET THAT MONEY! IT'S ONLY FAIR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Just sayin' that you can't squeeze enough blood from those turnips to fill the deficit gap. Can't squeeze enough from the rich, for that matter. And you can't squeeze enough from anyone if you don't cut spending. Old enough to know better about what? And where will I eventually get to go? If you could provide just a little texture Arguing with TPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Old enough to know better about what? And where will I eventually get to go? If you could provide just a little texture Ok, for ***** and giggles, lets say we squeezed from the more plump turnip, and rates went back the Clinton era tax rates for the wealthy, what sort of impact would that have on the deficit? Obviously you know I know the answer, but I just want to hear it in your words. Aren't you already on record as saying we should let the tax cuts expire? I'm pretty sure you've said that a few times, yes? And since you already know, why play the game? Can't squeeze enough from the rich, for that matter. And you can't squeeze enough from anyone if you don't cut spending. Arguing with TPS. No doubt the long run deficit issue requires both. I'm the only hard-headed person here? It's ironic that I'm the one defending the Reagan republican link....Bartlett was THE original supply-sider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Aren't you already on record as saying we should let the tax cuts expire? I'm pretty sure you've said that a few times, yes? And since you already know, why play the game? I said for everyone, did I not? You on the otherhand.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Screw letting tax cuts expire or making them permanent. Fix the damn tax code, and you don't have to worry about crap like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Fix the damn tax code, and you don't have to worry about crap like this. /thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Just sayin' that you can't squeeze enough blood from those turnips to fill the deficit gap. It won't fill the entire gap, but it will rebalance the revenue stream. Tax policy should not be following economic cycles in generating revenues, which is what you're getting now by placing all the eggs in the wealthy basket. The rich incomes are mostly discretionary and they will continue deferring if they think they're being fleeced. A flatter tax code will eliminate the swings. Speaking of statistics, I wonder why people who scream about income inequality stop their data in 2007? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Fix the damn tax code, and you don't have to worry about crap like this. You're assuming the tax code is broken. For the governing class it's working just fine. Squeeze the rich to rile up the great unwashed masses Benevolent tax cut to placate the productive middle class Breaks for cronies Targeted breaks for voter blocs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Rob's House gave the lecture but Jim cut to the chase. The proper term is "Cliff Notes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 /thread That's not the thread yet. The tax code is only part of it. You think simplifying the tax code will reign in the spending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 The tax code is only part of it. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/ Pssst. Republicans hate women. Pass it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Pssst. Republicans hate women. Pass it on. And the coloreds. And grandmas. And children. And anyone else that isn't an old white 1%er. And they're all closet queers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/ Not true. The debt's only up 40% under Obama, but was up 80% under Bush. So it increased more under Bush. [/standard partisan bull **** spin] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 That's not the thread yet. The tax code is only part of it. You think simplifying the tax code will reign in the spending? 4th post in THIS thread: The problem in Washington has nothing to do with the amount of revenue they take in. It has to do with how much they spend. When they can explain how they're going to live within about 18% of this nation's GDP, we can start talking about raising taxes. Anyone who thinks the government deserves/requires more money is absolutely nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 And the coloreds. And grandmas. And children. And anyone else that isn't an old white 1%er. And they're all closet queers. You forgot puppies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 You forgot puppies No, no, no. Puppies are good. Nice and tender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts