GOP Budget Proposal: Massive Tax Cut For Wealthy

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by mybigunit

 

The paradox is, cutting taxes actually leads to increased tax revenues. That is a proven fact.

Up to a point, when you get diminishing returns. But I don't think we've ever reached that point.

Cutting spending should always be a goal and a priority, in good times or bad.

Is that a fact that when you cut taxes revenue goes up? I dont think it is. In 1980 our tax revenue was $1.1 trillion dollars. In 1988 it was $1.5 trillion dollars. So Regan increased our revenue by only $250 billion but he added almost $2 trillion on to our debt? Wheres the value there? Thats like saying I want to buy a house and pay a $2000 mortgage to get $200 in right offs in taxes. It makes no sense....

1990 revenue $1.5 trillion and by 2000 it was $2.4 trillion dollars and this was AFTER Clinton raised taxes. Clinton TOO added $1.7 trillion onto the national debt.

Listen man cutting taxes does not raise revenue its a farce and if you can show me how it does then please do but here is where I get my facts...

www.heritage.org...

The fact is cutting spending is a MUST and neither party wants to do this. Cutting taxes while not cutting spending does absolutely nothing but put us into more debt and here is my trusty debt chart you can work off of also....

www.lafn.org...

Enjoy...

reply to post by grover


But I thought that it was people that make more than 250,000 combine income, where did this 100.000 came from?

reply to post by mybigunit


You are so right is not funny, the tax cuts is to have people to spend more in a nation that is ruled by overspending and deficits and the "revenue" ends up in foreign hands.

Cutting taxes actually doesn't do a darn thing when our own government keeps increasing the debt to the nation and putting it on the backs of the tax payer and our unborn children.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by mybigunit

 

You are so right is not funny, the tax cuts is to have people to spend more in a nation that is ruled by overspending and deficits and the "revenue" ends up in foreign hands.

Cutting taxes actually doesn't do a darn thing when our own government keeps increasing the debt to the nation and putting it on the backs of the tax payer and our unborn children.

I try not to be right so much but sometimes I just must. Star it if you like it my darling hehe

reply to post by mybigunit

Originally posted by mybigunit
Listen man cutting taxes does not raise revenue its a farce and if you can show me how it does then please do but here is where I get my facts...

You are talking about two different things here: tax revenues and spending.

Tax cuts do increase tax revenues. Up to a point.

www.nytimes.com...

WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.
:
:
The jump in receipts is providing Mr. Bush and Republicans in Congress with a new opportunity to assert that tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are working and that Congress should make them permanent.

Pat Toomey, president of the Club for Growth, a conservative political fund-raising group, said: "The supply-siders were absolutely right. All the major sources of revenue have grown, especially in areas where we said they would."

And this is from the NYT, hardly a conservative shill.

Now, for the issue that has you confused: what the gov't does with these increased revenues is another matter entirely. They could apply the revenue toward reducing debts, or continue to spend like drunken sailors.

Let me put it this way: lower taxes spur investment, which creates jobs, which result in higher taxes being paid.

reply to post by marg6043


From the so-called Republican budget. Which was actually nothing but their platform in a pretty blue folder.

I just want to expand on this point I made in my last post:

Now, for the issue that has you confused: what the gov't does with these increased revenues is another matter entirely. They could apply the revenue toward reducing debts, or continue to spend like drunken sailors.

This is the basic flaw in the Obama plan. He thinks that increased spending is the way out of this mess. He does not realize that you cannot spend your way out of this mess!!!

The biggest increase of jobs will be in the gov't sector, which will be paid for by our taxes. More burden on an already overburdened system.

reply to post by jsobecky


Guy I just showed you a chart that shows the revenue and the spending together and its a chart from the Heritage foundation. If you need the link Ill show it to you. The fact is revenues went up in 2005-2007 because of a huge increase in the money supply. Even with that huge increase in money supply it just barely got us back above our revenue highs of 2000. Lower taxes does not bring in higher revenue it just does not happen. I agree with you high taxes are bad its a form of slavery. Listen on that same note all the increase in tax revenue wasnt because Clinton increased tax revenues either. A lot of it too was because of an increase in the money supply which filtered into revenues.

Theres no way around it to get down our deficit we need to lower spending and lower dramatically. That requires shrinking the world empire. Ending the nanny state here at home ie the war on drugs. Shrinking the welfare state for both the rich and the poor and oh yes getting rid of the big government agencies like the dept of energy,ag,education etc but no one in either party wants to do this and the people arent forcing them to because technically they arent paying for this big government our kids are,

[edit on 29-3-2009 by mybigunit]

reply to post by mybigunit

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by jsobecky

 

Guy I just showed you a chart that shows the revenue and the spending together and its a chart from the Heritage foundation. If you need the link Ill show it to you.

I saw the link, and it is interesting. But it doesn't change anything.

It certainly doesn't disprove the fact that lowering taxes increases revenues.

The fact is revenues went up in 2005-2007 because of a huge increase in the money supply.

No, it went up because of a huge increase in revenues from corporation tax receipts. And that happened because of the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. I already provided a link that proved that.

Lower taxes does not bring in higher revenue it just does not happen.

I could provide you with dozens of links that prove my assertion.

Theres no way around it to get down our deficit we need to lower spending and lower dramatically. That requires shrinking the world empire. Ending the nanny state here at home ie the war on drugs. Shrinking the welfare state for both the rich and the poor and oh yes getting rid of the big government agencies like the dept of energy,ag,education etc but no one in either party wants to do this and the people arent forcing them to because technically they arent paying for this big government our kids are,

I think we are in agreement that spending is out of control, and it must be drastically cut back. But I think you are wrongly tying the two issues together. Look at them separately.

You can have increased revenues and decreased spending. It takes willpower, something sorely lacking under the Obama admin.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I saw the link, and it is interesting. But it doesn't change anything.

It certainly doesn't disprove the fact that lowering taxes increases revenues.

Lowering taxes under a stable economy will raise some revenue. Lowering taxes under a recession, especially on of this size will only increase the debt. Employers will not spend their tax cuts on new employees if their businesses are suffering and they have less work. Average working class folk like myself wont spend our tax cuts on consumer goods because we have too much debt. Bush already spent $1 trillion on tax cuts alone since 2001 over a 6year period and that never amounted to anything besides a brief boom in 2004/5 before it came back to hit us. Other than that the tax cuts have done squat.

We deserve tax cuts, but it should under the correct economic conditions and not during costly wars.

No, it went up because of a huge increase in revenues from corporation tax receipts. And that happened because of the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. I already provided a link that proved that.

Ill be having a look at the link but the increase in revenues during that time period was actually mostly the result of the housing boom when it spiked up to its peak, before it collapsed.

I think we are in agreement that spending is out of control, and it must be drastically cut back. But I think you are wrongly tying the two issues together. Look at them separately.

You can have increased revenues and decreased spending. It takes willpower, something sorely lacking under the Obama admin.

There are only ways the Obama administration and go at the moment. Either spend on the nation, invest in infrastructure to recieve $1.60 for every $1 over time, purchase toxic assets and spend to replace the lacking of will power of the consumer which will gradually merge into a returned consumer spending market (following recession)... either that or Obama can do nothing... and I get the feeling either way he will be flamed by disgruntled fringers here. Its a catch 22.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by jsobecky


So if decreasing taxes increased the revenue then what did increasing the taxes do? According to the chart the revenue increased much more as far as a % than when we decreased. Ill be honest with you Ive come to the conclusion that it all has to do with the money supply more so than increasing or decreasing taxes. Example...




You see the money supply increase and at nearly the same pace as the money supply increases so does the tax revenue. Think about it its common sense there is $100 in money out there and the tax rate is 20% the revenue would be $20 correct? But lets say you lower taxes to 10% but you increase the money supply to $300 you get $30 in tax revenues making it seem like there is more in tax revenues but in reality because of inflation it actually is not. You can see this plainly in the 1980 to 1990 and 2000 to 2008. So I still disagree with you I guess its another where we agree to disagree but Im 90% sure Im right it has more to do with money supply than tax %

reply to post by mybigunit


It doesn't work that way.

Pull government spending out of the equation just for a moment, and of course, government borrowing (to finance deficits.)

Joe has his withholding reduced by half. Say he's a low income kind of guy. He suddenly has another fifty dollars per week in disposable income. He spends it, and each business and person he spends his dollars with, have additional income, and this happens several times for each dollar that originated with Joe.

That dollar doesn't get taxed just once. It gets taxed at diminishing rates several times.

Thus, the greater the spending in the economy, even at drastically reduced tax rates, the greater the tax revenue.

Now, the opposite happens when tax rates climb. Those dollars that get spent by individuals as discretionary income, and are spent by seven or eight people, when the government pulls those dollars out in taxes, they have just reduced the economic level of activity seven or eight fold.

Same for borrowing to cover deficit spending. Those dollars that could be financing homes, businesses, equipment, cars, televisions, new carpet etc., they are not only not available, but seven or eight fold, underneath what would have happened if those dollars were left to the open market.

reply to post by dooper


But what you are saying has more to do with our fractional reserve banking system hence our money supply which is what I pointed out above. When you deposit $100 into a bank they can lend $80 and when the person who deposits the $80 into their bank they can lend to someone else $64 etc etc. That has more to do with money supply which is my theory on why revenues keep raising. An increase in the money supply is another word for inflation. As I pointed out above if there is $100 of existing money out there being taxes at 20% that is $20 in revenue where as if you raise the supply to $300 at 10% you get $30 in revenue which seems like more in revenue but it is not because of inflation.....

reply to post by mybigunit


Again, every dollar is churning, being spent several times.

It doesn't get taxed once. Since it gets spent several times by different individuals and businesses, it also gets taxed several times.

Forget M1 for a moment.

Forget federal government taxing and borrowing from the market.

M1 and the Fed are just mechanisms that can be manipulated to alter the money supply, and artificially manipulate interest rates.

The money supply is relative and the interest rates are relative, assuming government is not doing deficit spending.

Regardless of the money supply and the interest rates, each dollar not confiscated by the Government by taxing or borrowing (and thus removing from the market) is being both spent and taxed multiple times.

We get our law from English Common Law, which in turn is based on Judeo/Christian law. I note that the Almighty only slapped His own people with a ten percent rate.

Just thinking out loud that if ten percent is good enough for the Almighty, ten percent should be sufficient for the US government.

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by crmanager

 

Tell that to the poor.

They will laugh in your face.

WHO CARES!

I will NOT TAKE MONEY FROM ANOTHER to enrich myself. If you think that is a great idea GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY! STAY AWAY FROM MINE.

Hey Republicans, we want numbers! Not a picture of a pretty windmill, but numbers! What? You don't have any? Then... what's the point?

reply to post by crmanager


You are a fool if you think any of the programs that help the poor enriches them... they help them survive.

"GOP Budget Proposal: Massive Tax Cut For Wealthy"

I officially give up

reply to post by living not existing


It just shows more than anything else that they are so wedded to the same old ideas that they just can't seem to come up with new ones.... if they continue being just the party of no then they will continue losing seats no matter how well or poorly Obama and the Democrats do.

Deleted Wrong thread

[edit on 1-4-2009 by jefwane]