How should they Pretend?

[The Man]

It has been shown time and time again by some of the best minds in the business that lowering taxes does NOT raise revenue. Don't listen to the right wing or left wing economists, just listen to the non partisans who can show where it isn't nor has it ever been the case.

You can put up any chart you want, correlation does not imply causation.

If you only calculate the lost revenue to the US government since 2001 for the top 5% it comes up to $1.2 trillion
Are you saying that hasn't added to our current debt?
and that's only for the top 5% of wage earners.

Look at the god damn charts Tim...there are no lost revenues...Revenues have went up.
Are you trolling or are you ignorant?

 

[Tim]

Look at the god damn charts Tim...there are no lost revenues...Revenues have went up.
Are you trolling or are you ignorant?

http://costoftaxcuts.com/

 

[The Man]

And if you want to compare tax rates to revenue, look at the entire picture.




Please show me where revenue jumped up every time the tax rate was lowered.

You post something you have no clue what the fuck it even is...I posted the god damn spending and the god damn revenues for the last several years.
I have also posted all over the forum showing govt revenues for decades as well as spending for decades

 

[The Man]

http://costoftaxcuts.com/

Are you fucking ignorant?
Pulling some John shit,,,your counter just as well be a cartoon
I posted the goddamn revenues for year by year.
You want to post some stupid ass counter....when I clearly have shown that revenues have went up.

 

[The Man]

Show me where revenues are less now than during Clinton....I have clearly shown otherwise.{year by year}
Are you ignorant or a troll tim....If you are ignorant I will try to work with you through it,,,but if you are trolling,,,I am tired of wasting my time.

 

[The Man]

One more time tim
Tail end of clinton spending was 1.8 trillion



Current federal revenues are 2.5 trillion





.7 trillion higher

And again if we reduce spending to prebush and keep the current revenues ....we are way ahead.
Are you really having trouble understanding this.....I can not make it any clearer for you.

 

[The Man]

Our current debt wasn't created by excessive spending, it was created because revenue was lowered while spending was increased. So you need to adjust both revenue and spending to fix the problem.

.

Jesus Christ.
We have excessive spending......revenue was not lowered..this has been shown time and time again
You keep mentioning tax cuts for the rich...he lowered them for many brackets...more so for the lower bracket than upper brackets...people got back thousands they didnt pay in..an effective 15 percent slash for the lower brackets
And again revenues went up AS PEOPLE SPENT MONEY....buying stuff creating jobs..services were up..the GDP was
When the GDP is up the Govt can make the same or more money with a smaller tax rate
people were making huge mortgage payments...the economy was just that good...but the housing market crashed..if not for that we would still be cruising.

 

[The Man]

Sorry, don't know what that means...

but if that was an invitation to join in on your circle jerk, no thanks.

You have trouble understanding alot of things tim.

 

[Stone]

The debt problems we are facing is in large part because of the Bush tax cuts. It's not only the amount of spending.

Reducing the spending to Pre-Bush will not fix the problem, you would also need to put the tax rates to what they were.

Our current debt wasn't created by excessive spending, it was created because revenue was lowered while spending was increased. So you need to adjust both revenue and spending to fix the problem.

I always here that you CAN'T tax your way out of the problem... well you can't cut your way out either. You must have a combination.

I always here that you CAN'T tax your way out of the problem... well you can't cut your way out either. You must have a combination.

I agree.

The debt problems we are facing is in large part because of the Bush tax cuts. It's not only the amount of spending.

It's been an obvious factor.
But war in the Middle East, defaults and bailouts, and expanded entitlement programs are what have significantly increased deficit spending.
The free ride is over but the mentality exists in Congress just as it does in general society that it's 'the other guy' that needs to sacrifice.

Reducing the spending to Pre-Bush will not fix the problem, you would also need to put the tax rates to what they were.

The problem with that is how quickly those rates are applied.
Business models simply do not adjust well to rapid tax code changes on the up side.
Removing significant purchasing power from the middle and upper middle class consumer in a short time adjustment is a recipe for a recession and the timing is obviously poor.
That is what we face with the 'fiscal cliff'.
The CBO has commented on this frequently.


To say that Bush fucked our society is an understatement. But he wasn't alone in doing it.

 

[Stone]

Jesus Christ.
We have excessive spending......revenue was not lowered..this has been shown time and time again
You keep mentioning tax cuts for the rich...he lowered them for many brackets...more so for the lower bracket than upper brackets...people got back thousands they didnt pay in..an effective 15 percent slash for the lower brackets
And again revenues went up AS PEOPLE SPENT MONEY....buying stuff creating jobs..services were up..the GDP was
When the GDP is up the Govt can make the same or more money with a smaller tax rate
people were making huge mortgage payments...the economy was just that good...but the housing market crashed..if not for that we would still be cruising.

We have had excessive spending and those are debts due.
The problem faced isn't just to balance our future fiscal budgets, it's to pay down existing debt.
Going draconian on budgets at a time when the 1%er's are leveraging increased wealth from existing Bush tax codes is a formula for social/civil unrest.

You keep mentioning tax cuts for the rich...he lowered them for many brackets...more so for the lower bracket than upper brackets...people got back thousands they didnt pay in..an effective 15 percent slash for the lower brackets

Reality....
http://news.yahoo.com/top-0-1-nation-earn-half-capital-gains-172647859.html

Capital gains are the key ingredient of income disparity in the US-- and the force behind the winner takes all mantra of our economic system. If you want even out earning power in the U.S, you have to raise the 15% capital gains tax.
Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation's earners-- rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%-- about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million-- are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.

TM......that's a tax code for favoring the resale of property for profit and is obviously not a significant element of job creation. It's wealth generation and obviously favors only a select few of the ultra wealthy.

.if not for that we would still be cruising.

Not really....it would just take longer to get to the total Federal Debt we owe today.

Plus there are always unforeseen obstacles to challenge an economy.
As you can see from the graph....even before the economic crash, the first few years of the Bush tax cuts were not meeting the tax revenue stream necessary for a balanced budget.

 

[Stone]

This graph at Wikipedia better shows the relation ships to past outlays to revenues in regards to % of GDP.
It's rather obvious that the revenue stream never fulfilled outlays under Bush.
It's also obvious that since the economic crash, outlays increased significantly while the tax revenue stream decreased significantly.

TM...now consider that the top .1%er's are increasing their wealth at record rates, it's rather obvious tax cuts are building wealth more than the intended purpose of financing the nations infrastructure.

The argument to decline new entitlements makes sense as do budget cuts, but the tax code currently in place simply will not supply the needed revenue stream for our present debt considerations.

 

[Accountable]

It has been shown time and time again by some of the best minds in the business that lowering taxes does NOT raise revenue. Don't listen to the right wing or left wing economists, just listen to the non partisans who can show where it isn't nor has it ever been the case.

You can put up any chart you want, correlation does not imply causation.

If you only calculate the lost revenue to the US government since 2001 for the top 5% it comes up to $1.2 trillion
Are you saying that hasn't added to our current debt?
and that's only for the top 5% of wage earners.

I did some calculations from this table: http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
Total debt increased just short of $9.2 trillion 2001-2011. That's debt, meaning the spending over and beyond revenue. $1.2 trillion (being the most optimistic figure your source could come up with) can take a big bite out of the debt, but holy fuck, Tim, that still leave $8+ trillion and counting. And you don't think we have excessive spending??

 

[Tim]

I did some calculations from this table: http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
Total debt increased just short of $9.2 trillion 2001-2011. That's debt, meaning the spending over and beyond revenue. $1.2 trillion (being the most optimistic figure your source could come up with) can take a big bite out of the debt, but holy fuck, Tim, that still leave $8+ trillion and counting. And you don't think we have excessive spending??

Please read my posts before stating such.

My position has ALWAYS been that we need to reduce spending while adjusting how taxes are paid in this country.

The debt problems we are facing is in large part because of the Bush tax cuts. It's not only the amount of spending.

Reducing the spending to Pre-Bush will not fix the problem, you would also need to put the tax rates to what they were.

Our current debt wasn't created by excessive spending, it was created because revenue was lowered while spending was increased. So you need to adjust both revenue and spending to fix the problem.

I always here that you CAN'T tax your way out of the problem... well you can't cut your way out either. You must have a combination.

I believe and have always believed that we have massive waste in the federal government. I would love to see meaningful cuts and reductions to manageable levels. Where these cuts take place and how we do it would not be the same as where you think we should cut, but there would be plenty of overlap.

And as far as taxes. I do not think we should just go to pre-Bush levels. It's a lot more complicated than that and I would love to see a major simplification of taxes.
My starting point would be a very simple tax code... something like this, but with numbers that are thouroughly vetted and proven to be the correct rates.
$0 - $10,000 = 0% tax
$10,001 - $40,000 = 8% tax
$40,001 - $100,000 = 12% tax
$100,001 - $250,000 = 15% tax
$250,001 - $500,000 = 18% tax
$500,001 - $1,000,000 = 20% tax
Above $1,000,000 = 30% tax

with the above rates there are zero reductions or write offs. All income is taxed the same, even if it's capital gains. Income is income is income...

Again, my numbers above are off the top of my head and I am NOT qualified to determine if they are the right rates. These numbers would need to be very carefully looked at and adjusted accordingly.

Come tax time, all one need to do is look at their income for the year and determine the amount of tax owed. That's it

 

[The Man]

I agree.


.

Then the rest of your post is meaningless.
Spending almost doubled after Clinton.
Revenues are now more than they were during clinton.
Spending got us in this problem...not tax cuts.

 

[The Man]

We have had excessive spending and those are debts due.
The problem faced isn't just to balance our future fiscal budgets, it's to pay down existing debt.
Going draconian on budgets at a time when the 1%er's are leveraging increased wealth from existing Bush tax codes is a formula for social/civil unrest.



Reality....
http://news.yahoo.com/top-0-1-nation-earn-half-capital-gains-172647859.html


TM......that's a tax code for favoring the resale of property for profit and is obviously not a significant element of job creation. It's wealth generation and obviously favors only a select few of the ultra wealthy.



Not really....it would just take longer to get to the total Federal Debt we owe today.

Plus there are always unforeseen obstacles to challenge an economy.
As you can see from the graph....even before the economic crash, the first few years of the Bush tax cuts were not meeting the tax revenue stream necessary for a balanced budget.

All you have to do is look at your graph...and that explains you problem....its excessive spending.
We have increased spending 40 times since 1960.

If you want to start condoning that be my guest..you can go cut your nuts out with the rest of the morons

 

[The Man]

Please read my posts before stating such.

My position has ALWAYS been that we need to reduce spending while adjusting how taxes are paid in this country.



I believe and have always believed that we have massive waste in the federal government. I would love to see meaningful cuts and reductions to manageable levels. Where these cuts take place and how we do it would not be the same as where you think we should cut, but there would be plenty of overlap.

And as far as taxes. I do not think we should just go to pre-Bush levels. It's a lot more complicated than that and I would love to see a major simplification of taxes.
My starting point would be a very simple tax code... something like this, but with numbers that are thouroughly vetted and proven to be the correct rates.
$0 - $10,000 = 0% tax
$10,001 - $40,000 = 8% tax
$40,001 - $100,000 = 12% tax
$100,001 - $250,000 = 15% tax
$250,001 - $500,000 = 18% tax
$500,001 - $1,000,000 = 20% tax
Above $1,000,000 = 30% tax

with the above rates there are zero reductions or write offs. All income is taxed the same, even if it's capital gains. Income is income is income...

Again, my numbers above are off the top of my head and I am NOT qualified to determine if they are the right rates. These numbers would need to be very carefully looked at and adjusted accordingly.

Come tax time, all one need to do is look at their income for the year and determine the amount of tax owed. That's it

You do understand that income tax is just one tax...correct

You also do understand that revenues were less under Clinton that bush.
So why the fuck would you want to go back to Clinton revenues if you claim we need to raise revenues.{as in prior posts}
If you are going to back pedal then do it already.
My gawd....you post like a fucking moron

 

[The Man]

I believe and have always believed that we have massive waste in the federal government. I would love to see meaningful cuts and reductions to manageable levels. .............................................................................
................................
....................................................................

That's it

Then that is what needs to be fixed..
There is no revenue problem once you end the spending problem.

 

[Tim]

You do understand that income tax is just one tax...correct

You also do understand that revenues were less under Clinton that bush.
So why the fuck would you want to go back to Clinton revenues if you claim we need to raise revenues.{as in prior posts}
If you are going to back pedal then do it already.
My gawd....you post like a fucking moron

You really don't understand what you are talking about, do you?

In my example above we would be raising revenues. Currently the top .1% are paying rates MUCH lower than what I am proposing. Just that simple change would make worlds of difference.

You do understand that income tax is just one tax...correct

No shit Sherlock. We are currently talking about federal income tax and that's what I am addressing. If you want to talk about the other taxes than ask specific questions about those taxes and i will try to answer in a way that you can understand.


And my position has not changed. The problem is that you only hear what you want to hear. Your reading comprehension is poor at best.
Take the time and go back to the beginning of this website over 6 years ago and you will see me advocating for the same things I am saying today. My position has been very clear. Simplified progressive tax code with reduced spending at the federal level by reducing waste, fraud and useless programs.

You keep talking about increased spending over the years and increased revenue in spite of reduced taxes. What you continually fail to address is that our nation is growing. Our GDP increases every year and the bigger the country gets, the more it costs.

 

[Tim]

Then that is what needs to be fixed..
There is no revenue problem once you end the spending problem.

So does that mean you are fine with paying a much higher percentage of your income than someone making millions of dollars a year?

 

[The Man]

You really don't understand what you are talking about, do you?

In my example above we would be raising revenues. Currently the top .1% are paying rates MUCH lower than what I am proposing. Just that simple change would make worlds of difference.



No shit Sherlock. We are currently talking about federal income tax and that's what I am addressing. If you want to talk about the other taxes than ask specific questions about those taxes and i will try to answer in a way that you can understand.


And my position has not changed. The problem is that you only hear what you want to hear. Your reading comprehension is poor at best.
Take the time and go back to the beginning of this website over 6 years ago and you will see me advocating for the same things I am saying today. My position has been very clear. Simplified progressive tax code with reduced spending at the federal level by reducing waste, fraud and useless programs.

You keep talking about increased spending over the years and increased revenue in spite of reduced taxes. What you continually fail to address is that our nation is growing. Our GDP increases every year and the bigger the country gets, the more it costs.

You keep talking about increased spending over the years and increased revenue in spite of reduced taxes. What you continually fail to address is that our nation is growing. Our GDP increases every year and the bigger the country gets, the more it costs

Spending is far outpacing population growth
Unless you believe we have increased in population 40 times since 1960...come on Tim you do not believe that for a minute.

In my example above we would be raising revenues. Currently the top .1% are paying rates MUCH lower than what I am proposing. Just that simple change would make worlds of difference.

It will not cure the massive govt waste problem...that you yourself have already stated we have....nor will it increase revenues to compensate for the excessive spending.
Hell I might even agree with you....but not until the govt shows major reform on spending..will I agree to upping revenues.

And my position has not changed. The problem is that you only hear what you want to hear. Your reading comprehension is poor at best.
Take the time and go back to the beginning of this website over 6 years ago and you will see me advocating for the same things I am saying today. My position has been very clear. Simplified progressive tax code with reduced spending at the federal level by reducing waste, fraud and useless programs.

What....increased taxes?
What people also fail to realize here is state and local spending is off the hook as well...total govt spending was about 40 percent of GDP...that is a very large burden to carry...we feel it every time we make a purchase.