Meerjeek’s point proved conclusively. Or at least illustrated to a T. You must also think that you shouldn’t be taxed to pay for public services like police and fire departments. The rich can afford their own safety and security measures, not to mention health care. Health care already is held to be a privilege for the deserving, so why should safety and security be any different?
Did you read any of my other posts, or just the one that fit your myopic view of me? Next time, take a few of my quotes out context to really liven things up.
Can I assume that everyone in favor of the increases on the “rich” also sends Uncle Sam an extra check every year?
If you believe what you say then consider the following: raising taxes will lower tax revenue. If there is less tax revenue than less money will be available to help the poor.
This was brought up in an interview between Gibson and Obama:
GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
By his own admission Obama is willing to live with a lower revenue stream if it means we live in a more fair society. He is a Marxist looking for power at the expense of the poor.
So I ask you, do you believe the words of your own candidate and is this what you are voting for? We’re going into a recession and raising taxes will hurt business.
As President Kennedy once said:
In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
The problem with your point is that Gibson is wrong, and is simply invoking the political version of the Laffer curve, which has no credibility.
Lowering taxation does not increase revenue, in point of fact, outside of the hypothetical right side of the peak, which we are nowhere near now, or in situations where there is extreme regulatory and non-compliance issues, such as Russia. This is a settled fact in academic economics, where economists have no dispute over the fact that the primary, first effect of lowering taxation is a lowering of revenue. It’s just that this fact hasn’t quite penetrated the thick supply side skulls of beltway pundits like Gibson.
As the Congressional Budget Office notes, changes in capital gains taxation can produce a short-term temporary fluctuation, as part of the lock-in effect because people get to choose when they realize the gains. There is, however, no evidence of any long term effect on revenue collection, once the transition is smoothed out.
Your first 2 cites were political commentary and I’m confused by your 3rd cite:
In general, there is significant consensus that broad-based reductions in taxes on capital have the potential to boost economic growth over the long run. Reductions in capital taxation increase the return on investment and therefore the formation of capital. The resulting increase in the capital stock yields greater output and higher incomes throughout much of the economy.
The TNR post explicitly quotes Jason Furman of the Brookings Institute, an economist, who states the following:
Please read that carefully.
Also, the second link is a study not political commentary, from the American Economic Review, a journal of the American Economic Association.
You’re not very good at reading comprehension if that’s what you took away from the article. It states very clearly that measurement of the receipts against realised gains is difficult. It states that, yes, measurable economic growth is a response to the cuts (nobody denies this), but we are talking about receipts over the longer post-transition period, and the possibility of any overall aggregate gain, such that it can overtake the loss in longer-term revenue. That’s what you need to make your point. But you won’t find that substantiated in any economic literature.
Predicting how the media will deal with an issue that might harm their boy doesn’t carry a whole lot of risk do you think?
Not sure it was a “mistake” but McCain clearly did a piss-poor job of trying to make it an issue.
In addition to describing him as a neighbor did Obama once say the their children went to the same school to describe their relationship?
You know what, not everyone on this board is a fucking pauper slinging coffee at the local Starbucks, and some of us that aren’t actually LIKE progressive income taxes. Yes, I’ve paid quarterly taxes (don’t anymore). No, I don’t see it like you do. Last year I paid several Starbuck’s Barista salaries in Federal taxes alone (and live in a high tax State) …you know what, I can afford it - my friends making $25,000 slinging coffee at Starbucks can’t. It doesn’t go to them, it pays for running the government, but I pay more, because I can afford more.
Great, I can afford it to. That doesn’t mean I want to, or that I like to, or that I think Reagan and W are a tie for the closest resemblance to the second coming of the messiah either.
Do you want to live up to Biden’s remarks and be a true patriot and get on board and pay more? I’ll send you my tax bill for this quarter. That’s really progressive! Just send me your address and I’ll get 3rd quarter’s in the mail!
Not calling anyone a liar or anything, but anyone who claims to like paying taxes is full of shit. If that is who I am “debating” with, I’ll just exit stage left at this time.
Ah, a great old standby reliably offered by conservatives when confronted with the fact that as an American society, sometimes we all have to work together (see also “reduction of carbon emissions”)
You may be looking for the exit, to be sure. I love America. I love the concept of supporting America. I love the concept of the might of the American people coming together to provide a decent life for all Americans. I love the idea of a diverse array of people taking advantage of the infrastructure that America provides to produce a vast array of goods and services. I love the idea that Americans can live in a society founded on those embedded in the Constitution.
No, I don’t especially like moving money out of my own account, but it is not bullshit for me to say that the cost is outweighed by the benefits.
It would be bullshit for me to forget that I’ve gotten the money I have because I work in a job here in America, and that without the infrastructure provided by being here in America, I wouldn’t have that money to begin with.
Ah yes, “I and my bunch have ours, so fuck everyone else!” “Whatsoever you did not do for the least of my brethren, you did not do for me.”
I want to know if there will be any legal repercussions for Sam Wurzelbacher doing plumbing work (including working on a water main) when he is not licensed as a plumber and the county he works in requires a license. I’ve known people who were fined for code violations when they could not show that a licensed electrician had installed electrical equipment in their business, I’m guessing that there are similar issues with unlicensed plumbing work.
You haven’t posted anything so far except a concept that tax reductions work but it’s so complicated it can’t be associated with tax reductions.
It’s not complicated to understand that a reduction of capital gains taxes increases investment and that in turn powers the economy. Reverse the process and the opposite occurs. We have 100 years of history to back this up and it holds true domestically as well as abroad. Capital gains become disposable income which becomes further investment capital and liquid assets. Increases in liquid assets are leveraged by banks in the form of loans and lower interest rates. This is economics 101.
Beyond this simple reality I posted a statement made by Obama where he simply ignores the dynamics of taxation altogether in favor of the concept of “FAIRNESS”. He has made it clear that he favors wealth redistribution if elected he will be the final arbiter of congressional spending. As we speak, Pelosi is talking about reconvening Congress after the election for the express purpose of increased social spending.
In my own state I’ve watched taxes rise until we’re the 6th highest taxed state in the union. Businesses are leaving. There is a distinct relationship between economic growth and taxation. Going into a recession with the intent to increase taxes is a bad idea. If you feel the need to spread your wealth than by all means, right a check. Buy yourself some happiness. HIRE someone.
That’s a theory, but you’re simply wrong about history supporting this.
Hentor for president!
Ahh, he says he loves America. But he loves Un-American America.
Remember, though: everybody wants the country to work together. Just on different things, for different reasons. For libs, it’s infrastructure and safety nets, on abstract principle that it’s the right thing to do. For cons, it’s restoring and maintaining our power, on abstract principle that might makes right.
Magiver, logically, there must be some optimum level for taxes, right? I think we can all agree that a tax rate of 0% would bring in less revenue than any nonzero tax rate. If you were somehow at 0% taxes, then raising taxes would in fact increase revenue. Mathematically, then, there must be some nonzero optimum level of taxes. Would you mind telling us what that level is, or at least how we would recognize it if we got there?
Obama simply wants to allow George Bush’s irresponsible tax cuts to expire. He wants to go back to the tax structure we had back when we had a budget surplus, before Bush cut taxes for the rich and increased spending. You can’t increase spending and cut taxes without wrecking your economy, and that’s what’s been happening for the last 7 years.
Not having a license doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t do the work, depending on the jurisdiction and other factors. From what little I’ve looked into this, for skilled trades and certain other occupations/professions it means you can’t have “responsible charge” of the work, or hold yourself out as an independent contractor or professional. On that score, Joe is probably fine and it’s his boss who needs to be licensed. A similar sort of exemption covers many engineers who work for large companies, e.g. aerospace companies or utilities, and who do engineering work, but are not Professional (or Registered or Articled) Engineers). They don’t seal the designs, so they don’t need to be P.E.'s, but they can still do some of the engineering work.
Awwww, where’s the fun in that? How can you call Obama a “Marxist”* if you reveal that he simply wants to go back to a time that the government actually did not run a huge deficit?
- current Fox viewer talking point of the week