You would like to return to the 28% top income tax rate he left office with?
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
You would like to return to the 28% top income tax rate he left office with?
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
Actually, I meant the rates when he took office. We do have that little national debt issue going on…
Tax increases will only restrict economic growth.
What we need is spending cuts. To both the military and to domestic programs.
Can you point me to a recent study that supports your opinion?
Romney says that he’ll create 12 million jobs. Sounds great, right?
Except it’s been forecast that we’re going to get 12 million new jobs anyway, with or without him. So, uh… good work there, Mitt.
Yes.
Here is direct link to the study.
http://accf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/120618-Sinai-Paper-Final_Full-Version.pdf
Thanks. It will take me a while to look at this, but you do realize that they filed reports as paid tax lobbyists for every year from 1999 through 2010. ( http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientissues_spec.php?id=D000046902&year=2010&spec=TAX )
So far this year, they have only reported lobbying activities for Energy and Nuclear Power. http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientissues.php?id=D000046902&year=2012
Ha! While in the UK Romney got rhetorically curbstomped by Boris Johnson, which is the equivalent of losing a battle of wits with Ludo from Labyrinth. Putin would eat his eyes in an actual confrontation.
You are desperately mistaken. Reagan’s tax cut slashed revenues. It was his seven+ tax INCREASES that boosted revenue. You are aware that Reagan introduced the single largest tax increase in history, are you not?
You guys are reading from a fantasy economic graphic novel that reality debunked a long time ago. You’re going to have to find a new one or else decide to step into the real world.
I had some in the 90s in the custodial accounts my parents set up as college funding. Not exactly the same thing, obviously. And I agree with your general point.
The last fucking thing we need to do is eliminate the estate tax (which is NOT a “death tax”). It’s the fairest tax there is, to tax people who get a huge unearned windfall.
At least he would know his way around. You would prefer to follow economists who would repeatedly run their heads into your siding while Krugman’s sitting in your kitchen eating your lunch.
Having a government-provided door only encourages laziness in people who want to get into the house. The house is better served by rewarding the individual initiative of people who headbutt the house until they make a hole big enough to crawl through. Or they die. Either one works.
The claim that the Reagan tax cuts led to increased revenues is a falsehood perpetuated by people who have no ability to critically analyze data. Once you correct things by looking in REAL dollars (i.e., adjust for inflation) and restrict to looking at revenue from the taxes he cut (income taxes) not the taxes he raised (social security taxes), one in fact find that income tax revenues took a significant hit. Yes, eventually, they did rise back up again…but they always do that over time. If you compare to other decades, the clear effect of the tax cuts was to decrease revenues relative to what we would expect to see. And, the same thing was repeated again with the Bush tax cuts.
The supply-side nonsense that tax cuts pay for themselves is completely debunked by the actual data. Nobody with any amount of data analysis skills believes it anymore. Even David Stockman knows that it was nonsense.
The points are these:
(1) A lot of the deficit is due to the drop in revenues from the Great Recession.
(2) A significant part of the federal government spending has been offset by the contraction in spending at the state and local levels of government.
(3) The increase in federal government spending and tax cuts have not been large enough to offset this plus the hole left in the economy by the decrease in private spending.
(4) Financial crises are different from ordinary recessions and recovery from them tends to be much slower because of the ongoing huge loss of wealth. We’ve gone from losing over 3/4 million private sector jobs per month when Obama took office to gaining about 100,000 to 200,000 private sector jobs per month. That is a huge shift but unfortunately the rate of growth in the job market is not strong enough to bring unemployment down that rapidly.
Thank God someone will finally cut my taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest. Last year, my tax on that was a whopping $2!!! Some tax relief in that area will surely stimulate my economy!!!
(I make less than $100K.)
On the downside, you’re still forbidden to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
The thing about Putin was a callback to a conversation Obama had with him. Speaking off the record, but with an unfortunately placed live microphone, Obama told Putin that he would have more flexibility to discuss arms reductions after the upcoming election. Some have twisted this into wanting to hang Obama for treason. For those of that mindset, Romney was reminding them that he isn’t a traitor and he won’t sell out our security to Russia.
When I was in high school, my dad bought a $10,000 life insurance policy for me from John Hancock Insurance. When I became an adult, he transferred ownership of the policy to me. I haven’t paid a premium on the policy in about twenty years.
Well, John Hancock eventually got sold to Manulife, a Canadian company. Via the insurance policy, I earn a dividend of about $20 per year. I even pay Canadian income tax on it. When I file my 1040, I have to declare the Manulife dividend, pay the appropriate tax, and deduct the Canadian taxes paid. So, it increases my tax owed by about $2.
For a guy sleeping under a bridge, I’m such an international financier!
Given the state of our infrastructure spending, you might want to get out from under that bridge. Sleep on the freeway, its safer.