By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - The sad state of the US people.

akuma587 on 19 October 2008
TheRealMafoo said:
theprof00 said:

Prove to me now, how lower taxes for the rich improves anything. 

When you lower taxes on the rich, you stimulate the economy, and when it grows, the net income of the government goes up. Interestingly, when you lower taxes on the rich, they end up paying more of the taxes. Here is a fact:

 

The Tax Foundation states that the tax cuts signed by U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, contrary to popular belief, actually made the U.S. tax code more progressive, not less. In 1980, before Reagan's tax cuts, the richest 1% paid 19.05% of all federal income taxes, and by 1988, after Reagan's tax cuts, their share had increased to 27.58%. Likewise, in 2001, before Bush's tax cuts, the richest 1% paid 33.89% of all federal income taxes, and by 2006, after Bush's tax cuts, their share had increased to 39.89%. [16]

 

I'm impressed!  You actually brought in data, and pretty solid data at that!

Following some of the links you gave and some of my own, it appears that one of the related problems to this is the ability of people in higher income brackets to funnel their income, underreport it, etc., because of the mess that is our tax code.  So I will actually agree that UNDER THE CURRENT TAX SYSTEM (which can be cleaned up) that raising taxes on the rich is often counterproductive.

So for any tax raises to be effective, we also need to clean up the tax code and close a lot of the loopholes.  But as of now the ideal tax rate for the rich is probably close to where it is now, maybe even a little lower.  But once you start dropping below 30% you are probably losing revenue.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 19 October 2008
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
theprof00 said:

Prove to me now, how lower taxes for the rich improves anything. 

When you lower taxes on the rich, you stimulate the economy, and when it grows, the net income of the government goes up. Interestingly, when you lower taxes on the rich, they end up paying more of the taxes. Here is a fact:

 

The Tax Foundation states that the tax cuts signed by U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, contrary to popular belief, actually made the U.S. tax code more progressive, not less. In 1980, before Reagan's tax cuts, the richest 1% paid 19.05% of all federal income taxes, and by 1988, after Reagan's tax cuts, their share had increased to 27.58%. Likewise, in 2001, before Bush's tax cuts, the richest 1% paid 33.89% of all federal income taxes, and by 2006, after Bush's tax cuts, their share had increased to 39.89%. [16]

 

 

I'm impressed!  You actually brought in data, and pretty solid data at that!

Following some of the links you gave and some of my own, it appears that one of the related problems to this is the ability of people in higher income brackets to funnel their income, underreport it, etc., because of the mess that is our tax code.  So I will actually agree that UNDER THE CURRENT TAX SYSTEM (which can be cleaned up) that raising taxes on the rich is often counterproductive.

So for any tax raises to be effective, we also need to clean up the tax code and close a lot of the loopholes.  But as of now the ideal tax rate for the rich is probably close to where it is now, maybe even a little lower.  But once you start dropping below 30% you are probably losing revenue.

 

 

I agree. In 1965 the tax rate for the rich was 91%. When Carter was in office it was 70%. Now we will have a democratic run Washington. Never has that been the case and the tax rate for the rich not been over 63%.

I don't suggest we lower the tax rate bellow 30%, but I also don't want it to be 60% plus. History tells us it will be.

 

EDIT: I found it interesting that the top 50% of people who file taxes pay 98% of all the taxes. So, when you take from the rich, you are only helping out the less rich. The poor don't really pay taxes now anyway.



TheRealMafoo on 19 October 2008

Oh, another interesting thing I read. We seem to only collect 19.5% of the GDP. It does not matter what the tax rate is, that's all we ever collect (interesting statistic). If that's the case, then to maximize tax collection, you would want to do whatever raises the GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_Law



theprof00 on 19 October 2008

yaknow what raises gdp? education. lower tariffs. less corporate loopholes. stuff obama supports



TheRealMafoo on 19 October 2008
theprof00 said:
yaknow what raises gdp? education. lower tariffs. less corporate loopholes. stuff obama supports

 

You know what INSTANTLY raises GDP? Lower taxes for the rich. No economist will disagree with that.



Around the Network
steven787 on 19 October 2008
TheRealMafoo said:
theprof00 said:
yaknow what raises gdp? education. lower tariffs. less corporate loopholes. stuff obama supports

 

You know what INSTANTLY raises GDP? Lower taxes for the rich. No economist will disagree with that.

I'm no economist... but apperantly you know even less than me.

Higher GDP doesn't necessarily mean a better country.  Look at last quarter, 2.8% growth... not too shabby... why isn't anybody celebrating?

Higher tax revenues aren't always good either, that probably means they'll spend more.  You can actually have too much government demand, like now, which is very lopsided and unnatural.  It doesn't creat much employment or capital investment.

Next, when rich have more money to spend they don't buy more, they tend to buy substitute products and make financial investments (which don't contribute to GDP).

66% of Economists are Economists for Obama

This is according to a new survey of 523 economists who are U.S. citizens and members of the American Economic Association.


Top Economists Overwhelmingly Favor Obama Plan: 80% Say He Has Better Grasp of Economics

“Obama’s team is mainstream and non-ideological but extremely talented.”

 

"Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject."

Mr Obama, says Jonathan Parker, a non-aligned professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, “is a pragmatist not an ideologue. I expect Clintonian economic policies.”

"Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s. Given how much focus Mr McCain has put on his plan’s benefits for growth, this last is quite a repudiation."

 

 

 

 

Liberal's not a dirty word any more. :)



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

bardicverse on 19 October 2008
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:

Says the person who said Palin is going to open up death camps.

 

Look at this person.  She would totally open up death camps!  She is even giving the Hitler sign.

 

 

 

...and why is this a problem? Its an overpopulation solution. I suggest that instead of selecting by race, we do it by random lotto. After all, everyone on this planet deserves and will receive death at some point. Why delay the inevitable? =)



SnesTea on 19 October 2008
The Ghost of RubangB said:
1) America is the land of the free, but not the land of the free market. A free market is not mentioned in the Constitution.

2) The Constitution allowed slavery, so it's not even the land of the free.

Win/10

 



bardicverse on 19 October 2008
akuma587 said:
bardicverse said:

I definitely need the right to bare arms... i wear a lot of t-shirts! Ohhh you mean BEAR arms. ;) hehe just messin on your spelling. But seriously, I can agree with your point there, though I think when you take something AWAY from the constitution, you're undermining the founders of this country. Additions of rights for blacks and women amongst other people only further promote the ideals that the constitution was founded on - equality. Taking arms away from citizens is a negative, as if one were to say that there was an error in the constitutional rights.

 

We have freedom of speech but we aren't allowed to yell fire in a public theater.  How is that any different?  That is a right of mine being taken away.

 

 

I dont know abotu that. If there truly is a fire, and you yell fire, Im sure you'll be tahnked for people getting out of the theater. I dont know where you live, but in the NY/NJ area, theres lots of people, so fires can be fatal. There's no crime against yelling fire. What ass-backwards place do you live in? =)



akuma587 on 19 October 2008
steven787 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
theprof00 said:
yaknow what raises gdp? education. lower tariffs. less corporate loopholes. stuff obama supports

 

You know what INSTANTLY raises GDP? Lower taxes for the rich. No economist will disagree with that.

I'm no economist... but apperantly you know even less than me.

Higher GDP doesn't necessarily mean a better country.  Look at last quarter, 2.8% growth... not too shabby... why isn't anybody celebrating?

Higher tax revenues aren't always good either, that probably means they'll spend more.  You can actually have too much government demand, like now, which is very lopsided and unnatural.  It doesn't creat much employment or capital investment.

Next, when rich have more money to spend they don't buy more, they tend to buy substitute products and make financial investments (which don't contribute to GDP).

66% of Economists are Economists for Obama

This is according to a new survey of 523 economists who are U.S. citizens and members of the American Economic Association.


Top Economists Overwhelmingly Favor Obama Plan: 80% Say He Has Better Grasp of Economics

“Obama’s team is mainstream and non-ideological but extremely talented.”

 

"Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject."

Mr Obama, says Jonathan Parker, a non-aligned professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, “is a pragmatist not an ideologue. I expect Clintonian economic policies.”

"Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s. Given how much focus Mr McCain has put on his plan’s benefits for growth, this last is quite a repudiation."

 

 

 

 

Liberal's not a dirty word any more. :)

I agree that GDP is way too often the end all be all as an economic measurement.  It really ignores a lot of things, such as how unequal the distribution of wealth in an economy is and how sustainable that GDP growth is.  Have you ever heard anyone talk about the margin for error on GDP either?  No, and economists run and hide when you ask them.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson