Last Dance for Reaganomics?

[Liberty]

Poor Liability.


No, you didn't "ask me first". The last time I heard that used as a debating tactic, both participants were in kindergarten.


So, to recap: You claimed that "little non-socialist business owners are taking it up the ass" but you don't know the effective tax rate they pay?


Have you voted for yourself in the King of the Retards poll yet? Do you need some details on how to vote in a poll?

I'm not debating you,,,,,,,, yet.

Maybe you just lack the ability to debate.

Do you know what the % of income taxes Exxon paid, and how much GE paid?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I'm not debating you,,,,,,,, yet. Maybe you just lack the ability to debate. Do you know what the % of income taxes Exxon paid, and how much GE paid?

Poor liability.


We agree. You aren't debating.


Have you voted for yourself yet?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually, you need to stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking and deal with reality...as recent polls show that over 50% of registered Republicans are NOT in favor of the BS that Boehner, Cantor and the rest of the GOP stooges are putting out.

I'm not a republican.

And over 50% of registered republicans are NOT in favor of the BS that Boehner, Cantor and the rest of the GOP stooges are putting out doesn't surprise me.

Even though I don't trust your sources at all.

They need to start putting the ax to a lot of things,,,,,,,, is the real truth to what most reps, indys, and libertarians think.

50% crap. What a joke.

You must get your information from the N. Korean news.

And here folks, you get a spotlight on the sheer idiocy of our resident libertarian lunkhead's need to just have a gain saying of anything he perceives as a threat to the neocon agenda. Go to post #25 folks, and then read Liberty's latest lunacy: Liberty only deals with ONE aspect of the entire post, of which he admits to rejecting any source material I produce, but then says libertarians are against the GOP mantra, so he's in agreement with me and accepts my stat, then he says the stat I mention is not to be believed.

Liberty is just another neocon blowhard with delusions that he's above the neocon/teabagger cabal of whose mantras he holds so dear and defends....a basic definition of your average self professed libertarian.

This is just Liberty's failed attempts to avoid discussing ANY of the content of the article at the core of this thread's discussion. That's because intellectually bankrupt clowns like Liberty avoid what they can't BS away or disprove logically and factually. But the chronology of the posts will always be Liberty's undoing. I leave him to waste time and space, and will only respond when he's ready to discuss content and facts, and NOT his opinion, supposition and conjecture.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Liberty
I'm not a republican.

with TClib, it doesn't matter. he's got it down to something like a 6 word label that covers everything not liberal. it's pretty impressive actually, the way he sticks his head in the sand over it.

Why don't you stop acting like a little bitch EVERY time I put the kibosh on a neocon myth or mantra and one of your compadres look the fool trying to defend it? All you libertarian lunkheads swear you're not neocons, yet time and again your defending the neocon agenda with the same talking points and mantras.

If YOU can't debate the issue honestly like an adult, STY, STFU or put me on IA, but get off the bitchy maudlin act because quite frankly I'm embarassed for you.

 

[Liberty]

And here folks, you get a spotlight on the sheer idiocy of our resident libertarian lunkhead's need to just have a gain saying of anything he perceives as a threat to the neocon agenda. Go to post #25 folks, and then read Liberty's latest lunacy: Liberty only deals with ONE aspect of the entire post, of which he admits to rejecting any source material I produce, but then says libertarians are against the GOP mantra, so he's in agreement with me and accepts my stat, then he says the stat I mention is not to be believed.

Liberty is just another neocon blowhard with delusions that he's above the neocon/teabagger cabal of whose mantras he holds so dear and defends....a basic definition of your average self professed libertarian.

This is just Liberty's failed attempts to avoid discussing ANY of the content of the article at the core of this thread's discussion. That's because intellectually bankrupt clowns like Liberty avoid what they can't BS away or disprove logically and factually. But the chronology of the posts will always be Liberty's undoing. I leave him to waste time and space, and will only respond when he's ready to discuss content and facts, and NOT his opinion, supposition and conjecture.

Hahaha

Can anyone make sense of post 43?

Maybe it's because I've had a few beers, but I'm scratching my head on this one.

Does it make any real sense?

 

[The Dude]

Dude, you're babbling nonsense.... get the crack out of your pipe, read the article and start dealing with reality.

taichi, did you go to college did you take 1 econ class

I don't give two shits about salon writing, I know what it is. My brother in law's brother is the main editor.
Nobody goes to salon for economics, secondly why is Obama giving tax cuts if Reaganomics is over?
You can't answer because like most turbo-libs you never had economics and your limited to cut n paste.
BURN

 

[The Dude]

What "business cycle" are you referring to....the one where "trickle down" economics is at any minute going to create a plethora of jobs? 30 years, Dude....it ain't happening....grow the fuck up and deal with the FAILURE of Reaganomics. And you can thank the crooked banksters and Wall St. cretins for the bullshit real estate loans...as they mixed in known bad loans with good loan packages and then sold these toxic packages on the national and international market. You can also thank deregulation for that.

Dude, know wtf you're babbling about before your fingers hit the keys.

and no democrats participated, what a fucking moron

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Why don't you stop acting like a little bitch EVERY time I put the kibosh on a neocon myth or mantra and one of your compadres look the fool trying to defend it? All you libertarian lunkheads swear you're not neocons, yet time and again your defending the neocon agenda with the same talking points and mantras.

If YOU can't debate the issue honestly like an adult, STY, STFU or put me on IA, but get off the bitchy maudlin act because quite frankly I'm embarassed for you.

sounds like the only one bitching and moaning is you. Running around stomping your feet shouting 'my masters are right, I really really mean it' is not equivalent to 'putting the kibosh on my opponents statements'. you have shown time and again that you have no clue when it comes to economics. Which is why you and every other economically illiterate liberal are posting this article from salon and pretending you understand the bullshit they spew forth. What's worse is that you actually believe the crap they spoon feed you tastes good.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Rich people largely work just as hard under high taxes or low taxes because,

1.) After a certain amount of money a year, quality of life stops improving, and increases in efficiency associated with more happiness from wealth stop appearing.
2.) They have to continue competing in order to maintain their current position. If they get angry and stop working because of a high tax environment, I assure you, there will be many people willing to step in and take their position.

So, where has the extra tax revenue come from, if not from increased effort? It's simple. Under high taxes, it's stupid to choose to increase your salary rather than reinvest it in your business or raise the wages of your workers, because little of that money will actually reach your pocket, and you can't justify decreasing the competitiveness of your business to fund a salary that you're largely not going to receive - you're threatening the existence of the salary itself by doing so. Under low taxes, the disincentive begins disappearing. So, they've been increasing their own salaries rather than those of their workers to an extent that tax revenue from their group increased. If we had left high taxes in place, revenue would've gone up anyway, but the growth would have continued to largely be from the middle-class rather than the upper-class who now take from them.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Rich people largely work just as hard under high taxes or low taxes because,

1.) After a certain amount of money a year, quality of life stops improving, and increases in efficiency associated with more happiness from wealth stop appearing.
2.) They have to continue competing in order to maintain their current position. If they get angry and stop working because of a high tax environment, I assure you, there will be many people willing to step in and take their position.

So, where has the extra tax revenue come from, if not from increased effort? It's simple. Under high taxes, it's stupid to choose to increase your salary rather than reinvest it in your business or raise the wages of your workers, because little of that money will actually reach your pocket, and you can't justify decreasing the competitiveness of your business to fund a salary that you're largely not going to receive - you're threatening the existence of the salary itself by doing so. Under low taxes, the disincentive begins disappearing. So, they've been increasing their own salaries rather than those of their workers to an extent that tax revenue from their group increased. If we had left high taxes in place, revenue would've gone up anyway, but the growth would have continued to largely be from the middle-class rather than the upper-class who now take from them.

You err in two profound ways:

1) Rich people also INVEST. We are not just talking about their salaries. If the wealthy see they are going to get tagged with higher income taxes, they are not going to be as likely to invest in new businesses/ventures. They are going to park their money in muni bonds/insurance products etc.... and avoid the excessive taxation. Thereby not only decreasing revenue, but also decreasing investing in new jobs via start up ventures/business expansions etc....

2) the left ALSO wants to raise taxes/eliminate deductions for corporations. So in your above scenario, if the rich person has the option of getting his money taxed as salary or as corporate income, then he has no incentive to work any harder or get the money to work harder via investment. (granted, we are talking about much higher individual tax rates than we have now for this to happen).

The problem lies in determining where that efficient level of taxation is. Our tax code is so unbelievably complex that the idiots in DC just keep shifting tax rates around hoping they miraculously hit the appropriate levels. The key is simplification.

As I have stated before....

Let’s begin with our tax code. It should be simple enough that the average person can understand it. It should not be filled with thousands of loopholes and deductions. Let us push for the flat tax with a standard deduction and nothing more.

Start with a standard deduction of $30k (adjusted for inflation annually) for each adult and then tax every dollar over that $30k at 20%. This is simple, easy to understand, fair and progressive. It protects the low-income individuals and couples from paying federal income taxes. It provides the middle-income families a lower effective tax rate than the wealthy. This plan would encompass ALL income, including earned income, capital gains and dividend income.

A person making $30k pays an effective rate of 0%.

A person making $50k pays an effective rate of 8%.

A person making $100k pays an effective rate of 14%.

A person making $200k pays en effective rate of 17%.

A person making $1mm pays an effective rate of 19.4%

Everyone has the same deduction and takes it. Which causes the effective tax rate to increase the more you make.

To reduce the national debt I would propose we add an additional temporary bracket to the flat tax. Every dollar over $1 million (again adjusted for inflation annually) would be taxed at 30% rather than 20%. The additional 10% would be mandated to pay down the debt.

It is our responsibility to pay our own way and not dump trillions of dollars of debt on future generations. We need to begin electing leaders that are fiscally responsible. The future of our nation depends upon it. We are our own worst enemy. It will be our ever-increasing debt that leads to our demise. We must act now.

In the above scenario, there would be NO corporate income tax as that is simply a hidden tax on consumers. The owners of the business will be taxed on cap gains, dividends or salary at the above tax rates, so no matter HOW they take the money, they pay the same rate.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Why don't you stop acting like a little bitch EVERY time I put the kibosh on a neocon myth or mantra and one of your compadres look the fool trying to defend it? All you libertarian lunkheads swear you're not neocons, yet time and again your defending the neocon agenda with the same talking points and mantras.

If YOU can't debate the issue honestly like an adult, STY, STFU or put me on IA, but get off the bitchy maudlin act because quite frankly I'm embarassed for you.

quite frankly, you should be embarrassed for yourself. it's been pointed out to you numerous times by others on this board, both right AND left that i'm an equal opportunity basher/critic of both reps and dems, yet you continually remain obtuse to that fact while you wallow in self aggrandizing idiocy as you spout labels you have zero clue over.

 

[Topspin]

fuck 14%, I pay 11% now and that's too fucking high

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Dude, you're babbling nonsense.... get the crack out of your pipe, read the article and start dealing with reality.

taichi, did you go to college did you take 1 econ class

Yes to both questions......but anyone with a high school GED and a some real life job experience in the last 30 years knows damned well that Reaganomics DOES NOT WORK. Evidently, you're just too willfully ignorant to deal with that slice of reality.

I don't give two shits about salon writing, I know what it is. My brother in law's brother is the main editor.

Translation: The Dude DID NOT read the article or cannot logically/factually refute it's contents.

Nobody goes to salon for economics, secondly why is Obama giving tax cuts if Reaganomics is over?

Dude, if you write and article covering a particluar subject and your facts/conclusions are correct, the article could appear in Gentleman's Quarterly for all I care. I let you in on a little secret Dude, the Rolling Stone is primarily about music, yet it's had some serious political/social/economic coverage over the decades that has been DEAD ON target. The Wall St. Journal gave the breaking news about the Shrub letting Bin Ladin relatives fly out of the USA carte blanche during the height of the 9/11 emergency. See, in the real world, news is not regulated to specific magazines, and no one has a monopoly on the information.
And if you were paying attention to current events, you'd know that Obama caved to the filibuster happy GOP on the 2 year extension of the Bush tax cuts in order to get some motion on the Healthcare reform and other bills. Got that now, Dude?


You can't answer because like most turbo-libs you never had economics and your limited to cut n paste.
BURN

Dude, how old are you? Your response is like that of some stoner high school freshman. Get the crack out of the pipe and read/listen to more than right wingnut radio/blogs/newspapers, Dude.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
What "business cycle" are you referring to....the one where "trickle down" economics is at any minute going to create a plethora of jobs? 30 years, Dude....it ain't happening....grow the fuck up and deal with the FAILURE of Reaganomics. And you can thank the crooked banksters and Wall St. cretins for the bullshit real estate loans...as they mixed in known bad loans with good loan packages and then sold these toxic packages on the national and international market. You can also thank deregulation for that.

Dude, know wtf you're babbling about before your fingers hit the keys.

and no democrats participated, what a fucking moron

Who said no democrats participated? I didn't....but any 20 something idiot who does a little research past their birthday, or anyone older than 30 who paid attention in the last few decades KNOWS that the GOP were the initiators, supporters and defenders of Reaganomics in the House & Senate for the last 30 years. Slick Willy did a stop gap measure that did give us a momentary surplus and jobs bubble, but that's about it.


And yes, you are a fucking moron Dude because you are not Reading Carefully and Comprehensively (when you read at all)....but don't be too hard on yourself, I have hope for you.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Why don't you stop acting like a little bitch EVERY time I put the kibosh on a neocon myth or mantra and one of your compadres look the fool trying to defend it? All you libertarian lunkheads swear you're not neocons, yet time and again your defending the neocon agenda with the same talking points and mantras.

If YOU can't debate the issue honestly like an adult, STY, STFU or put me on IA, but get off the bitchy maudlin act because quite frankly I'm embarassed for you.

sounds like the only one bitching and moaning is you. Running around stomping your feet shouting 'my masters are right, I really really mean it' is not equivalent to 'putting the kibosh on my opponents statements'. you have shown time and again that you have no clue when it comes to economics. Which is why you and every other economically illiterate liberal are posting this article from salon and pretending you understand the bullshit they spew forth. What's worse is that you actually believe the crap they spoon feed you tastes good.

And the Super Freak (ing) Dunce strikes Again! Tell us mastermind, if the chronology of the posts shows your like minded compadres making the FIRST insults, complaints and assaults, how can I be the "only one bitching and moaning"?

And time and again YOU keep braying what a economic expert you are, when all you've EVER done is just regurgitate the economic myopia that can be found on any neocon rag/blog/broadcast. When taken to task, you just ignore what you don't like and then lie about other's response. When proven wrong, you just ignore the facts and repeat your drivel like a Super Freak(ing) neocon parrot. But the chronology of the posts will always be your undoing. Let's see if you fare any better this time

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Why don't you stop acting like a little bitch EVERY time I put the kibosh on a neocon myth or mantra and one of your compadres look the fool trying to defend it? All you libertarian lunkheads swear you're not neocons, yet time and again your defending the neocon agenda with the same talking points and mantras.

If YOU can't debate the issue honestly like an adult, STY, STFU or put me on IA, but get off the bitchy maudlin act because quite frankly I'm embarassed for you.

quite frankly, you should be embarrassed for yourself. it's been pointed out to you numerous times by others on this board, both right AND left that i'm an equal opportunity basher/critic of both reps and dems, yet you continually remain obtuse to that fact while you wallow in self aggrandizing idiocy as you spout labels you have zero clue over.

Bottom line: another intellectually dishonest neocon parrot who can't logically or factually disprove or refute the contents of the article regarding the failure of Reaganomics I posted....and thus attacks the messenger. Such are the predictable tactics of neocon numbskulls who think they are smarter than everyone else.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Watermark
Rich people largely work just as hard under high taxes or low taxes because,

1.) After a certain amount of money a year, quality of life stops improving, and increases in efficiency associated with more happiness from wealth stop appearing.
2.) They have to continue competing in order to maintain their current position. If they get angry and stop working because of a high tax environment, I assure you, there will be many people willing to step in and take their position.

So, where has the extra tax revenue come from, if not from increased effort? It's simple. Under high taxes, it's stupid to choose to increase your salary rather than reinvest it in your business or raise the wages of your workers, because little of that money will actually reach your pocket, and you can't justify decreasing the competitiveness of your business to fund a salary that you're largely not going to receive - you're threatening the existence of the salary itself by doing so. Under low taxes, the disincentive begins disappearing. So, they've been increasing their own salaries rather than those of their workers to an extent that tax revenue from their group increased. If we had left high taxes in place, revenue would've gone up anyway, but the growth would have continued to largely be from the middle-class rather than the upper-class who now take from them.

You err in two profound ways:

1) Rich people also INVEST. We are not just talking about their salaries. If the wealthy see they are going to get tagged with higher income taxes, they are not going to be as likely to invest in new businesses/ventures. They are going to park their money in muni bonds/insurance products etc.... and avoid the excessive taxation. Thereby not only decreasing revenue, but also decreasing investing in new jobs via start up ventures/business expansions etc....

2) the left ALSO wants to raise taxes/eliminate deductions for corporations. So in your above scenario, if the rich person has the option of getting his money taxed as salary or as corporate income, then he has no incentive to work any harder or get the money to work harder via investment. (granted, we are talking about much higher individual tax rates than we have now for this to happen).

The problem lies in determining where that efficient level of taxation is. Our tax code is so unbelievably complex that the idiots in DC just keep shifting tax rates around hoping they miraculously hit the appropriate levels. The key is simplification.

As I have stated before....

Let’s begin with our tax code. It should be simple enough that the average person can understand it. It should not be filled with thousands of loopholes and deductions. Let us push for the flat tax with a standard deduction and nothing more.

Start with a standard deduction of $30k (adjusted for inflation annually) for each adult and then tax every dollar over that $30k at 20%. This is simple, easy to understand, fair and progressive. It protects the low-income individuals and couples from paying federal income taxes. It provides the middle-income families a lower effective tax rate than the wealthy. This plan would encompass ALL income, including earned income, capital gains and dividend income.

A person making $30k pays an effective rate of 0%.

A person making $50k pays an effective rate of 8%.

A person making $100k pays an effective rate of 14%.

A person making $200k pays en effective rate of 17%.

A person making $1mm pays an effective rate of 19.4%

Everyone has the same deduction and takes it. Which causes the effective tax rate to increase the more you make.

To reduce the national debt I would propose we add an additional temporary bracket to the flat tax. Every dollar over $1 million (again adjusted for inflation annually) would be taxed at 30% rather than 20%. The additional 10% would be mandated to pay down the debt.

It is our responsibility to pay our own way and not dump trillions of dollars of debt on future generations. We need to begin electing leaders that are fiscally responsible. The future of our nation depends upon it. We are our own worst enemy. It will be our ever-increasing debt that leads to our demise. We must act now.

In the above scenario, there would be NO corporate income tax as that is simply a hidden tax on consumers. The owners of the business will be taxed on cap gains, dividends or salary at the above tax rates, so no matter HOW they take the money, they pay the same rate.

Just so you know:

In the last 30 years, rich people on the whole "invested" their money in off shore accounts, outsourcing of factories and jobs, gambling on Wall St., but NOT domestic businesses that create JOBS for Americans.

Eliminating tax loopholes that enable folk Like Mobil to NOT pay taxes is the goal. Returning to the tax rate of the Clinton era would STILL allow millionaires to be millionaires, grow business, invest, etc. The BS whine of "excessive" taxation is just that...BS. Check out the growth of millionaires, corporate largesse under Clinton....something not possible if there were "excessive" taxation.