Tax increases won't solve our problem!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I keep hearing the talking heads speak of "revenues" interchangeably with "tax increases" as if there is just this fact of life, that increasing tax rates means increased revenues. I guess I can see why some simple-minded liberal would think, an increase in tax rate would cause more revenue to pour in, but the talking heads should know better. Anyone who has studied tax policy and economics over the past 70 years, should understand that tax rate increases do not automatically translate into increased revenue. At least not, long term. And the damage tax increases do to economic growth, is simply not worth any short-term advantage.

Look... you can raise the tax rates back to 91% on the "wealthy" if you like, it's not going to encourage economic expansion and growth. It will encourage tax sheltering and foreign investment. It's the exact opposite of what we want to do at this time. You can't increase revenue by putting more tax on "the rich" because they are who create the jobs and stimulate economic growth in the private sector. It doesn't work, we've tried it before! In fact, the last three times we dramatically increased revenues, it was tax cuts on the top marginal incomes, which produced them. Kennedy in the 60s, Regan in the 80s, Clinton in the 90s... all three times, we LOWERED the top marginal rate, and broadened the base. Each time, it generated greater GDP growth, economic prosperity, and yes... tax revenue!

The problem we have, is not that we need to increase tax revenue. This is the argument Democrats are stuck on, with the wrong-headed idea of raising taxes on "the rich." Even IF their idiocy would result in increased revenues, it wouldn't be enough to deal with the size of the problem we have. You could literally confiscate the entire wealth of the Fortune 400 wealthiest individuals in America, and it would barely be enough to cover two years of Obama's deficit. We're spending WAY more money than we have, or can ever conceivably hope to have! Each day, Obama/Democrats are spending $4.5 BILLION that we don't have... that we are having to borrow... that our children and grandchildren will ultimately pay the interest on, and be left with the burden of. And all they want to do is demagogue and play politics, instead of facing the problems and addressing them with real solutions.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Strawman much?

A mixture of closing tax loopholes, eliminating corporate subsidies, and cutting spending is needed.


I've shown you how it would work several times, and you refuse to acknowledge the validity of the suggestions because the interactive tool was published in the New York Times.

 

[apple0154]

I keep hearing the talking heads speak of "revenues" interchangeably with "tax increases" as if there is just this fact of life, that increasing tax rates means increased revenues. I guess I can see why some simple-minded liberal would think, an increase in tax rate would cause more revenue to pour in, but the talking heads should know better. Anyone who has studied tax policy and economics over the past 70 years, should understand that tax rate increases do not automatically translate into increased revenue. At least not, long term. And the damage tax increases do to economic growth, is simply not worth any short-term advantage.

Look... you can raise the tax rates back to 91% on the "wealthy" if you like, it's not going to encourage economic expansion and growth. It will encourage tax sheltering and foreign investment. It's the exact opposite of what we want to do at this time. You can't increase revenue by putting more tax on "the rich" because they are who create the jobs and stimulate economic growth in the private sector. It doesn't work, we've tried it before! In fact, the last three times we dramatically increased revenues, it was tax cuts on the top marginal incomes, which produced them. Kennedy in the 60s, Regan in the 80s, Clinton in the 90s... all three times, we LOWERED the top marginal rate, and broadened the base. Each time, it generated greater GDP growth, economic prosperity, and yes... tax revenue!

The problem we have, is not that we need to increase tax revenue. This is the argument Democrats are stuck on, with the wrong-headed idea of raising taxes on "the rich." Even IF their idiocy would result in increased revenues, it wouldn't be enough to deal with the size of the problem we have. You could literally confiscate the entire wealth of the Fortune 400 wealthiest individuals in America, and it would barely be enough to cover two years of Obama's deficit. We're spending WAY more money than we have, or can ever conceivably hope to have! Each day, Obama/Democrats are spending $4.5 BILLION that we don't have... that we are having to borrow... that our children and grandchildren will ultimately pay the interest on, and be left with the burden of. And all they want to do is demagogue and play politics, instead of facing the problems and addressing them with real solutions.

More nonsense. Just like comments about the medical plan Obama put forward.

Citizens in countries with social policies and higher taxes are working and insist on keeping their social programs.

Now there's talk of forming a "Super Congress" to deal with the debt ceiling because citizens don't want to give up the social programs. It's finally starting to sink in that people want social programs and it's time to look for tax cuts elsewhere and raise the necessary taxes to pay for the programs.

Change you can believe in.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

A mixture of closing tax loopholes, eliminating corporate subsidies, and cutting spending is needed.

Closing tax loopholes and eliminating subsidies is essentially increasing taxes. Now, the amount of revenue gained by eliminating loopholes and subsidies, is still nowhere near the amount needed to rectify Obama's budget deficit. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, you could collect the corporate jet tax AND the money from removing all oil subsidies, for over 100 years, and it would not equal the amount of Obama deficit for FEBRUARY! Cutting spending is what is needed!

It's like you are saying, we need to do these two little things that are economically stupid, and won't raise that much revenue, but we need to do them because of politics... along with this other thing over here the right wants to do. We can't do one without doing the other two, even though they are stupid, because if we did that, it would make democrats look like they caved in to republican demands. So go ahead and go along with us on doing the stupid things, so we can resolve all of this and move on to the cuts... which will have to be made in defense spending, of course!

The more I hear liberals and democrats, the more I am convinced they are absolute MORONS when it comes to the economy, no shit... they are as stupid as the day is long, and no one can tell them any different, they believe they are smarter than the rest of the world. It's absolutely stunning.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Perhaps if you used more exclamation points your rant would be a tad more compelling. Worth a try.

 

[apple0154]

Closing tax loopholes and eliminating subsidies is essentially increasing taxes. Now, the amount of revenue gained by eliminating loopholes and subsidies, is still nowhere near the amount needed to rectify Obama's budget deficit. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, you could collect the corporate jet tax AND the money from removing all oil subsidies, for over 100 years, and it would not equal the amount of Obama deficit for FEBRUARY! Cutting spending is what is needed!

It's like you are saying, we need to do these two little things that are economically stupid, and won't raise that much revenue, but we need to do them because of politics... along with this other thing over here the right wants to do. We can't do one without doing the other two, even though they are stupid, because if we did that, it would make democrats look like they caved in to republican demands. So go ahead and go along with us on doing the stupid things, so we can resolve all of this and move on to the cuts... which will have to be made in defense spending, of course!

The more I hear liberals and democrats, the more I am convinced they are absolute MORONS when it comes to the economy, no shit... they are as stupid as the day is long, and no one can tell them any different, they believe they are smarter than the rest of the world. It's absolutely stunning.

OK, Dixie. Here's a pop quiz. Why do the citizens living in countries with social policies resulting in higher taxes insist on keeping their policies? How do those countries do it? How can people in Canada and Australia and Britain and France and Norway and Sweden and Germany and....afford to eat and have a home and drive a car and watch TV? Why do poll after poll show the people in countries with social policies are generally happier? Why don't those countries have politicians campaigning on cutting those programs?

All this craziness about debt and a government medical plan and other social policies have been dealt with in other countries. It's not a mystery about how to solve it. Social policies become a priority and taxes are raised to support them. Then other things are considered.

The debt, just like government medical, have been dealt with in numerous countries. There are many examples/ways to solve the problem and the people in those countries are working and eating and have a bed to sleep in and are living their lives.

If you want to talk about 'absolute MORONS when it comes to the economy' there are none more moronic than the current Repub group of misfits warming the seats in Congress.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

OK, Dixie. Here's a pop quiz. Why do the citizens living in countries with social policies resulting in higher taxes insist on keeping their policies?

They don't insist... they are told what they will accept and how things will be, because they don't live in a representative democracy, they live in socialist communism. See, we're not a socialist totalitarian dictatorial regime, we are a Constitutional representative democracy, where the people have the ultimate political voice in what happens... those other countries, don't have that.... this is the difference, moron.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Maybe Dix needs...more cowbell.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

OK, Dixie. Here's a pop quiz. Why do the citizens living in countries with social policies resulting in higher taxes insist on keeping their policies? How do those countries do it? How can people in Canada and Australia and Britain and France and Norway and Sweden and Germany and....afford to eat and have a home and drive a car and watch TV? Why do poll after poll show the people in countries with social policies are generally happier? Why don't those countries have politicians campaigning on cutting those programs?

All this craziness about debt and a government medical plan and other social policies have been dealt with in other countries. It's not a mystery about how to solve it. Social policies become a priority and taxes are raised to support them. Then other things are considered.

The debt, just like government medical, have been dealt with in numerous countries. There are many examples/ways to solve the problem and the people in those countries are working and eating and have a bed to sleep in and are living their lives.

If you want to talk about 'absolute MORONS when it comes to the economy' there are none more moronic than the current Repub group of misfits warming the seats in Congress.

Dix is rockin'. Canada and Australia and Britain and France and Norway and Sweden and Germany are Socialist Communist nations, not representative democracies.....

They don't insist... they are told what they will accept and how things will be, because they don't live in a representative democracy, they live in socialist communism. See, we're not a socialist totalitarian dictatorial regime, we are a Constitutional representative democracy, where the people have the ultimate political voice in what happens... those other countries, don't have that.... this is the difference, moron.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

France, Norway, Sweden, and Germany, pretty much ARE Socialist/Communist governments. Australia, Canada, and UK have all been implementing capitalist privatization into their disastrous government-run systems, because the state system is not working. Contrary to what ApplesauceBrains tells us, the people are not happy and content with government-run health care, else they wouldn't be suing the government and trying to legislate privatization.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

France, Norway, Sweden, and Germany, pretty much ARE Socialist/Communist governments. Australia, Canada, and UK have all been implementing capitalist privatization into their disastrous government-run systems, because the state system is not working. Contrary to what ApplesauceBrains tells us, the people are not happy and content with government-run health care, else they wouldn't be suing the government and trying to legislate privatization.

Interesting. All this time I thought they were parliamentary democracies with elected representatives who did what the electorate wanted.

Dix rox!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Interesting. All this time I thought they were parliamentary democracies with elected representatives who did what the electorate wanted.

That's the problem... you THOUGHT!

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

That's the problem... you THOUGHT!

Aren't you concerned for your $6.8 million in German assets? Those Socialist Communists might be plotting to get their Red hands on your Marks...er, Euros.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Aren't you concerned for your $6.8 million in German assets? Those Socialist Communists might be plotting to get their Red hands on your Marks...er, Euros.

Not worried about it, it's just money. I have plenty of capital right here in America, that's just my foreign nest egg. And you wouldn't believe how much money in taxes, transfer fees and processing fees I had to pay, just for them to hold my money. It wasn't quite as bad as the 36% the Socialists here want to bilk me for if I bring the money home, but it was still pretty onerous.

You know, it's amazing to me how much you are getting off on my rather small portfolio... as if that is "rich" to you... do you realize, $6.8 million is not a LOT of money by today's standards? Do you comprehend there are people who can blow $6.8 million and never even miss it? If I went to some wealthy get-together and everyone had to show what they were worth, they would laugh me out of the room with my $6.8 million. To RICH people, $6.8 million is NOT RICH! But to you, a simple-minded loser, it's more money than you can even fathom in your empty little pinhead.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Not worried about it, it's just money. I have plenty of capital right here in America, that's just my foreign nest egg. And you wouldn't believe how much money in taxes, transfer fees and processing fees I had to pay, just for them to hold my money. It wasn't quite as bad as the 36% the Socialists here want to bilk me for if I bring the money home, but it was still pretty onerous. You know, it's amazing to me how much you are getting off on my rather small portfolio... as if that is "rich" to you... do you realize, $6.8 million is not a LOT of money by today's standards? Do you comprehend there are people who can blow $6.8 million and never even miss it? If I went to some wealthy get-together and everyone had to show what they were worth, they would laugh me out of the room with my $6.8 million. To RICH people, $6.8 million is NOT RICH! But to you, a simple-minded loser, it's more money than you can even fathom in your empty little pinhead.

Sorry, Mr. Koch, I didn't recognize you in that Confederate uniform.

Dix rox!