Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No it is not. JFK lowered the top marginal rate from 91% to 70% and revenue increased dramatically.
Taxes take away from Economic Activity. More Activity means more tax Revenue, even at lower rates.
You clearly do not understand this issue at all.
Charles
There is absolutely no evidence that a broad based cut in income taxes raises revenues. .
No it is not. JFK lowered the top marginal rate from 91% to 70% and revenue increased dramatically.
Taxes take away from Economic Activity. More Activity means more tax Revenue, even at lower rates.
You clearly do not understand this issue at all.
Well, if that was the case then why did the deficit start to really increase after Reagan's major tax cuts? It's not a coincidence that the national deficit has only gone up since that time.
I understand your point but people are going to pocket the extra money they make. They're not going to re-invest it. That's the problem with that theory.
And when I inherited some of it, THEY TAXED IT AGAIN as income.
For a person dying during 2006, 2007, or 2008, the "applicable exclusion amount" is $2,000,000, so if the sum of the taxable estate plus the "adjusted taxable gifts" made during lifetime equals $2,000,000 or less, there is no federal estate tax to pay. According to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the applicable exclusion will increase to $3,500,000 in 2009, the estate tax is repealed in 2010, but then the act "sunsets" in 2011 and the estate tax reappears with an applicable exclusion amount of only $1,000,000 (unless Congress acts before then).
Charles
There is absolutely no evidence that a broad based cut in income taxes raises revenues. .
I seem to recall clearly that I said cutting the RIGHT taxes can lead to more revenue. I never said a broad based cut will.
This is why Socialist/Progressive Wingnuts cannot be trusted on economic issues. Most of them have never actually run a business themselves. Most in this current Administration are career politicians & academics who know absolutely nothing about running businesses. They can recite word for word all of Mao Tse Tung's rantings but can't put a proper budget together. They are lost. It is time for real change. Lets hope this starts happening this November.
)Because in that case. We increased spending even more than the added revenues from the cut.
All you have to do is go look at the revenue VS spending numbers to see that.
Bush for example tried to cut taxes, while massively increasing spending. Which we all know was a disaster. His cuts did indeed lead to higher revenue. The highest in history actually. He simply SPENT IT ALL and then some.
We need to cut taxes and Spending. IMO.
Because in that case. We increased spending even more than the added revenues from the cut.
All you have to do is go look at the revenue VS spending numbers to see that.
Bush for example tried to cut taxes, while massively increasing spending. Which we all know was a disaster. His cuts did indeed lead to higher revenue. The highest in history actually. He simply SPENT IT ALL and then some.
We need to cut taxes and Spending. IMO.
Bush was reckless. If you're going to cut taxes then you better damn well be ready to cut spending as well. Instead he cut taxes and started 2 wars which amounted to a huge deficit.
I'm all for fiscal conservatism but there are just some things that you can't cut out of the budget. Bill Clinton ran a surplus for the last 2 years of his presidency. I don't see why that can't happen again.
Tax-Cuts do not have to be paid for. The Socialists/Progressives always use this B.S. spin when they want to f*ck the people over again.
Because in that case. We increased spending even more than the added revenues from the cut.
All you have to do is go look at the revenue VS spending numbers to see that.
Bush for example tried to cut taxes, while massively increasing spending. Which we all know was a disaster. His cuts did indeed lead to higher revenue. The highest in history actually. He simply SPENT IT ALL and then some.
We need to cut taxes and Spending. IMO.
Bush was reckless. If you're going to cut taxes then you better damn well be ready to cut spending as well. Instead he cut taxes and started 2 wars which amounted to a huge deficit.
I'm all for fiscal conservatism but there are just some things that you can't cut out of the budget. Bill Clinton ran a surplus for the last 2 years of his presidency. I don't see why that can't happen again.
Well it can happen again. However I would point out that a republican congress had a hand in those 2 years of surplus.
"Heres what conservative politicians said about the 1993 deficit reduction legislationhttp://www.kellysite.net/taxes.html that raised taxes on the top 1.2% of our wealthiest citizens:
"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating." Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)
"The tax increase will lead to a recession and will actually increase the deficit." Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)
"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up." Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)
"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower." Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)
"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction." Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)
I would also point out that the other major contributing factor to those surpluses was unprecedented Growth of the economy. When the tech bubble burst so did the revenue and boom no more surpluses.
"As economist James Galbraith, professor of public affairs and government at the University of Texas in Austin and no fan of Bush's economic policy, puts it, "He certainly depresses me, but it's hard for me to actually believe that the American public is paying attention to what he says."
Explain how the wars cost us less then the Porkulus bill alone did and yet you feel you have the right to complain about all of the spending that took place during the Bush years.
The figures used to make that comparison counted the 300 billion in tax cuts/credits in the stimulus bill as a COST,
because of lost revenues. So if you want to count tax cuts/credits there as a COST, you have a point, but then those who say the extension of the Bush tax cuts/credits are a COST that is not paid for are also correct.
That would refute the premise of the OP.
So if my original post is wrong how am I right?
Trickle Up Poverty. That's all the Hopey Changey Socialists/Progressives have brought to our nation. More Americans now live in poverty than has ever been recorded in the 50yrs of record-keeping. They just keep dragging us closer & closer to Third World Misery. Hopefully it will be a "Correction Election" coming in November. It is time for real change.
Trickle Up Poverty. That's all the Hopey Changey Socialists/Progressives have brought to our nation. More Americans now live in poverty than has ever been recorded in the 50yrs of record-keeping. They just keep dragging us closer & closer to Third World Misery. Hopefully it will be a "Correction Election" coming in November. It is time for real change.
What's that? Proof that the Bush Tax Cuts didn't work? We're in the 8th and 6th years of Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, with consequent massive deficits,
and more people than ever are poor?
Was that Bush's plan? I don't remember Bush ever saying that was his plan...
...to cut taxes and run up the national debt in order to set poverty records.
Anyone remember Bush promising that ? lol
The current number of Americans living in poverty is at its highest level in the 50yrs of record keeping. This has happened under your Hopey Changey's watch. You can go ahead and try to blame others but it is what it is. Trickle Up Poverty is happening. You Hopey Changey Socialists/Progressives are the cause of this. Hopefully there will be a "Correction Election" in November. You guys gots to go. Nuff said.
The current number of Americans living in poverty is at its highest level in the 50yrs of record keeping. This has happened under your Hopey Changey's watch. You can go ahead and try to blame others but it is what it is. Trickle Up Poverty is happening. You Hopey Changey Socialists/Progressives are the cause of this. Hopefully there will be a "Correction Election" in November. You guys gots to go. Nuff said.
Do you have any facts to support your argument rather then a ramble on paragraph of unsubstantiated facts? If you're going to say the democrats caused this then prove they did.
Many economists have said and proven that trickle down economics doesn't work and I'd take their word over you. Hell, the country seemed to prosper under Clinton and his so called "evil economic policies."
The figures used to make that comparison counted the 300 billion in tax cuts/credits in the stimulus bill as a COST,
because of lost revenues. So if you want to count tax cuts/credits there as a COST, you have a point, but then those who say the extension of the Bush tax cuts/credits are a COST that is not paid for are also correct.
That would refute the premise of the OP.
So if my original post is wrong how am I right?
You're not right. You want to count the Obama stimulus tax cuts as a cost, but you don't want to count the Bush tax cuts as a cost.
Clinton had a Republican Congress that forced him to balance the budget. Hopefully we'll have this same scenario after the November elections. My prediction is that if the Republicans take control of Congress,things will begin to get better for America. This all hinges on the Republicans regaining control of our Congress though. If that doesn't happen then all bets are off.
