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.
It's ONLY record in right wing 'reality'. Dubya took US to Korean war levels of revenues, 15% , yes Obama got US near where Reagan's tax cuts for the rich took US, but 17%+ isn't where Carter had US or Clinton (20%) when he had 4 surpluses. Economists measure it GDP
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
It's ONLY record in right wing 'reality'.
We don't spend percentages of GDP, we spend dollars.
Obama now has record dollar revenues, why can't he balance the budget?
Or am I a racist for asking?
Got it, not only dishonest stupid too. Ever hear of inflation and population growth?
Not even near Ronnie's revenues 18% of GDP when he tripled US debt, that's why economists measure it GDP...
No, I'm sure you are a racists but has nothing to do with your asking..
So the LIBERTARIAN ECONOMIST is wrong? lol
But a National Bureau study by Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act shows that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10% or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible. Not only that; the Tax Reform Act, these authors reckoned, would lower savings and investment overall because of the huge increases in taxes on business and on capital gains. Moreover savings were also hurt by the tax law's removal of tax deductibility on contributions to IRAs.
https://mises.org/daily/1544
So the LIBERTARIAN ECONOMIST is wrong?
Yeah, he's a nutbag, like Krugman.
of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts
Majority? That sounds like more than the top 1%. Thanks!!!
would lower savings and investment overall because of the huge increases in taxes on business and on capital gains.
Lowered savings and investment are bad. I agree, we need to cut business taxes and capital gains taxes, right now!!!! Thanks again.
ONCE MORE
" Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act shows that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10% or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible"
What policies did he want 2001-2005 he didn't get?
Social Security privatization was a big one. I'm sure I could come up with more if I cared.
Good thing, can you imagine IF it had passed prior to Dubya's great recession?
ONCE MORE
"What policies did he want 2001-2005 he didn't get?"
March 4, 2005
The president offers some key details on reforms he is pushing, but still leaves some big questions
Bush's plan for Social Security - Mar. 4, 2005
NOW GIVE ME THE BILLS THAT WERE BLOCKED IN THE GOP CONGRESS? Oops
NOPE. Try again
https://mises.org/daily/1544
And despite right wingers 'belief' (that's ALL they EVER have), unemployment went UP (greatly) the exact opposite of their premise for tax cuts!
The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.
The tax cuts didn't cut taxes because of bracket creep? That's hilarious.
If Reagan hadn't cut income taxes, would bracket creep have been prevented? No.
The tax cuts didn't cut taxes because Social Security is a crappy system and payroll taxes had to increase? Even funnier.
If Reagan hadn't cut income taxes, would Social Security have been less crappy? No.
Would payroll tax hikes have somehow been avoided? No.
Keep referencing that nutbag, he's very helpful to your claims. LOL!
Good you agree, taxes were cut on the 'job creators' not much with everyone else
Thank God he didn't get Social Security privatized. The crash at the end of his term would have wiped out many.
How would putting say 20% of your annual payroll taxes into the market for 2 or 3 years before the crash have wiped out anyone?
I wish 100% of my payroll taxes were invested in the market since I entered the workforce, I'd be able to retire today.
You may not have noticed, but the market has come back. It usually does.
The market is bullshit, it's Vegas East. Don't remember the market pre Reagan spiking it huh?
I always find the claim that people who put their retirement assets into the market and then are unlucky enough to retire just before or during a downturn lose everything. As if they are going to retire today, and sell everything tomorrow? That is so funny! What is the length of time it takes for the market to recover after even the worst downturns? A year, year and a half at the most.
Recovering losses from a market downturn - Individual Investing Education | Russell Investments
Even if you retire the day before the market collapses unless you chicken out and sell everything the very next day, you are going to survive the downturn.
I, too, wish I could have invested my tax dollars into the market. Hell, just my Social Security taxes would make me happy.
What is the length of time it takes for the market to recover after even the worst downturns?
Well, after the Great Depression, it took until 1954 for the Dow to reach its previous level.
It was much quicker, if you reinvested dividends.
After peaking in 1966, it took the market until 1982 to reach its previous level.
I wouldn't trust the guy who said it has to come back quicker.
That being said, investing your payroll taxes over a 40 year period would give you several times the benefits compared to the government run system we have now.
" That being said, investing your payroll taxes over a 40 year period would give you several times the benefits compared to the government run system we have now. "
Insurance via Fed Gov't or gamble Vegas East? Weird how conservatives forget WHY we created SS...
Economists measure GDP in actual dollars and in inflation dollars. The left wing extremists try to skew the issue as a % of GDP. It takes actual dollars to stimulate the economy and depending on the business cycle a supply side tax cut (like JFK did) or a demand side like Bush gave us will work. It is obvious you are economics challenged from the word go.It's ONLY record in right wing 'reality'. Dubya took US to Korean war levels of revenues, 15% , yes Obama got US near where Reagan's tax cuts for the rich took US, but 17%+ isn't where Carter had US or Clinton (20%) when he had 4 surpluses. Economists measure it GDP
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
It's ONLY record in right wing 'reality'.
We don't spend percentages of GDP, we spend dollars.
Obama now has record dollar revenues, why can't he balance the budget?
Or am I a racist for asking?
Got it, not only dishonest stupid too. Ever hear of inflation and population growth?
Not even near Ronnie's revenues 18% of GDP when he tripled US debt, that's why economists measure it GDP...
No, I'm sure you are a racists but has nothing to do with your asking..
It is obvious you don't understand ANY PART OF THE ISSUE. Deficits are annual shortfalls of revenues to meet spending. All deficits become part of the national debt. The national debt cannot go up at the end of any fiscal year in which there is a surplus. As much as I liked Clinton, as he was a great fiscal president, THERE WAS NOT MORE REVENUE IN ANY YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT THAN EXPENDITURES as witnessed by the fact that the debt increased every year he was president. In fact, there has not been a surplus since Eisenhower.Got it you are to dumb to get the difference in a yearly budget versus debt
YEARLY BUDGET IS MONEY COMING IN THAT YEAR VERSUS EXPENSES GOING OUT THAT YEAR. NOTHING MORE..,.
Zero to do with debt...
In 2001, the CBO projected that the total Clinton surplus of about $280 billion would balloon to $5.9 trillion worth of cumulative surpluses through 2011, when in reality the accumulated deficits reached $6 trillion at the end of that time period.
That's pretty bad arithmetic. So what happened?
The U.S. Treasury Department recently tweeted this chart, which breaks down the major drivers that turned a small surplus into a massive deficit:
Tthis chart also hits the nail on the head when it comes to identifying the major deficit drivers:
An extremely large tax cut that failed to pay for itself, two wars on the nation's credit card, an unfunded expansion of an entitlement program, and general overspending turned what could've been a cushy surplus into a huge deficit.
How Clinton Surplus Became A $6T Deficit - Business Insider
. It takes actual dollars to stimulate the economy and depending on the business cycle a supply side tax cut (like JFK did) or a demand side like Bush gave us will work.
I still remember when Joe The Plumber asked Obama about his plans to spread the wealth and the media denied it vehemently and Obama supporters tried to destroy his life because he asked a question that exposed Obama's Socialism.
Times sure have changed, huh?
It's ONLY record in right wing 'reality'.
We don't spend percentages of GDP, we spend dollars.
Obama now has record dollar revenues, why can't he balance the budget?
Or am I a racist for asking?
Got it, not only dishonest stupid too. Ever hear of inflation and population growth?
Not even near Ronnie's revenues 18% of GDP when he tripled US debt, that's why economists measure it GDP...
No, I'm sure you are a racists but has nothing to do with your asking..
Ever hear of inflation and population growth?
Obama would have a balanced budget if it weren't for inflation and population growth? LOL!
You guys always have an excuse for his failures. Maybe he's just a bad president?
How about rephrasing the question to "where is the morality in a small percent controlling a large percent of the wealth??
So the LIBERTARIAN ECONOMIST is wrong?
Yeah, he's a nutbag, like Krugman.
of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts
Majority? That sounds like more than the top 1%. Thanks!!!
would lower savings and investment overall because of the huge increases in taxes on business and on capital gains.
Lowered savings and investment are bad. I agree, we need to cut business taxes and capital gains taxes, right now!!!! Thanks again.
ONCE MORE
" Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act shows that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10% or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible"
of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts
Yes, majority, over 50%.
Thanks for disproving your claim.
Social Security privatization was a big one. I'm sure I could come up with more if I cared.
Good thing, can you imagine IF it had passed prior to Dubya's great recession?
ONCE MORE
"What policies did he want 2001-2005 he didn't get?"
March 4, 2005
The president offers some key details on reforms he is pushing, but still leaves some big questions
Bush's plan for Social Security - Mar. 4, 2005
NOW GIVE ME THE BILLS THAT WERE BLOCKED IN THE GOP CONGRESS? Oops
Good thing, can you imagine IF it had passed prior to Dubya's great recession?
I can imagine. I love buying stocks when they're on sale.
Imagine if everyone had their own private account over the last 40 years.
They'd have triple the benefit, a huge chunk of money to pass onto their heirs and the assholes in Washington would have less power.
Sounds like that would be a huge win for everyone.
The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.
The tax cuts didn't cut taxes because of bracket creep? That's hilarious.
If Reagan hadn't cut income taxes, would bracket creep have been prevented? No.
The tax cuts didn't cut taxes because Social Security is a crappy system and payroll taxes had to increase? Even funnier.
If Reagan hadn't cut income taxes, would Social Security have been less crappy? No.
Would payroll tax hikes have somehow been avoided? No.
Keep referencing that nutbag, he's very helpful to your claims. LOL!
Good you agree, taxes were cut on the 'job creators' not much with everyone else
I agree, anyone who thinks Reagan only cut taxes on the top 1% is a moron.
How would putting say 20% of your annual payroll taxes into the market for 2 or 3 years before the crash have wiped out anyone?
I wish 100% of my payroll taxes were invested in the market since I entered the workforce, I'd be able to retire today.
You may not have noticed, but the market has come back. It usually does.
The market is bullshit, it's Vegas East. Don't remember the market pre Reagan spiking it huh?
Keep your money out of the market.
I'm sure Social Security will give you enough to retire on.
What could go wrong?
What is the length of time it takes for the market to recover after even the worst downturns?
Well, after the Great Depression, it took until 1954 for the Dow to reach its previous level.
It was much quicker, if you reinvested dividends.
After peaking in 1966, it took the market until 1982 to reach its previous level.
I wouldn't trust the guy who said it has to come back quicker.
That being said, investing your payroll taxes over a 40 year period would give you several times the benefits compared to the government run system we have now.
" That being said, investing your payroll taxes over a 40 year period would give you several times the benefits compared to the government run system we have now. "
Insurance via Fed Gov't or gamble Vegas East? Weird how conservatives forget WHY we created SS...
You're right, future politicians will never cut your benefits.
Just ask the Greeks.
I'll never forget that liberals are so stupid, they think Social Security is a good investment.
Economists measure GDP in actual dollars and in inflation dollars. The left wing extremists try to skew the issue as a % of GDP. It takes actual dollars to stimulate the economy and depending on the business cycle a supply side tax cut (like JFK did) or a demand side like Bush gave us will work. It is obvious you are economics challenged from the word go.It's ONLY record in right wing 'reality'.
We don't spend percentages of GDP, we spend dollars.
Obama now has record dollar revenues, why can't he balance the budget?
Or am I a racist for asking?
Got it, not only dishonest stupid too. Ever hear of inflation and population growth?
Not even near Ronnie's revenues 18% of GDP when he tripled US debt, that's why economists measure it GDP...
No, I'm sure you are a racists but has nothing to do with your asking..
