Spend More, Tax the Rich Americans Say

[Polk]

Here is Laffer himself on the subject:
The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future

And here's the WSJ editorial page showing how the Bush tax cuts increased revenue.
Facts are not friends here:
How to Soak the Rich (the George Bush Way) - WSJ.com

You WSJ article states that Capital Gains revenues increased, which is true...

Capital Gains revenues increased because there were tens of Trillions of dollars worth of fake assets, in the form of Credit Default Swaps and Mortgage Backed Securities, on the market.

The reason why this happened during the Bush administration was not due to his lowering of the Capital Gains tax... but was in fact due to the legalizing of Credit Default Swaps in the infamous 2000 Commodities Futures Modernization Act.

SO mortgage backed securities are fake assets?
So much for your credibility, Goober.

In the manner they were sold, they absolutely were. Investors were told the securities had a much more stable value than they actually did.

 

[ihopehefails]

A rightist will refer to capital flight and the Laffer Curve as justifications against more steeply progressive taxation; a leftist will refer to diminishing marginal utility, as $10 is effectively worth more to a man with $100 than to a man with $1,000, to put it in simpler terms. I'd agree that the latter justification is more persuasive for various reasons.

Marginal utility is just a justification for higher taxes on the most productive.

Personally every dollar i earn is just as important as any other.

I just utilize it differently (better) than someone else would.

The most productive for who? Themselves?

Congradulations! You have just detected the great crime in all totalitarian societies which is individualism.

 

[The Rabbi]

You WSJ article states that Capital Gains revenues increased, which is true...

Capital Gains revenues increased because there were tens of Trillions of dollars worth of fake assets, in the form of Credit Default Swaps and Mortgage Backed Securities, on the market.

The reason why this happened during the Bush administration was not due to his lowering of the Capital Gains tax... but was in fact due to the legalizing of Credit Default Swaps in the infamous 2000 Commodities Futures Modernization Act.

SO mortgage backed securities are fake assets?
So much for your credibility, Goober.

In the manner they were sold, they absolutely were. Investors were told the securities had a much more stable value than they actually did.

That hardly makes them fake. Nor were they actually as bad as you make out. The assumptions turned out to be poor, in some cases willfully in some cases not so.

 

[DiamondDave]

We should just have a vote on whether we should tax the rich more

Democracy in action

Tyranny of the masses supported by the left wing yet again... not to mention the support of situational or selective equality

It's why we're a republic and not a democracy

 

[rightwinger]

We should just have a vote on whether we should tax the rich more

Democracy in action

Tyranny of the masses supported by the left wing yet again... not to mention the support of situational or selective equality

It's why we're a republic and not a democracy

Socialist Dave opposes giving "We the People" the right to decide.

If we can vote on whether gays can marry we should be able to vote on whether rich people should pay more in taxes.

 

[DiamondDave]

We should just have a vote on whether we should tax the rich more

Democracy in action

Tyranny of the masses supported by the left wing yet again... not to mention the support of situational or selective equality

It's why we're a republic and not a democracy

Socialist Dave opposes giving "We the People" the right to decide.

If we can vote on whether gays can marry we should be able to vote on whether rich people should pay more in taxes.

No... we do not have direct vote on everything.. that would be indeed tyranny of the masses.. and our founding fathers knew this fact, which is why we were set up as a representative republic, you left wing fucktard

And as stated.. you support selective and situational equality, only when it benefits you or the voting base you wish to keep control of with entitlements and handouts

 

[Ravi]

We should just have a vote on whether we should tax the rich more

Democracy in action

Tyranny of the masses supported by the left wing yet again... not to mention the support of situational or selective equality

It's why we're a republic and not a democracy

Socialist Dave opposes giving "We the People" the right to decide.

If we can vote on whether gays can marry we should be able to vote on whether rich people should pay more in taxes.

We shouldn't be able to vote for either, but I have no doubt in my mind that the righties don't see it that way. They are all okay with voting on gay marriage.

 

[xsited1]

We should just have a vote on whether we should tax the rich more

Democracy in action

That's why Democracy is also called 'Mob Rule'. You want the US to become a Ochlocracy.

 

[DiamondDave]

Tyranny of the masses supported by the left wing yet again... not to mention the support of situational or selective equality

It's why we're a republic and not a democracy

Socialist Dave opposes giving "We the People" the right to decide.

If we can vote on whether gays can marry we should be able to vote on whether rich people should pay more in taxes.

We shouldn't be able to vote for either, but I have no doubt in my mind that the righties don't see it that way. They are all okay with voting on gay marriage.

No.. I don't think it should be put to a popular vote for gay "marriage" either

Personally I believe that government should get out of the marriage business and stop trying to pander to a special interest group with an agenda, as the "gay marriage" movement is... I fully believe the government should only be in the business of recognizing a family unit for the purposes of taxation, power of attorney rights, inheritance rights, etc... and deem married couples and gay couples only as civil or domiciled unions for those purposes.. ensuring that each coupling or family unit has those same inherent LEGAL rights.. and that should be taken care of by the process of law and legislation, not by popular vote

 

[Charles Stucker]

We can add ignorance of the Laffer Curve to your other sins.
I believe the Laffer Curve postulated that the ideal tax rate was about 36% of GDP. So that means that total taxation, federal, state, property etc, cannot exceed 36% without causing damage to the economy. And we are well beyond that figure now.

Actually you are completely wrong here. Not about the Laffer Curve, but about taxes.

Total tax Revenue, last I checked was about 28% of GDP:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/27/41498733.pdf

Unless you have some information that I am unaware of.

That would be 8% lower than your ideal position on the Laffer Curve.

And of course, the Laffer Curve also clearly states that moving BELOW the ideal position is also bad for revenue, doesn't it?

Does your data include State and Local taxes? I checked the link and it did not say.
If state and local taxes more than 8% of the GDP to that number then WOW revenues could increase by lowering taxes.

Truthfully I would prefer for the federal government to starve for lack of money. Just because they CAN increase revenues does not mean they SHOULD

 

[DiamondDave]

Little rightwinger got blown out of the water and has disappeared again... LOL

 

[rightwinger]

Tyranny of the masses supported by the left wing yet again... not to mention the support of situational or selective equality

It's why we're a republic and not a democracy

Socialist Dave opposes giving "We the People" the right to decide.

If we can vote on whether gays can marry we should be able to vote on whether rich people should pay more in taxes.

We shouldn't be able to vote for either, but I have no doubt in my mind that the righties don't see it that way. They are all okay with voting on gay marriage.

You seem to get it..

The right wing wants to be able to vote in each state whether gays should marry...majority rules

However, if you were to vote on whether the rich should have to pay additional taxes...they wrap themselves in the Constitution

 

[Oldandtired]

Tyranny of the masses supported by the left wing yet again... not to mention the support of situational or selective equality

It's why we're a republic and not a democracy

Socialist Dave opposes giving "We the People" the right to decide.

If we can vote on whether gays can marry we should be able to vote on whether rich people should pay more in taxes.

We shouldn't be able to vote for either, but I have no doubt in my mind that the righties don't see it that way. They are all okay with voting on gay marriage.

And what happened in California after the vote?
Oh yeah...the left protested the results of the vote saying it was unfair to have the voteand lose.

I, for one, could give a crap if gays can marry legally. This is America....freedom....liberty. Same with abortion....go for it if you want. I will still have you as my frined...but I will never offer you my blessing to have one.

 

[rightwinger]

Socialist Dave opposes giving "We the People" the right to decide.

If we can vote on whether gays can marry we should be able to vote on whether rich people should pay more in taxes.

We shouldn't be able to vote for either, but I have no doubt in my mind that the righties don't see it that way. They are all okay with voting on gay marriage.

And what happened in California after the vote?
Oh yeah...the left protested the results of the vote saying it was unfair to have the voteand lose.

I, for one, could give a crap if gays can marry legally. This is America....freedom....liberty. Same with abortion....go for it if you want. I will still have you as my frined...but I will never offer you my blessing to have one.

So, Oldandtired says we should vote on whether to tax the rich more

Any other votes?

 

[Oldandtired]

Socialist Dave opposes giving "We the People" the right to decide.

If we can vote on whether gays can marry we should be able to vote on whether rich people should pay more in taxes.

We shouldn't be able to vote for either, but I have no doubt in my mind that the righties don't see it that way. They are all okay with voting on gay marriage.

You seem to get it..

The right wing wants to be able to vote in each state whether gays should marry...majority rules

However, if you were to vote on whether the rich should have to pay additional taxes...they wrap themselves in the Constitution

Are you so partisan that you truly can not see the difference?

One is a vote on whether or not someone is allowed to do something.

The other is a vote on whether the government is allowed to do something to OTHER people.

 

[Oldandtired]

We shouldn't be able to vote for either, but I have no doubt in my mind that the righties don't see it that way. They are all okay with voting on gay marriage.

And what happened in California after the vote?
Oh yeah...the left protested the results of the vote saying it was unfair to have the voteand lose.

I, for one, could give a crap if gays can marry legally. This is America....freedom....liberty. Same with abortion....go for it if you want. I will still have you as my frined...but I will never offer you my blessing to have one.

So, Oldandtired says we should vote on whether to tax the rich more

Any other votes?

Now I see your problem RWer.....you have reading comprehension iussues.

 

[rightwinger]

We shouldn't be able to vote for either, but I have no doubt in my mind that the righties don't see it that way. They are all okay with voting on gay marriage.

You seem to get it..

The right wing wants to be able to vote in each state whether gays should marry...majority rules

However, if you were to vote on whether the rich should have to pay additional taxes...they wrap themselves in the Constitution

Are you so partisan that you truly can not see the difference?

One is a vote on whether or not someone is allowed to do something.

The other is a vote on whether the government is allowed to do something to OTHER people.

Both involve a majority inflicting conditions on a minority

 

[Oldandtired]

You seem to get it..

The right wing wants to be able to vote in each state whether gays should marry...majority rules

However, if you were to vote on whether the rich should have to pay additional taxes...they wrap themselves in the Constitution

Are you so partisan that you truly can not see the difference?

One is a vote on whether or not someone is allowed to do something.

The other is a vote on whether the government is allowed to do something to OTHER people.

Both involve a majority inflicting conditions on a minority

They have many similarities....what does that have to do with anything?

This has to do with why one is DIFFERENT than the other.

One is a vote on whether or not someone is allowed to do something.

The other is a vote on whether the government is allowed to do something to OTHER people

 

[Polk]

For those wanting to crow about state and local taxes, most of that revenue comes from sales taxes, which represent a much higher proportion of the income of the poor than of the wealthy.

 

[DiamondDave]

For those wanting to crow about state and local taxes, most of that revenue comes from sales taxes, which represent a much higher proportion of the income of the poor than of the wealthy.

And that is an issue on individual spending. There is nothing that dictates that the spending of the 'rich' has to be less of a proportion, if those 'rich' persons do in fact spend the same or more of the monies they earn.