Teh reagan is not happy

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


tax savings. Isn't that what we're talking about?

Pray tell when did the government own all income streams such that tax savings counts as payments back to the citizenry.

Last I heard thats simply the government skimming off legitimate generators of income not the other way around.

[DanS]

2nd term presidents always get hammered, especially from their "friends." Both Reagan and Clinton got little done in their 2nd terms. I expect Bush 43 to be no different.

Here's a little exercise: who was the last president not to have a tough 2nd term?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
2nd term presidents always get hammered, especially from their "friends." Both Reagan and Clinton got little done in their 2nd terms. I expect Bush 43 to be no different.

Here's a little exercise: who was the last president not to have a tough 2nd term?

When was the last President to control both houses of Congress in his second term?

[Ninot]

Originally posted by DanS
Here's a little exercise: who was the last president not to have a tough 2nd term?

Just taking a stab, but, Eisenhower?

[Ted Striker]

Many in the Reagan administration are coming out saying Bush is an idiot

[Lawrence of Arabia]

the republicans control EVERYTHING in the US government, and they stillo cant get anything done. that smacks of incompetance.

in fact, i cannot think of a single law bush has changed or accepted domestically since getting reelected.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DanS
2nd term presidents always get hammered, especially from their "friends." Both Reagan and Clinton got little done in their 2nd terms. I expect Bush 43 to be no different.

Here's a little exercise: who was the last president not to have a tough 2nd term?

These 2 time periods were some of the most prosperous and peaceful times in the history of our nation

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Again who gives a flip regarding tax rates per level. The real thing is dollars paid to the system. In that measure the bottom 50% have been paying less than ever and the top money earners are paying more dollars than ever. Case closed.

So if I lost employment and payed nothing in taxes I should be taxed more, eh?

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Don't be an idiot of course being poor sux, cost of living increases make it extremely difficult. That, however, doesn't negate the fact that the poor are paying far less than they ever did before in taxes and much less on a percentage basiss than any other group which by the way was the crux of your statements that the burden of taxation has been shifted to the unfortunate, clearly a falsehood.

Its because they are poorer than ever before.

JM

[Sikander]

1) I agree with the sentiments expressed in the article in the OP.

2) Rarely have I seen such a flurry of self-congratulatory bullsh!t with so little to recommend it. None of you guys have laid a glove on Ogie's point. All in all a pathetic showing by the economically challenged.

Tax revenues are generated by multiplying the tax rate by taxable income. If either taxable income or tax rate increase, so do revenues. By increasing taxable incomes we can decrease tax rates by the same percentage and retain the same tax revenue. If the government is feeling generous it can even split the difference so that individuals pay lower tax rates while the government actually increases tax revenues. This is what actually happened during the Reagan administration. Economics is not a zero sum game.

Taxation alters the economic equation at much lower rates than the 80% that Kid claims. What happens is that people act differently when they have to pay what they consider exhorbitant taxes and seek to avoid them with tax shelters of various sorts, including investing money overseas somewhere where the tax burdens are less egregious.

Another thing that happens is that people who would invest at a certain rate of return are far less likely to do so if that rate of return is subject to a high tax rate that effectively lowers that rate of return significantly. This disincentive to investment makes it harder for people to borrow money to start or improve businesses, buy houses or get an education, which in turn all effect the economy negatively, which in the end also depresses tax revenues.

This leaves the government in a ticklish situation. Their options are to increase the already high tax rates and paint themselves further into a corner, borrow money which effectively does the same thing but a bit later, or to reverse policy course by having the balls to do the counter-intuitive thing and stimulating growth by lowering the tax rate.

It is unquestioned by any serious person that taxes can be so high as to be absolutely destuctive to the economy. The art in setting tax policy is to find the level at which one can grow the economic base at as great a rate as is prudently possible. Finding the right balance is an extremely complex problem which involves factors that are impossible to quantify. There is no magic constant to figure it all out. Yet even someone with Reagan's IQ managed to figure out a tax cut that increased revenues immediately while decreasing rates at every income level and he even managed to implement it without controlling the congress. The fact that so many of you can't see what he achieved despite the fact that you are doing so in hindsight with solid data rather than projections is worrisome.

[Provost Harrison]

Sava: You pwn

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Ohhh puhlease, you have no idea what the tax implications are for new business owners and whether their businesses go belly up or not. The purpose is to encourage small business ventures in any and all regards.

Those tax levels at the top do not apply to those who have small businesses who are earning nowhere near that amount. If they fall into that bracket, they have succeeded...and can afford to pay that level of tax. Live with it.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Sikander
1) I agree with the sentiments expressed in the article in the OP.

2) Rarely have I seen such a flurry of self-congratulatory bullsh!t with so little to recommend it. None of you guys have laid a glove on Ogie's point. All in all a pathetic showing by the economically challenged.

Tax revenues are generated by multiplying the tax rate by taxable income. If either taxable income or tax rate increase, so do revenues. By increasing taxable incomes we can decrease tax rates by the same percentage and retain the same tax revenue. If the government is feeling generous it can even split the difference so that individuals pay lower tax rates while the government actually increases tax revenues. This is what actually happened during the Reagan administration. Economics is not a zero sum game.

Taxation alters the economic equation at much lower rates than the 80% that Kid claims. What happens is that people act differently when they have to pay what they consider exhorbitant taxes and seek to avoid them with tax shelters of various sorts, including investing money overseas somewhere where the tax burdens are less egregious.

Another thing that happens is that people who would invest at a certain rate of return are far less likely to do so if that rate of return is subject to a high tax rate that effectively lowers that rate of return significantly. This disincentive to investment makes it harder for people to borrow money to start or improve businesses, buy houses or get an education, which in turn all effect the economy negatively, which in the end also depresses tax revenues.

This leaves the government in a ticklish situation. Their options are to increase the already high tax rates and paint themselves further into a corner, borrow money which effectively does the same thing but a bit later, or to reverse policy course by having the balls to do the counter-intuitive thing and stimulating growth by lowering the tax rate.

It is unquestioned by any serious person that taxes can be so high as to be absolutely destuctive to the economy. The art in setting tax policy is to find the level at which one can grow the economic base at as great a rate as is prudently possible. Finding the right balance is an extremely complex problem which involves factors that are impossible to quantify. There is no magic constant to figure it all out. Yet even someone with Reagan's IQ managed to figure out a tax cut that increased revenues immediately while decreasing rates at every income level and he even managed to implement it without controlling the congress. The fact that so many of you can't see what he achieved despite the fact that you are doing so in hindsight with solid data rather than projections is worrisome.

The point is that the tax break isn't being given to the struggling first time starter, it's been given to the already successful who can afford to pay a higher rate of tax...

[Agathon]

The right wing whackjobs strike again.

If you want to lower taxes, cut your ridiculous "defence" budget in half for a start.

Tax just represents that portion of our income that we spend collectively rather than individually, because sometimes collective spending is more efficient than individual spending.

Whining that taxes are too high without looking at what you would have to forgo because of tax cuts is just dumb. And don't give me that garbage about tax cuts promoting growth... growth is not what matters... efficiency is.

Jesus ****gin Christ... Republicans just need to be euthanized. Dumb as a bag of hammers... the lot of you...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison

The point is that the tax break isn't being given to the struggling first time starter, it's been given to the already successful who can afford to pay a higher rate of tax...

1) Everyone got a tax break, and no one moreso than the poor.

2) In order to free up money for investment by cutting taxes you have to actually impact tax rates where investment money lives, largely in the wealthiest half of the population. Almost everyone benefits from the larger pool of investment capital, but no one moreso than an upwardly mobile person of limited initial means. They can borrow for education, to buy a home, to start a business. When there is no investment funding available only those who already have money can afford these advantages.

Eliminating income taxes entirely on the poor would give them a very marginal benefit (they don't pay a very high percentage of their income to begin with) with a corresponding marginal impact on tax revenues. There would be a small increase in economic activity due to the slightly higher level of spending by the poor. The main reason that the government hasn't already simply eliminated the (negligible) taxes the poor pay is that it is felt there is a social advantage to having everyone feel themselves a stakeholder in our society.