Teh reagan is not happy

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Sikander


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

And what was the relative amount of money reclaimed by each of these subsets? The fact is, in a system of progressive taxation, the rich should bear a heavier burden as a proportion of income. A supertax on the extremely rich will make nigh on no difference to their lifestyle, and would probably partially help to kerb inflation. And besides, how can you afford tax breaks, especially for the rich who have the larger proportion of the wealth, when the US administration is running at such a deficit? It's poor economics for political expediency...and at the end of the day, the US taxpayer is going to have to foot the bill. And I think I know which part of the income band will foot the heavier burden when it comes to a proportion of their essential income.

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.

Hmmm, perhaps rather than come out with the sticking plaster solution, you should address the issue of the huge disparity in your society...it seems that only the wealthier families can afford to educate their children, and thus the poverty trap is perpetuated.

And besides, more consumer expenditure alone will just result in higher inflation. A more progressive tax system is what is needed...

[Sandman]

Only in America is cutting taxes for the very wealthy considered a 'helping hand' for the poor. I suppose the rich will employ more servants and give more to charity as well.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sikander


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.

What is the point in cutting taxes to encourage investment if it leads to less investment in the things that the taxes are used to pay for. Tax money is not thrown away, it is used to pay for and invest in things that the market cannot provide.

Your whole post betrays such a stark ignorance of modern economics that it's past funny.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Many in the Reagan administration are coming out saying Bush is an idiot

Master of the obvious pointing out the OP.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Agathon


What is the point in cutting taxes to encourage investment if it leads to less investment in the things that the taxes are used to pay for. Tax money is not thrown away, it is used to pay for and invest in things that the market cannot provide.

Your whole post betrays such a stark ignorance of modern economics that it's past funny.

Yawn!! I'll not dabble into the arcana of whether supply side is better or demand side stimulus is better. The crux is simply this, eliminating all income taxes on the lowest 50% only pumps a whopping 26 billion (whooopee!!!!) back into the private enterprise, whilst if one only reduces the taxes on the top 1% by a mere 10% you get the same net 26 billion pumped back into the economy. If you give that same mere 10% break to the top 50% you get a 3 fold effect (72 billion going back to private business)

Face it with that kind of free money back into the private sphere whether you wish to funnel it into investment or demand (I could care less) it makes a LOT more sense to improve the economy by freeing up that kind of cha-ching then expecting a mere pitance in the form of eliminating all icopme taxes on the lower 50%.. The only compelling arguement is one of compassion which to my mind has been evidenced by the fact that they have had the largest reductions in taxes actually paid out of pocket. (to the tune of a 50%+ reduction in actual taxable rate)

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by 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.

Care to define these circumstances? Its all about the velocity of money. Taxation radically reduces the velocity and amount of transactions that occur.

As for cutting the budget (a point to which I happen to agree but for reasons other than yours), that simply goes against your same arguement. If collective spending helps why should the government cut defense spending as presumably that creates jobs etc.

Teh obvious answer is in your mind that it is wasteful spending with little return. Gee 26 billion reduction in income taxes to the lowest 50% earners is a small return as well.

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.

Twit. There are two sides to the coin. No one even brought up budget discussions on how spending was to take place save you.

But to lay it out for you. There is revenue gathering and then there are expenditures. The discussion threadjack talked only about revenue generation.

If you want to jack the thread to expeditures start a new one.

But one last comment, your comment on saying growth doesn't matter is extremely moronic. Of course growth matters and of course efficeincy matters. To say one or the other doesn't is clearly moronic.

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

Considering I'm not a republican I take no offense. But considering the quality of your posts, retorts, and general observations, I would likely say if you say they are dumb as a bag of hammers it makes doubly sure that I give their ideas serious consideration.

As always I can usually follow the standard poly rule "If Aggie says something is black I'm 95% assured it is actually white."

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


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.

At the break point of $265,000 annual income that level of tax break easily decides whether a person can afford to hire a single body or not. That type of decision is crucial in whether a business survives or goes under the next year.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


At the break point of $265,000 annual income that level of tax break easily decides whether a person can afford to hire a single body or not

That's an interesting view, given that taxes are not paid on revenue, but on net income.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


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.

How about addressing my point? I don't have time for your perverted morality.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sikander
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.

Thank you Mr. Obvious.

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.

Are you aware at all that we generated huge deficits during the 80s. Your claim is blatantly false.

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.

This isn't the argunment. The argument is whether you can collect more tax revenue by lowering taxes. Since tax revenue decreased directly after the tax cuts using the tax cuts as evidence for your ridiculous argument is completely idiotic.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Reagan

Sound monetary policy,protectionism(in some fields), lowering taxes on an overtaxed economy

[Kidlicious]

Another point regarding taxes and investment. While theoretically taxes affect investment decisions in reality they don't always. Companies make investment decisions based more on expectations of future demand. In an economy where expectations are poor lower taxes on investment aren't going to do didly, and in an economy where expectations are good lower taxes on investment aren't going to do didly either because companies are already going to invest. Lowering taxes is always just a give away to the rich.

[Kidlicious]

I just find it amazing that the supply siders continue on ignoring reality. Do they totally ignore the 90s? Hello?! Work and investment can increase even more in an environment of higher taxes. Get real!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


How about addressing my point? I don't have time for your perverted morality.

Why should I your premise is flawed?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you aware at all that we generated huge deficits during the 80s. Your claim is blatantly false.

Are you aware that the US tax revenue in 1990 was almost twice as high as the US tax revenue in 1980?