Teh reagan is not happy

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


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)

Pump all that money into the economy, you just cause inflation which makes the life of the poorer person more difficult. The point is, this isn't just a numbers game, people's wellbeing is on the line. Economics was never just purely about the numbers...

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


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

Said it before I got the chance. We're talking income tax not corporate tax...

[Agathon]

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.

Stop being a ****** Ogie. Government spending is part of the economy. Everyone with a brain knows that GDP does not adequately reflect the value of state spending, so any growth that may occur from tax cuts is quite likely an illusion.

The 26 billion you speak of is paid by the state to individuals who use it to pay for other things they need (including the things the state provides). This talk of pumping money back into the economy marks you as a total ignoramus. Unless you refuse to spend it and keep it in an old sock under your bed, money is always being pumped into the economy whether by individual, corporate or state spending.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Said it before I got the chance. We're talking income tax not corporate tax...

Given that most fledgling businesses are not incorporated this is a nonstarter.

[KrazyHorse]

a) Bull****. It 's so ****ing easy to incorporate that everybody does so.

b) Even if you weren't incorporated for god knows what reason you still deduct whatever salaries you pay as business expenses. The taxes you pay are on what you make, not your cash inflow. If somebody's salary is a legitimate business expense (i.e. not the maid who also cleans your "home office") then tax cuts on income shouldn't make any difference as to your decision to hire somebody. The only decision is whether he will bring in more revenue than you have to pay him in salary, FICA etc. Income tax is only charged on your profit

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Pump all that money into the economy, you just cause inflation which makes the life of the poorer person more difficult. The point is, this isn't just a numbers game, people's wellbeing is on the line. Economics was never just purely about the numbers...

Thats complete idiocy. 26 billion is a drop in the huge GDP bucket. You need a ton more than that to make a dent into inflationary effects.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Master of the obvious pointing out the OP.

Master of the obvious pointing out my pointing out of the OP

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
a) Bull****. It 's so ****ing easy to incorporate that everybody does so.

b) Even if you weren't incorporated for god knows what reason you still deduct whatever salaries you pay as business expenses. The taxes you pay are on what you make, not your cash inflow. If somebody's salary is a legitimate business expense (i.e. not the maid who also cleans your "home office") then tax cuts on income shouldn't make any difference as to your decision to hire somebody. The only decision is whether he will bring in more revenue than you have to pay him in salary, FICA etc. Income tax is only charged on your profit

Yep, you can incorporate online in a matter of minutes. It's pretty damn easy nowadays.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by 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?

After taxes were raised. Thank you for confirming my argument.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Why should I your premise is flawed?

Nonsense. I quoted you. I was just stating it in different words. Do you or do you not support unlimited incentives to business investment? I don't know what premise you are refering to.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Said it before I got the chance. We're talking income tax not corporate tax...

Revenue (cost of goods sold) isn't taxed at all. (in the US anyway)