Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[Reality_Check]

Look at what happened to Russia's economy when they did it.

That doesn't answer Masterkiller's question.

Are there any studies to suggest how much money the government would raise doing this in comparison to the current system?

Are there?

[SimonM]

Remember Reality Check that 1bad65 believes wars to be the ONLY justifiable expenditure of public money.

Want a road to drive on? Buy your own!

[Lucas]

the tags for this thread are hillarious.

[1bad65]

Would you care to address the Reagan tax increases vis a vis the increase in revenues now?

Reagan to enacted those very small increases in order for Congress (controlled by the Democrats) to enact some spending cuts. Spending was still increasing faster than revenue was, thus the deficits. Keep in mind those tax increases were miniscule next to the huge tax cuts he gave us which kickstarted the economy out of the toiled Carter had put it in.

So, more people working (and paying taxes) does not increase tax revenues? Interesting...

Population growth does not equal more workers INSTANTLY. a good portion of population growth is newborn children. I dont think they enter the workforce for many years.

So, you can't back up your theory with actual numbers? Doesn't that mean it isn't provable?

I said precise numbers. If you cannot see that EVERY TIME tax cuts have been enacted it sprurred economic growth and increased revenue, I'll just quit now. It will be akin to aguing mathematics to a guy who cannot accept 2+2=4. We will make no progress.

Didn't Clinton increase taxes? And didn't revenues increase? That would seem to indicate that we are to the left on the Laffer Curve.

Not totally. Clinton did cut capitol gains taxes. This encouraged investment, especially in the ballooning 'dot-coms'. For the first time in history, an entire industry was losing money hand-over-fist, yet the stocks for these companies were going through the roof. As those guys cashed out, it brought in ALOT of tax revenue. Notice how Clinton, who loved taxes, repeatedly promised to not tax the Internet. It was one of the few he kept. Even he knew the 'dot-coms' were his goose laying the golden eggs, and he knew he better not kill it.

"...the total amount that people will actually lend you rises with the amount you plan to borrow, until you reach a crucial point, after which it falls to zero."

This sounds like the current economic trouble in which we find ourselves.

Which is not the fault of ANY Administration. It's the banks and the morons who did this to themselves fault. While Bush has the ARM mortgage mess, it's not his fault. Clinton had a similar problem, just on a lesser scale. His was credit card companies giving people way too much available credit, and then they were using it and not being able to pay for it. While they did not lose their homes, bankruptcies were at very high levels.

Notice how the old buzzword was 'predatory credit card companies' and is now 'predatory lenders'.


Please answer my questions now. I've answered the ones given to me. Please explain them as well, as I have explained mine.

[Reality_Check]

Also, regarding your "tax cuts increase revenues" position.

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601121_pf.html

"Some supply-siders like to claim that the distortionary effect of taxes is so large that increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. Like most economists, I don't find that conclusion credible for most tax hikes..."

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/must-read.html

"As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves," Paulson said, echoing the opinion of most economists.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Stor...&dist=printTop

"Another supply-side theory, now less popular, was voiced by Bush in February 2006: "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase."

The theory is that with lower marginal tax rates, people work harder and longer, thereby raising their income – and paying more taxes on it.

But even top Bush economic advisers now reject that thesis.

"I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves," Edward Lazear, the current chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, has stated."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0625/p...gn.html?page=2

[Rep. Jeb] Hensarling [R-TX]: … the latest reports I see from Treasury indicate that revenue is actually up since we passed the latest round of tax relief…seemingly suggesting that at least in this particular case, that maybe tax relief did help ignite an economic recovery that has added revenues to the Treasury and actually helped become part of the deficit solution as opposed to part of the deficit p roblem. So my first question is, have you seen these reports from Treasury, and do you concur that revenues are up now over what they were a year ago?

Mr. Greenspan: Well, Congressman, I think the general conclusion about the fact that revenues are lower than they would otherwise be without the tax cut, but higher because of the tax cut, is best described by saying that a tax cut will immediately lose revenue, and then to the extent that it increases economic activity and generates a larger revenue base will gain some of it back. It is very rare, and very few economists believe that you can cut taxes and you will get the same amount of revenues. But it is also the case that if you cut taxes, you will not lose all the revenue that is implicit in the so-called static analysis.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...d=f:95792.wais

"Changes in tax policy can influence the economy, and those economic effects can in turn affect the federal budget. Although conventional estimates of the budgetary effect of tax policies incorporate a variety of behavioral effects, they are, nonetheless, based on a fixed economic baseline. For that reason, they do not include the budgetary impact of any possible macroeconomic effects of tax policies.

This brief by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzes the macroeconomic effects of a simple tax policy: a 10 percent reduction in all federal tax rates on individual income. Because there is little consensus on exactly how tax cuts affect the economy, CBO based its analysis on a number of different sets of assumptions about how people respond to changes in tax policy, how open the economy is to flows of foreign capital, and how the revenue loss from the tax cut might eventually be offset. Under those various assumptions, CBO estimated effects on output ranging from increases of 0.5 percent to 0.8 percent over the first five years on average, and from a decrease of 0.1 percent to an increase of 1.1 percent over the second five years. The budgetary impact of the economic changes was estimated to offset between 1 percent and 22 percent of the revenue loss from the tax cut over the first five years and add as much as 5 percent to that loss or offset as much as 32 percent of it over the second five years."

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6...centTaxCut.pdf


Your thoughts?

[Reality_Check]

Reagan to enacted those very small increases in order for Congress (controlled by the Democrats) to enact some spending cuts. Spending was still increasing faster than revenue was, thus the deficits. Keep in mind those tax increases were miniscule next to the huge tax cuts he gave us which kickstarted the economy out of the toiled Carter had put it in.

"According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year."

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0310290853.asp

That's a small increase?

[Lucas]

hey 1bad, how do you feel about sifu abel?

[1bad65]

Your thoughts?

Once again, it's an OPINION piece.

Lets get this straight, just so I know the rules. ok

When I present numbers, they 'could have been better', and thus are not true evidence. But when you guys present an opinion piece, it's the Gospel truth.

Are these the rules?

[1bad65]

While I'm sure this is all for naught, I'll try.

"According to supply-side founder and former Reagan advisor Arthur Laffer, capitalism has finally come to Russia. In a recent article, the California economist points out that as of January 1, 2001, the highly progressive, anti-growth, and incredibly complex Russian tax-rate system was replaced by a 13% flat tax. Corporate taxes are next in line to fall.

By taxing work, production, and investment less, Russia can now boast of a 40% year-to-date stock-market gain. Compared to Germany's 10% drop, or Japan's 13% loss, or the U.S.'s 11% setback, Russia -- all of a sudden -- is looking pretty good."

Source: http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/torussia.htm

[1bad65]

That's a small increase?

Compared to the massive tax cuts he instituted, yes.

Which is exactly what I said in the first place.

[Reality_Check]

Once again, it's an OPINION piece.

Lets get this straight, just so I know the rules. ok

When I present numbers, they 'could have been better', and thus are not true evidence. But when you guys present an opinion piece, it's the Gospel truth.

Are these the rules?

So, links to comments by conservative economists and the CBO is opinion? Did you actually read what I linked to?

[Lucas]

man i cant even derail you if i mention abel?

thats crazy

[cjurakpt]

I'm voting for this guy...

[Lucas]

I'm voting for this guy...

that guy might have my vote too. down with the hornswagglers!!!!

[KC Elbows]

1bad, would you sleep with a hot welfare mama? If she did bjj?