The question was rhettorical. But thanks for the wiki-lesson.Originally Posted by rett
NIII
The question was rhettorical. But thanks for the wiki-lesson.
NIII
Yes, Blue, it can be done, and is done all the time. I did it.
Your response shows me that my assertion was correct.
Do you come from a long line of poor and marginalized proletariat? Or are you from a middle class lineage that fell on hard times?
So many more people died of hunger before social programs started helping out. How many working people have you heard of dropping dead from hunger lately? It used to be a common occurance.
Today if you are white, somewhat good looking and have at least one set of nice clothes, then there is no excuse for being hungry for too long. But thats not the case for many.
What about the lady who has two kids and is a widow and lives in a small town with very little work but no resources to move and no resources to commute and still make dinner for her kids? Just one example. I can come up with dozens just off the top of my head.
Besides, alot of folks use welfare and food stamp type programs for just long enough to stay afloat and find new work. One month of welfare was the difference between losing their apartment and being on the street while they found new work. You got beef with that?
Why not just put more time into weeding out the lazy from the needy. You'll save money in the long run and help those who need it and don't abuse it.
LOL I love that quote, Blue. Priceless. That's EXACTLY what happened. While the middle class and the wealthy lived some version of the american dream, a ton of people did indeed die in the streets. Far more than today, thats for sure. Most died of very curable and treatable illness, but had no coverage and died from simple sh1t like appendicitis, gout or abscess tooth!!!I mean, that should have been dying in the streets without Gov't checks, right? This country went from being a colony to being the richest nation in the world, and we did it without welfare programs.
I know for a fact that share croppers and cotton pickers in the south were dying in flocks during bad seasons where money wasn't comming in. They would end the season in the red, jeopardizing their loans for the next years crops. Heaven forbid the reason for crop failure was flood. cause in that case it was a toss up as to whether you died of starvation or water born illness with ZERO treatment. And this was happening right in to the 60's even.
NIII
LOL, I don't hate the rich, Blue. Most of my friends these days are from upper middle class and higher.
OMG you people won't shut up about the light bulbs.
I do agree, that alot of regulation is outta control. But think about this, if there was no EPA we would have chemical companies dumping toxic waste into rivers to save a buck, for example. Again, I can come up with a few dozen off the top of my head. Companies do that today even with the EPA breathing down their necks. What do you think they would do if they had nobody holding them to account???
Be real man.
Do you really think that the market would generate some genius way to turn waste into cash if that darn EPA wasnt there???
If every company in the US had free reign to do whatever they want do you really believe they would all fall in line, pay fair wages, treat employees with respect and preserve their environment??? If you believe that then you aren't very observant. Sure, some would, and some do. But many only follow these rules because they have to. And many don't follow the rules despite the law. They spend half the money it would cost to be responsible and use it to lobby and cover up their bullsh1t. The income gap was HUGE before most of these regulations. Your "greatest economy" was a house of cards from day one. Nothing to be proud of, man.
And here's a neat lil fact: The more people who have good income the better the economy. Like 100 people with ten dollars is a far greater economy than two people with 499 a piece and the rest doled out to the other 98 losers.
I don't think every rich person should share all their money, that's not what I'm saying. But the closer the lowest and the highest are, the greater the economy.
A proper economy is like a jug of water. You can distribute it into as many cups in any measure you want, but the jug is all the water. If most of the water is with a few people and the rest get droplets, that translates into a poor economy. It's only a matter of time before that is exposed for what it is. And in the case of the US, it will be too late once it's apparent to everyone. Interesting that this "great economy" you speak of rose with the middle class. Hmmmm. Go figure.
Letting banks lend out money with only 10% reserve required is a sure way to crash an economy. When bankers can charge their clients for lending the bank money (which is what a bank account is, a loan to the bank) and then loan that money back out to others at insane rates, theres a problem. Especially when those same banks don't even have to have the money they are lending. What kind of idiots gave bankers the ability to make money from thin air and expected it to not be used and abused? What do you think would happen if you did that? It would be called FRAUD. But it's righteous when a bank does it?
This isn't a black and white situation that you represent here. Some Gov is good, some bad. Some biz is good, some bad. Both need alot of work. But I firmly believe they need to work together, not against eachother. When they finally learn to work together, then we will see positive progress.
Last edited by Syn7; 07-29-2011 at 04:18 PM.
Banned
Mostly from the first category. My great-grandfather mached with Eugene V Debs. One of my ancestors came to this country from Poland in the late 1930s. After WWII one of his sons went back and found out his dad was the only one of his family left. He came with nothing, and did quite well. Neither of my parents finished college. Only one of my grandparents did, but he died when my mom was a young girl.
I will say none of them ever lived on public assistance. And I'm proud of that.
Show me the numbers on that please. I'm a history buff (and majored in it, but did not finish my fegree) and I can't recall a time when millions of Americans died of hunger in the streets.
Why bring race into it? Race has ZERO to do with it. We have refugees who came here from Asia with nothing, and became business owners within a few years. They didn't have citizenship (but later got it, they did it legally), didn't speak the language, and often had no family here either. Same with the refugees from Cuba. They become productive citizens. So it baffles me how people born here, who grow up speaking English, and who get a free education fail. It HAS to be laziness for MOST cases.
And it was even worse in the past. We had people coming to Ellis Island fleeing dictators and famine, and those just looking for a new life. They became successful, and they didn't do it by demanding/receiving Gov't checks.
Again, you're bringing in something that doesn't need to be here, feelings. Feelings don't pay the bills.
But that said, you're right. There are a few really hard-luck cases of people who just need a little help. But no way is it tens of milions in that same boat. No way. And that don't explain the 3-4 generations deep many inner city families are into welfare. Give someone 2-4 years at most of public assistance, then cut it off. That's plenty of time to get a 2 or 4 year degree or some job training. But the way we do it now, unlimited checks from birth to death is not working. It's only breeding more poverty. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. That's the whole idea. So why subsidize poverty?
As I said above, I have no issue with that. On the flip side, do you agree there should be limits? Like time limits, no 'raises' if you have more kids while getting public assistance? No welfare if you are convicted of drug, burglary, robbery, or a serious felony (rape, murder)?
You'll never get that as long as one Party gets all the 'welfare votes'. But it is a great idea.
Again, just provide the statistic on that. I think it's overblown.
Banned
Because it illustrates my/our point exactly. And refutes the Left's assertion only "the rich" are to blame.
Again, we had bulbs being made here in the US. There were American jobs in that industry. Then the Gov't banned those bulbs and demanded they be replaced with bulbs that could not be made here due to environmental laws. So the Gov't forced jobs to China. Had the Gov't not done that, those people manufacturing the old style bulbs would still be employed.
2 points: First one, well despite the EPA laws you can do just that if you give to the right Governor. Just ask Tyson Chicken about how Bill Clinton helped them out. The were "the rich", and he took their side over the middle class he claimed to work for.
Second, why would they poison the water and the air? Don't they breathe same air we all do? Don't they drink the same water we all do? Don't they enjoy the same rivers and lakes we all do (albeit in their yachts)? So that's ridiculous. Was it done in the past? Yes. Alot of that was done to save money, yes, BUT alot of the effects were not known. Now that they are known, it's a different story. Again, "the rich" use the same air, water, etc we all do. They wouldn't poison that which they need and enjoy. It's common sense.
Of course they couldn't turn waste to money. Be real. But it does cost jobs and money to comply with these regulations. And money begats more jobs. You can't expand, and thus hire more workers, if you don't make enough profits. And regulations eat into those profits at best. At worse they completely destroy them (like in the case of the light bulbs).
And I'm not for free reign. But you must admit it's gone from preventing abuses that did need to be corrected to killing jobs. It's really sad. At one time they protected working people, now they take away the working people's jobs in alot of cases.
You're staring to get it!!!!
And fyi, this is CLOSE to the premise of Reaganomics. You're missing one thing though; Reagnomics grows the pie. So try this example: would you rather take 50% of 12 or 10% of 80? That's the premise of Reaganomics. You cut taxes, thus spurring economic growth. That 'grows the pie'. Now you have a larger economy with more taxpayers and "the rich" (and many in other classes), now make so much more money that even with the lower rates they pay more total dollars in taxes. See how it works?
Not quite. IMO, it's the middle class that is key. You actually want a big divide between the poor and the rich. That way it shows that hard work pays off. If everyone is close in income, why work 80 hours a week to build a successful (and of course profitable) business when you can do almost as good sitting at home letting the Democrats take care of you?
The middle class is the key. We learn that through things like like hard work, job training, education, and even risk, we can join "the rich". But we also see if you decide to make bad decisions like dropping out of high school, having kids you can't afford, and being lazy, you can join the poor. That's how it works now. And we must stop punishing success or themiddle class will by default become the poor. FYI, many of "the rich" are small businessmen, not rich guys lighting cigars with $100 bills. And tax increases hurt those businesses alot faster than say Microsoft. The huge companies can take a few extra percent of tax rate increase and survive, alot of small businesses cannot.
You're premise is flawed. No one needs to "distribute it". That's what's got us in this mess in the first place!!! Let the market decide. We tried distributing it, we said that anyone who wanted a house should be able to have one. Now the fact that millions of those people couldn't afford them didn't matter. And you saw how good intentions really messed it up for the whole country when that Gov't created bubble burst.
Agreed.
But they made the foolish loans for one reason: the Gov't guaranteed them! Had the Gov't not done that, you can bet it wouldn't have been done to the extent it was. They knew alot of these people couldn't pay the mortgages, but it didn't matter if they defaulted because they Gov't would bail them out. And they were right! Had the Gov't said 'tough ****' when the banks failed, you can bet no more stupid loans would be made in the future. But now you can't be so sure. After all, what lesson did they learn?
Correct again. You're actually pretty rational.
So knowing that under Reagan the economy grew enormously,"the rich" paid a larger share, and the tax receipts went up more than before Reagan, why would you disagree with his policies? Why not emulate success, its common sense.
Last edited by BJJ-Blue; 08-01-2011 at 07:33 AM.
凸 囧 凸
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=119
You really are as dumb as I look. Not to mention utterly lacking in any sort of self awareness whatsoever. I am arguing because I disagree with your regurgitated Reagan hagiography supply side talking points that you or the corporate lobbyist assholes force feeding you don't even begin to understand.Do Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves? The Historical Record
Large tax cuts were enacted in 1981, with the centerpiece of the 1981 tax cut being a large reduction in marginal tax rates. If such tax cuts really pay for themselves, income tax receipts should have grown as rapidly in the 1980s as they did in the 1990s.
Indeed, in the 1980s, supply-siders argued that the economy would grow more rapidly because of the 1981 tax cut. They contended that a lower tax rate applied to a larger economy would produce at least the same amount of revenue. Then, when marginal income tax rates at the top of the income spectrum were raised in 1990 and especially when these rates were raised further in 1993, a number of supply-side advocates insisted this would harm economic growth. Presumably, higher tax rates applied to a smaller economy would mean that income tax receipts would not grow as much in the 1990s as in the 1980s.
Yet this is not what occurred. Income tax receipts grew noticeably more slowly than usual in the 1980s, after the large cuts in individual and corporate income tax rates in 1981. And income tax collections grew much more rapidly in the 1990s than in the 1980s. The graph and table on the next page illustrate this fact.
A comparison between the 1980s and the 1990s is quite instructive. (Data for the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s are affected by several increases in payroll or excise taxes, numerous reductions in income tax rates, and uneven rates of “bracket creep” because the individual income tax was not indexed for inflation during those periods.) If economic growth — or voluntary tax compliance, another benefit that supply-side advocates claimed would occur after the large reduction in income tax rates in 1981 — would offset lower tax rates, income tax receipts should have grown in the 1980s at rates roughly approximating the historical norms. They did not. After adjusting for inflation and the increased size of the working-age population, income tax receipts grew hardly at all in the 1980s. In the 1990s, by contrast, income tax receipts grew at a pace similar to that in the 1950s and 1960s and much faster than in the 1970s or 1980s.
Banned
That's total bs. The tax revenues DOUBLED. How anyone can say that inflation adjusted it breaks even is nuts. After all, inflation FELL compared to the Carter years. And don't get me started on the intereset rates in the 1980s compared to the late 70s. I also notice that did not refute the FACT that "the rich" took on a higher tax burden during the 1980s.
Dude, I lived through it. How old are you?
We were happy. We weren't talking about Gov't defaulting. We didn't owe a communist dictatorship trillions of dollars. The word 'offshored' wasn't even invented yet. We didn't have over 2 years of 9%+ unemployment. So you tell me, would you prefer the 1980s economy or the current economy?
凸 囧 凸
Revenue from income tax doubled because Hannity said so? Yeah, hold on while I take your word for it tater-tot boy. You lived through it? Thats your argument?
Do you like Huey Lewis and the News?
Banned
What?
IRS and Gov't figures showed those FACTS long before Hannity had a mic. I used those sources to back up my assertions, not Hannity. And can you please debate/discuss without calling names please?
And yes, living through something gives you a true sense of it. Albeit you do see it from your perspective, but at least you see it and don't have to rely on someone else to tell you how it was. And again, none of those facts I said about the period I lived through were incorrect.
Huey Lewis wasn't one of my favorites, but he was ok. Social Distortion and The Replacements were some of my favorite bands back then.
凸 囧 凸
My god you are earnest.
. . .but when sports came out in '83. . .
If you could read above an 8th grade level I would be afraid that this would pop your little brain.
http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html
The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.
Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up a lower 91.3 percent during the 80's. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which are directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. The reference to the doubling of revenues under Reagan commonly refers to TOTAL revenues. These include the above-mentioned Social Insurance revenues for which the tax rate went UP. It seems highly hypocritical to include these revenues (which were likely bolstered by the tax hike) as proof for the effectiveness of a tax cut.
Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them.
EFFECT OF REAGAN TAX CUTS ON REVENUES AND GDP - LONG ANALYSIS
The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. The growth of receipts by source, outlays, and GDP over every 10-year period since 1940 is shown in the following graph:
It should be noted that the above graph shows "real" growth rates, that is, the growth rates corrected for inflation. The actual numbers and sources for the graph can be found at recgro11.html. As can be seen in the first table, total receipts increased 76.05 percent from 1981 to 1991. However, this was the slowest 10-year growth rate since a 75.41 percent growth in total receipts from 1956 to 1966. Of course, these results are likely skewed by the high inflation that occurred during the 70's. Hence, it makes more sense to look at the "real" (inflation-adjusted) rates. The second table shows that the real growth rate from 1981 to 1991 was 17.72%. The 10-year growth rate increased in the following years to a high of 37.75% from 1984 to 1994. However, the real growth rate of total receipts reached higher highs of 42.63% in 1971 to 1981 and 53.11% from 1990 to 2000.
Another serious flaw in the doubling of revenues argument is that it looks at all revenues. The FICA tax rate increased from 6.13 percent in 1980 to 7.65 percent in 1990. To include an increase in revenues gained through a tax hike in order to argue in favor of tax cuts would seem extremely hypocritical. Hence, we need to look only at revenues obtained from individual income taxes. According to the second table, the real growth in individual income tax receipts was 9.41% from 1981 to 1991 and 10.41% from 1982 to 1992. These were the lowest growth rates of any of the 58 10-year spans from 1940 to 2007. However, these record lows were surpassed by 1998 to 2008 (5.77%) and 1999 to 2009 (-19.36%).
Hence, the evidence is that the Reagan tax cuts DECREASED revenues over what they would have been, at least over the short (10-year) term. The only remaining argument in favor of the Reagan tax cuts, at least from a revenue point of view, would seem to be that they permanently raised the level of the GDP, thus bringing in slightly higher revenues far into the future. According to the graph and second table, the GDP reached a high 10-year growth rate of 35.2% from 1983 to 1993. However, it reached higher highs of 37.5 from 1992 to 2002, 45.71% from 1947 to 1957, and 50.28% from 1958 to 1968. In fact, the above graph shows that the 10-year growth rate in the GDP has been relatively stable since 1975 to 1985 though it began to drop in 2008 and is projected to stay weak through 2015. Hence, these figures don't provide any strong evidence that the Reagan tax cuts permanently affected the GDP one way or the other.
MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN
The Office of Tax Analysis of the U.S. Treasury Department has put out a paper titled Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills. The following estimate of the revenue effects of all major tax bills enacted under Reagan is taken from Table 2 of that document:
Source: OTA Working Paper 81, Table 2, Office of Tax Analysis, U.S. Treasury Department,
online at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...ents/ota81.pdf
The above table shows that Reagan's initial tax cut in 1981 was estimated to have a large negative effect on revenues. This is apparent in the graph titled "Receipts and Selected Tax Rates" at recsrc11.html which shows a sharp drop in individual income tax revenues from 1982 to 1984. This drop was arguably a major motivation for the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 and the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, both of which had a positive effect on revenues and helped to stabilize them. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (which cut the top marginal rate from 50 to 28 percent), however, appeared to have only a slight effect on revenues. How could this be? The answer lies in looking more closely at the provisions in the two tax bills. Following are the provisions listed by the Treasury document for the 1981 tax bill:
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
- phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%
- accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS
- indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
- created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap)
- phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987
- reduced Windfall Profit taxes
- allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
- expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
- replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (begin in 1985)
As can be seen, all of the provisions are effectively tax cuts. On the other hand, following are the provisions listed by the document for the 1986 tax bill:
Tax Reform Act of 1986
- reduced individual income tax rates (top rate 28%) and repealed capital gains exclusion
- repealed investment tax credit
- lowered corporation income tax rates; top rate lowered to 34 percent
- increased personal exemption amount from $1,080 to $2,000
- set uniform capitalization rules for manufacturing or construction
- increased standard deduction from $3,670 to $5,000 (joints)
- limited deduction for nonbusiness interest
- repealed second earner deduction
- limited passive losses
- established income limits on use of IRAs for taxpayers covered by pensions
- revised corporate minimum tax
- repealed sales tax deduction for individuals
- set 2-percent floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions
As can be seen, a number of these provisions are effectively tax hikes, offsetting the additional cuts in the tax rates. Those provisions include items 2, 7 through 10, 12, 13, and the second half of item 1 (repeal of the capital gains exclusion). That is likely the major reason why revenues did not fall further. In any case, this shows that the top marginal rate does not always tell the whole story about the level of individual income taxes.
Last edited by wenshu; 08-01-2011 at 02:29 PM.
Registered User
Yah, I got it all from wikipedia.
Banned
I was joking around. I'm shocked someone of your intellect failed to figure that out.
Banned
"The United States saw three big tax rate cuts in the 20th Century - in the 1920s under Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, in the 1960s under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan. In each case, after the rates were cut, federal tax revenues increased - particularly the share paid by the top 1% of taxpayers.
The 1920s cut was a phased reduction in top income tax rates from 73% in 1921 to just 25% in 1925. As a result, tax receipts nearly doubled between 1923 and 1928 and the US economy boomed. And when rates fell, the rich paid a lot more. The share of taxes paid by those earning over $50,000 (the super-rich of the day) rose hugely, from 44% in 1921 to 78% in 1925.
Forty years - plus one world war and many tax hikes - later, the Kennedy plan cut the top tax rate again, though more modestly, from 91% to 70%. Income tax receipts rose by more than half during the following five years, from 1963 to 1968. The share of taxes paid by Americans earning over $50,000 (wealthy people, even then) increased from 12% to 15% of total receipts.
Ronald Reagan's cuts in the top rate of income tax, from 70% in 1981 to 28% in 1988, boosted total income tax receipts by 30% in real terms between 1983 and 1989. Once again, the rich paid a lot more. The top 10% of taxpayers contributed 48% of the total in 1981, but 57.2% in 1988. Meanwhile the share paid by the top 1% of taxpayers grew from 17.6% to 27.5%. And the contribution of the top 0.1%, the super-rich taxpayers, doubled from 7% to 14% (see chart)."
The US experience with capital gains tax is just as clear as the experience with income tax. After the 1981 cut in capital gains taxes, from 28% to 20%, the revenues brought in by the tax rose by nearly half, from $12.5 billion in 1981 to $18.5 billion in 1983. Following another another cut in the capital gains tax in 1997, receipts nearly doubled - from $62 billion in 1996, to £110 billion just three years later. "
Source: (complete article)
http://www.adamsmith.org/80ideas/idea/67.htm
And Reagan never had 2+ years of unemployment over 8.8%. Of the 30 months the community organizer has been President, only 7 months has the rate been under 9%, and only 1 month has it been under 8%.
And you still haven't answered my question. Would you prefer the 1980s economy or the current economy?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote