$7 Trillion in new deficit spending, it's 2003 all over again - Page 9

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 137
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    18,629
    Rep Power
    15

    Default $7 Trillion in new deficit spending, it's 2003 all over again

    I've heard for years on here that the period 2000-2006, where Rs had full control and spent like drunken sailors, was a serious bastardization of the conservative principles the R party had historically stood for, and if we would just give Rs another chance, things would be different this time.

    Heard it in 2010, then again in 2012. And of course last year.

    Well here it is, the first full budget under total R control since 2006.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/u...-congress.html

    And let me be the first to say, in regards to the sentiment that this time would be different...

    AAA HA HAH AH AHAHAHAHAAHAHA !!!!!!!!


  2. Sponsored Links


  3. Likes TennisOps, Plasmaball liked this post
  4. #121
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    29,249
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markdido View Post
    My first January paycheck was higher.

    Maybe you should talk to your HR department?
    We use one of the biggest payroll companies. They didnít have time in January to make the changes.

    I suppose others could have made changes earlier but not even the IRS had issued guidance.

  5. Sponsored Links


  6. #122
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    44,026
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dantes View Post
    This is utter nonsense.

    The rich will pay as little taxes as they possibly can no matter what. They're not idiots.
    Of course, but they will NOT spend millions lobbying for tax breaks when they are paying FAR LESS in taxes. They will simply pay the taxes, instead.

    That is why they end up paying more in taxes. FAR MORE of them are paying in, for the first time, because they both have to and can afford to.


    M
    "WE KNOW the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." - Hillary Clinton, September 12th, 2012

  7. Sponsored Links


  8. #123
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    44,026
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ImRightYoureWrong View Post
    They don't pay taxes. They pass it on to poor and middle class consumers.
    That's complete NONSENSE. The great bulk of taxes are paid by the top 10%.

    HALF the country - the lower half - don't COME NEAR paying any income taxes at all.


    M
    "WE KNOW the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." - Hillary Clinton, September 12th, 2012

  9. Sponsored Links


  10. #124
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    44,026
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBear View Post
    No, they did not. There's nothing hard for me here at all. The nonsense you're spewing is easily recognizable as such. The facts are that lowering tax RATES (when they are already in some middle range) lowers tax revenues, in the short term, medium term, and in the long term. You're just confused because you believe the nonsense you've been sold. Much of the confusion comes from the Story of Reagan, as told by right-wing believers, about his tax cuts -- the tale omits the fact that Reagan actually increased taxes, twice (at least), after initial cuts.

    The tale also omits the important context about revenues over time being measured against what revenues WOULD have been without the cuts. That is, separating out revenue growth which is a function of basic GDP growth, which are results of both population growth and increases in productivity. Attributing revenue gains resulting from those factors to The Tax Cuts is just completely false. It deserves an "F". But it's accepted as gospel by right-wing magical thinkers.
    https://www.heritage.org/taxes/repor...ower-tax-rates



    From the piece:



    Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.



    Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).


    Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).


    M
    Last edited by MarkyS; February 14th, 2018 at 12:47 am.
    "WE KNOW the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." - Hillary Clinton, September 12th, 2012

  11. Sponsored Links


  12. #125
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Mississippi, the real dee
    Posts
    9,149
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkyS View Post
    That's complete NONSENSE. The great bulk of taxes are paid by the top 10%.

    HALF the country - the lower half - don't COME NEAR paying any income taxes at all.


    M
    They do pay a good share of the consumption taxes though.

    Everyone pays some sort of tax. Some more than others.

    I say we go to a flat tax or a federal consumption based tax. That way everyone pays their fair share.

  13. Sponsored Links


  14. #126

    Default

    Unclear how a consumption tax is fair.

  15. Sponsored Links


  16. #127
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    44,026
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShinGouki View Post
    They do pay a good share of the consumption taxes though.

    Everyone pays some sort of tax. Some more than others.

    I say we go to a flat tax or a federal consumption based tax. That way everyone pays their fair share.
    We ALL pay consumption taxes, but your proposal is worth discussion. I'm an "everybody -should-have-some-skin-in-the-game" guy. We all benefit from being here.



    M
    "WE KNOW the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." - Hillary Clinton, September 12th, 2012

  17. Sponsored Links


  18. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkyS View Post
    That's complete NONSENSE. The great bulk of taxes are paid by the top 10%.

    HALF the country - the lower half - don't COME NEAR paying any income taxes at all.


    M
    No they make consumers pay for it. That's what you guys have shouted since the dawn if time.

  19. Sponsored Links


  20. #129
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    29,249
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkyS View Post
    Of course, but they will NOT spend millions lobbying for tax breaks when they are paying FAR LESS in taxes. They will simply pay the taxes, instead.

    That is why they end up paying more in taxes. FAR MORE of them are paying in, for the first time, because they both have to and can afford to.

    M
    I can't honestly believe someone would believe such nonsense.

  21. Sponsored Links


  22. #130

    Default

    There are excuses for every non-conservative thing that Donald Trump does. Just step back and savour that for a minute.

  23. Sponsored Links


  24. #131
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    44,026
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ImRightYoureWrong View Post
    No they make consumers pay for it. That's what you guys have shouted since the dawn if time.
    Go read a tax roll and then tell me that nonsense again. PROVE to me that the rich do not pay taxes.


    I'll be right here.



    M
    "WE KNOW the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." - Hillary Clinton, September 12th, 2012

  25. Sponsored Links


  26. #132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkyS View Post
    Go read a tax roll and then tell me that nonsense again. PROVE to me that the rich do not pay taxes.


    I'll be right here.



    M
    Consumers pay the tax

  27. Sponsored Links


  28. #133
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    44,026
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dantes View Post
    I can't honestly believe someone would believe such nonsense.

    History proves that it is not at all nonsense



    https://www.heritage.org/taxes/repor...ower-tax-rates


    from the piece:


    At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.

    2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.


    The tax cuts of the 1920s

    The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

    The Kennedy tax cuts

    Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

    The Reagan tax cuts

    The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.




    M
    "WE KNOW the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." - Hillary Clinton, September 12th, 2012

  29. Sponsored Links


  30. #134
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    44,026
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ImRightYoureWrong View Post
    Consumers pay the tax
    AGAIN, go look at a tax burden pie chart and see which quintile ACTUALLY pays the most income taxes in this country.


    hint: It AIN'T the poor or even the middle class.



    M
    "WE KNOW the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." - Hillary Clinton, September 12th, 2012

  31. Sponsored Links


  32. #135
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    29,249
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkyS View Post
    History proves that it is not at all nonsense



    https://www.heritage.org/taxes/repor...ower-tax-rates


    from the piece:


    At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.

    2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.


    The tax cuts of the 1920s

    The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

    The Kennedy tax cuts

    Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

    The Reagan tax cuts

    The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.


    M
    The share of the income taxes paid by the top 1% increased in the 20s and 80s because these were periods where income disparity took off like a rocket.

    You have to be extremely gullible to think the rich will choose to pay more taxes.

  33. Sponsored Links


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •