Spence, a rational person could make a strong case that the Bush tax cuts led directly to the wealthy paying more taxes. You see, a cut in tax rates lets people keep more of their money. When that happens, wealthy folks have more incentive to take chances by investing in growth. When those investments bear fruit, those wealthy people have to pay taxes on the gains. Therefore, a cut in tax rates could easily trigger an increase in investment by wealthy folks. That argument has no "spin" whatsoever, and it sounds fairly reasonable to me.

Now Spence, perhaps you could tell us all why, in your opinion, lowering tax rates DOES NOT encourage investment in growth? Enlighten me, Spence. Please tell me how a cut in tax rates does NOT encourage people to invest more...

Best thread ever
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

bye bye 401k :wave:

4pm is gonna be effin BRUTAL

Not time to buy yet.

damn tea party

:uhuh:

QUOTE=RIJIMMY;878383]damn tea party[/QUOTE]

I cant get this song out of my head today.....

‪John Cougar Mellencamp Crumblin Down Video‬‏ - YouTube

when the tax loopholes are closed, perhaps, just perhaps, we'll get out of this mess that we're in.
as long as buisnesses can write off just about anything, we're screwed.
15% of the fortune 500 paid no tax at all. plus they get a tax break for sending u.s. jobs overseas.
no matter who caused this mess, someone has to fix it.
in case your wondering, i had 2 different corps, inc, and did just what the big boys. write everything off.

If this growth was real why was household income falling at the same time, why was hiring so slow compared to the tax burdened days of the 1990s?

I've yet to read a good analysis that says the economic rise 2005-2008 was driven primarily by private investment spurred through tax cuts.

I think this view is oversimplified and ignores much larger forces at play that ultimately shape our economic performance. Energy costs, technology evolution, geopolitical change etc... are likely far more influential than the rate of taxation.

Perhaps if the distribution of income was more equal, taxation would be more of a factor. I'm not advocating wealth equality for this reason, but rather just making an observation.

I don't think we're going to see stable economic growth if the government appears to be non-functional. The stability of our Government is perhaps a principal factor making the US a desirable place to do business.

-spence

I don't believe I was misquoting you.

And regarding the 51%, they do pay taxes, they actually pay a lot in taxes compared to their income. Just because they don't pay Federal Income Taxes doesn't mean they don't contribute to Medicare, Social Security, sales taxes etc...

-spence

The article does directly contradict the Heritage analysis that the wealthy paid a larger share because of the cuts.

If it's an irrefutable fact then some numbers should be easy to come by. This would help with the analysis...

But if the rich are paying a higher % of the burden because of higher GDP then attributing that to a tax cut doesn't make much sense...unless you can also attribute the economic rise to the same cut.

On an individual basis the rich certainly paid less after the tax cuts. As was mentioned above, where the burden is placed is dependent on many variables as actual revenues are a function of economic performance. As I referenced in your own link, there is debate on what really occurred.

-spence

There is no such thing as economic growth in this country. Ever. As long as we spend more than we make.

It is a practice that can not be sustained. We must produce more than we consume and become self reliant. Is this concept so foreign to us? Less than 50 years ago that is how this country operated. A blink of time in the grand scheme of history. How hard is it to just keep everything stupid simple. You make x you can spend x. If you don't have money to support programs x y and z at their current levels then tough. Everyone is so freaking entitled in this country.

It is ridiculous. To think we need to go further in debt as a government or as individuals to live our lives. Increasing debt to pay old debt? Economics 101! When does it end?

We are headed straight down the toilet and the Chinese are going to push the lever. You think it is bad talking to India for customer service etc. Wait until we are the customer service and it is China calling.

According to Detbuch above this takes time for the incentives to ferment. I thought you had remarked it was more instantaneous...I think you're mixing your ideas of what "paying more taxes" really means.

The CBO has published numbers on this exact topic and I remember reading their estimates that a dollar in tax cuts produces between 10 and 40 cents of economic benefit.

This isn't a great deal...

Why? Because those the rich often save it rather than spend or invest, and even if they invest a lot of that activity is to make money in speculative markets that don't directly lead to job growth.

More importantly...

We are currently running a very large budget deficit. A cut in taxes therefore has to be PAID for by BORROWING more money. So not only does your tax cut generate a fraction of benefit for the investment, a lot of that benefit is wiped out to service the loan on the debt necessary to create the tax cut.

-spence

Spence, I'm using small words so you can get this. After the Bush tax cuts, the wealthy (as a group) paid MORE taxes. Theyt paid more in absolute dollars. They paid more in terms of the percentage of total taxes paid.

you ar eliterally making it up as you go along.

Then why do we have "tax free days"?? And why did Obama and Bush try stimulate the economy by sending people a tax refund?? Why do towns and states give tax breaks to corporations to set up shop there?
You can take 100% of the money from the wealthy and it won't dig us out of this hole. Not even close.
I think you need to pay a higher rate.

Ironically you're actually talking about "bottom up" stimulus though I don't think you were intending to :hihi:

-spence

Nope, I'm quite in control.

What you're failing to grasp is that without two items:

A) Proof this is true

and

B) Evidence that correlates this with the Bush Tax Cuts

The point is moot.

The funny thing is the data probably backs your point, but it's not the point you're trying to make :humpty:

-spence

Yup you did, believe it. :hihi:

Because of our current tax structure everyone should pay Fed Tax so they have a hand in the game.

???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess we can declare 98% of your statements and claims moot then :uhuh: the other 2% supported with evidence from MSNBC

it's the spending....raising taxes will not solve the spending problem and as we see with the most recent deal, if we allow the increased debt limit and/or increased taxes, they will find a way to weasle out of the spending cuts.....if we don't hold firm to massive, acutal, meaningful spending cuts, no level of taxation will matter...and the only people that are serious about this are the people that you loathe :uhuh: and S & P apparently

WOW!:claps:

Scarborough: ‘Terminally Stupid Ideologues’ Should ‘Stop Using the Tea Party as a Piñata’
August 8, 2011

Following Senator John Kerry’s outburst Sunday in which he referred to the S&P downgrade as the “Tea Party Downgrade,” Joe Scarborough fought back on his Monday episode of ”Morning Joe.“ The host called on ”terminally stupid ideologues“ that ”really don’t understand” anything because they’re “so dogmatic [they] can’t think for [themselves]“ to ”stop using the Tea Party as a piñata.”

"I am not blaming the President exclusively. We have blamed the Tea Partiers here for not moving. We have blamed Republicans. We have blamed Democrats as well. But please – I know it makes you feel better, but, you know, stop using the Tea Party as a piñata. We’ve got systemic problems in this country. The President could have done something for two years when he had Democrats controlling the House of Representatives and controlling the United States Senate. He did nothing on entitlement reform."

Scarborough went on to assert that, contrary to what the liberal media presented, President Obama never offered cuts to entitlement programs in his “grand bargain.”