Black Monday here we come

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Hit the middle class with a larger tax burden"

Who, exactly, hit the middle class with a larger tax burden? NOT BUSH, because afetr his tax cuts, the wealthiest Americans paid a HIGHER share of the total tax burden. That reduces the tax burden on the middle class.

You're ignoring the context for that remark in which Justplugit asserted the bottom 51% should be paying more taxes.

Spence, please, get some facts. I could post a thousand links supporting my position...here is one...

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Wall Street Journal editorial page states that taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled from $136 billion in 2003 to $274 billion in 2006 because of the JGTRRA"

Spence, you are entitled to your own opinions, not to your own facts. It is irrefutable fact that wealthy Americans paid a HIGHER percentage of the tax burden, after the Bush cuts. Bush also lowered your tax rate, and mine, by the way...

The Wiki presents two sides to the argument, you pick one and then claim it's fact?

I'd like to see a thousand links. So far all I can find is a WSJ article that you have to have a subscription to read, a Heritage piece from 2007 with no supporting information and a lot of links to Rushlimbaugh.com.

All that being said, it's quite possible that the wealthy did increase their share of the burden in that time period. With wages stagnant for most Americans, but the rich continuing to get richer, it would make sense that the receipts show they were paying more as a %.

But to claim this is a result of the Bush tax cuts while ignoring other economic factors seems like really, really heavy spin to me.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Spence -

"The Wiki presents two sides to the argument, you pick one and then claim it's fact?"

It DOES NOT claim that the rich DIDN'T pay more taxes after the Bush tax cuts. My point was that the wealthy are paying a higher share of the tax burden than ever before. That's irrefutable fact. It may not serve your particular personal agenda, but it's still fact.

"to claim this is a result of the Bush tax cuts while ignoring other economic factors seems like really, really heavy spin to me."

Spence, I never, ever claimed that the Bush cuts CAUSED the wealthy to pay more. AllI said was that after the tax cuts were put in place, they paid more. I can't prove that the cuts caused them to pay more, nor can you prove that the cuts didn't cause them to pay more. But it's fair to say that the tax cuts were not designed to allow the rich to pay less taxes...if that was the intent of the Bush tax cuts, it failed miserably.

Spence, please try to respond to what I'm actually saying. Please don't put extremist jibberish in my mouth.

Spence, we can't have 50% of our citizens paying no income tax. I'm sure that many of those folks have multiple flat screen TVs, laptops, multiple cars, cell phones, etc...They can afford to pay SOME income taxes.

[scottw]

If we are to survive the looming catastrophe, we need to face the truth - Telegraph

"The truly fundamental question that is at the heart of the disaster toward which we are racing is being debated only in America: is it possible for a free market economy to support a democratic socialist society? On this side of the Atlantic, the model of a national welfare system with comprehensive entitlements, which is paid for by the wealth created through capitalist endeavour, has been accepted (even by parties of the centre-Right) as the essence of post-war political enlightenment.

This was the heaven on earth for which liberal democracy had been striving: a system of wealth redistribution that was merciful but not Marxist, and a guarantee of lifelong economic and social security for everyone that did not involve totalitarian government. This was the ideal the European Union was designed to entrench. It was the dream of Blairism, which adopted it as a replacement for the state socialism of Old Labour. And it is the aspiration of President Obama and his liberal Democrats, who want the United States to become a European-style social democracy.

But the US has a very different historical experience from European countries, with their accretions of national remorse and class guilt: it has a far stronger and more resilient belief in the moral value of liberty and the dangers of state power. This is a political as much as an economic crisis, but not for the reasons that Mr Obama believes. The ruckus that nearly paralysed the US economy last week, and led to the loss of its AAA rating from Standard & Poor’s, arose from a confrontation over the most basic principles of American life."

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It DOES NOT claim that the rich DIDN'T pay more taxes after the Bush tax cuts.

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

ritics state that the tax cuts, including those given to middle and lower income households, failed to spur growth. The cuts also increased the budget deficit, shifted the tax burden from the rich to the middle and working classes, and further increased already high levels of income inequality.[16][17][18][19][20] Economists Peter Orszag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes."[21]

My point was that the wealthy are paying a higher share of the tax burden than ever before. That's irrefutable fact. It may not serve your particular personal agenda, but it's still fact.

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.

Spence, I never, ever claimed that the Bush cuts CAUSED the wealthy to pay more. AllI said was that after the tax cuts were put in place, they paid more. I can't prove that the cuts caused them to pay more, nor can you prove that the cuts didn't cause them to pay more. But it's fair to say that the tax cuts were not designed to allow the rich to pay less taxes...if that was the intent of the Bush tax cuts, it failed miserably.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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


A) Proof this is true

and

B) Evidence

The point is moot.

-spence

I guess we can declare 98% of your statements and claims moot then 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 and S & P apparently

WOW!

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.”

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

it's quite possible that the wealthy did increase their share of the burden in that time period...But to claim this is a result of the Bush tax cuts while ignoring other economic factors seems like really, really heavy spin to me.

-spence

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...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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.

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...

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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.[/B]

-spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

-spence