An Inconvenient Truth About The Bush Tax Cuts

[pspr]

Quote from RCG Trader:

So are you a believer in trickle down?

And you are a believer in trickle up which is nonsense.

BTW, when are you going to honor your committment to Lucrum and PT and back up your claims?

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from pspr:

And you are a believer in trickle up which is nonsense.

BTW, when are you going to honor your committment to Lucrum and PT and back up your claims?

1. You did not answer the question.

2. You are trolling.

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Why does the Bible have to come into it? I don't know if 10% is right, but a flat tax is the only answer. I agree.

I don't know what the correct flat-tax rate should be, but Art Laffer has stated, "11% on personal income and corporate income" would be revenue neutral. I'm fine with corporate tax so long as dividends are excluded from the tax.... after all the income has already had tax applied to it at the corporate level.

Government would need to determine "where are the taxes to come from?" Personal income, corporate income, consumption, capital gains... wherever. Then, implement with discipline. None of this "US corporate tax not applied until the money is brought onto American shores" crapola.

If we incentivized US companies to grow with a low, flat tax rate.... our unemployment problems would soon be on the mend. With Odumbo's "soak the rich while putting as many (voters) on the dole as possible... so that they will keep voting Democrat" policy, WE ARE DOOMED!!

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from RCG Trader:

A great many low information republican voters live in the rural areas, which are beset with poverty.

Now, if you take this number in the absolute, it is a safe bet that more republicans get welfare than democrats.

Let's take what you say here as fact (not that it is). This would also assume that those republicans getting welfare are OK with their entitlements being shrunk/cut/addressed if it means they have a better shot at the future economy.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from RCG Trader:

A great many low information republican voters live in the rural areas, which are beset with poverty.

Now, if you take this number in the absolute, it is a safe bet that more republicans get welfare than democrats.

"...From the Gellman-paradox we know that the low-income voters who drag down the Red States average tend to vote disproportionally for Democrats. Republican voters earn significantly more than Democrats, even though Red state earn less than Blue states... we see that in a two-party split, 60-80% of welfare recipients are Democrats, while full time Workers are evenly divided between parties.

You have similar results in this recent NPR-Poll. Among the Long Term Unemployed, 72% of the two-party support goes to Democrats.

It appears that once more common sense is right and the impression left by the New York Times wrong. Indeed, people who live off the government disproportionally support Democrats..."

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Lucrum:

"...From the Gellman-paradox we know that the low-income voters who drag down the Red States average tend to vote disproportionally for Democrats. Republican voters earn significantly more than Democrats, even though Red state earn less than Blue states... we see that in a two-party split, 60-80% of welfare recipients are Democrats, while full time Workers are evenly divided between parties.

You have similar results in this recent NPR-Poll. Among the Long Term Unemployed, 72% of the two-party support goes to Democrats.

It appears that once more common sense is right and the impression left by the New York Times wrong. Indeed, people who live off the government disproportionally support Democrats..."

Thanks. I knew his claim was nonsense but didn't want to take the time to refute it.

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from RCG Trader:

There is no answer because this varies from zip code to zip code.

That is why a flat tax is the only answer. Close every loophole, and then a flat tax.

For all you bible thumpers out there, how does 10% sound?

I'm not a bible thumper so I guess I can't answer your question.


Of course the idea of thumping you in the head with a bible does have it's appeal and just might do you some good.

 

[deltastrike]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

\

Yes, by all means. Let's continue spending money we don't have.

You are making an assumption that cutting spending would lead to massive social cuts, rather than efficiencies. There is no incentive for any of these programs to function well, or efficiently, if all we do is throw money at them and never expect any of them to do more with less (like the real world has to). This also, incidentally, addresses your "how can we raise revenue by cutting taxes" question. When you put dollars in the hands of private individuals and corporations, they spend those dollars much more efficiently than government could ever hope to. If you let them keep more of their money, they put it back into the economy in an efficient manner, gaining them more profit and income, and thus paying more in income tax. This, of course, is sans all the loopholes we have in our system that should be removed.

Oh no, I agree with you. I just disagree with the "cut cut cut" mentality. I'm a proponent of smart spending... if we're going to have to keep social programs around then there should be real reform and auditing to squeeze out inefficiencies and streamline processes. Of course that's easier said than done, our entire political system would need an overhaul/reboot and campaign finance reform before that could happen.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from deltastrike:

Oh no, I agree with you. I just disagree with the "cut cut cut" mentality. I'm a proponent of smart spending... if we're going to have to keep social programs around then there should be real reform and auditing to squeeze out inefficiencies and streamline processes. Of course that's easier said than done, our entire political system would need an overhaul/reboot and campaign finance reform before that could happen.

So after saying all that, doesn't it make sense to you to get spending in order before you raise taxes so that you can be sure you know how much it takes to run the government and at the same time provide incentive for making programs more efficient?

If I just keep throwing more and more money at the problem, what reason do they have to get better at spending?

 

[deltastrike]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

So after saying all that, doesn't it make sense to you to get spending in order before you raise taxes so that you can be sure you know how much it takes to run the government and at the same time provide incentive for making programs more efficient?

If I just keep throwing more and more money at the problem, what reason do they have to get better at spending?

Well yes, having it happen in that order would be the best way to do it, and I believe that's the conversation that the president should be having with congress. Unfortunately it just seems like the GOP wants to cut willy nilly, and the Dems just wants to tax and spend. They need to get their heads out of their asses and come up with a pragmatic, sustainable plan.