You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate - 2004 article
- Thread starter Savant
- Start date
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Cutting raises taxes raises revenue? Not true, never proved to be true.
Simply not the facts.
Liberal linky.
http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2008/01/28/do_capital_gains_tax_cuts_incr/
I just showed you evidence from snopes as to why the referenced article is false.
I am still waiting for you to show any evidence as to why Hawaii's position is false and not to be trusted.
I am still waiting for you to show any evidence as to why Hawaii's position is false and not to be trusted.
Quote from jem:
Lets see...
One person says we have no idea if Obama is a natural born citizen
vs
Others say we must trust that HI determined he is a natural born citizen so he is therefore an NBC.
which one do you think is spurious?
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
I just showed you evidence from snopes as to why the referenced article is false.
I am still waiting for you to show any evidence as to why Hawaii's position is false and not to be trusted.
since we are working on vocabulary...
can you say non sequitor....
your link is not germaine to the choice of the spurious statement above.
Quote from Mnphats:
Simply not the facts.
Liberal linky.
http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2008/01/28/do_capital_gains_tax_cuts_incr/
this is for optional zzz but in a way I am putting that chart into perspective.
of course it can be true.
Tax receipts went up after Reagan cut taxes.
That is a historical fact. And we are not just talking about capital gains taxes...
finally in terms of economic concepts
of course it can be true.
tax vs. revenue is a curve.
if you had 100 percent tax and close to zero activity... of course cutting to a 20 percent tax would increase activity and thereby revenue.
The spurious statement related to your conclusion that cutting taxes produces increased revenues, which is not factually based.
The conclusion is spurious over the course of a business cycle, which is why Reagan raised taxes many times.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html
The conclusion is spurious over the course of a business cycle, which is why Reagan raised taxes many times.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html
Quote from jem:
since we are working on vocabulary...
can you say non sequitor....
your link is not germaine to the choice of the spurious statement above.
Can be true, and claiming it is true is quite a different.
Claiming it is true, when it could just as easily be false or a coincidence or due to a variety of other of factors, is drawing a spurious conclusion.
Our current tax rates, which are historically on the low end, and not solving the problem...now are they?
Claiming it is true, when it could just as easily be false or a coincidence or due to a variety of other of factors, is drawing a spurious conclusion.
Our current tax rates, which are historically on the low end, and not solving the problem...now are they?
Quote from jem:
this is for optional zzz but in a way I am putting that chart into perspective.
of course it can be true.
Tax receipts went up after Reagan cut taxes.
That is a historical fact. And we are not just talking about capital gains taxes...
finally in terms of economic concepts
of course it can be true.
tax vs. revenue is a curve.
if you had 100 percent tax and close to zero activity... of course cutting to a 20 percent tax would increase activity and thereby revenue.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Can be true, and claiming it is true is quite a different.
Claiming it is true, when it could just as easily be false or a coincidence or due to a variety of other of factors, is drawing a spurious conclusion.
Our current tax rates, which are historically on the low end, and not solving the problem...now are they?
I do not see taxes as historically low... they are incredibly high when you add them all up... but the problem is spending. spending has gone crazy? The fed is debasing our currency partially causing gas prices and other goods to act like a tax on our economy.
Our economy is being destroyed by spending.
Spending is so strong that there is a disincentive to work and pay taxes.. Why take a 10 dollar an hour job when you can get 1800 a month for doing nothing?
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
The spurious statement related to your conclusion that cutting taxes produces increased revenues, which is not factually based.
The conclusion is spurious over the course of a business cycle, which is why Reagan raised taxes many times.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html
from your article...
It's important to note that Reagan's tax increases did not wipe out the effects of that initial tax cut. But they did eat up about half of it.
Quote from jem:
I do not see taxes as historically low... they are incredibly high when you add them all up... but the problem is spending. spending has gone crazy? The fed is debasing our currency partially causing gas prices and other goods to act like a tax on our economy.
Our economy is being destroyed by spending.
Spending is so strong that there is a disincentive to work and pay taxes.. Why take a 10 dollar an hour job when you can get 1800 a month for doing nothing?
Exactly. The part about the effects of Quant Easing acting as an additional tax on the taxpayer are always overlooked. Perpetual ZIRP combined with a higher cost of living are a tremendous tax and that doesn't even include all of these various "lifestyle taxes" that crop up every few years when they need to raise more revenue. I've seen some anecdotal calculations from people who total up ALL of the taxes they pay in a year, not just at the state and federal levels, but the sales taxes, liquor taxes, soft drink taxes, utility taxes, hotel, airline, etc, etc...The total tax burden is extremely high and unlike the 1970s when we had sky high inflation, the saver can't earn a dime in conservative investments. Back then you could get a return in excess of 10% in short term bills and such, now 1% if you are lucky.
All of this really only scratches the surface and goes far beyond the usual two party bickering. I can also allude to the ridiculous gap between executive pay and the typical worker, but that's really the side effects of a monetary policy that has just been a perpetual asset reflation scheme. The real economy pays the price for all these bullshit monetary schemes.