• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

An Example Of Corp Tax Incentives.......

Tex

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
aplusmnt said:
Tex said:
Let me give you a very good way of stopping what you suggest is a problem aplus--the shipping of U.S. jobs overseas---- STOP IMPORTING FOREIGN MANUFACTURED GOODS OR TAX THEM FOR BEING ABLE TO SELL IN OUR MARKETS UNTIL THERE IS NO TRADE DEFICIT!

U.S. companies would only send their work overseas when those overseas plants made goods for that country, just as we made the Japanese manufacturors do here in the U.S.

We have had a sorry trade policy and it is undermining our economy---just so we could have low interest rates and the semblences of a strong economy. Just who is buying our failing companies now?

I can not say I disagree with you!

But in the mean time I don't think it is a bad thing for States and especially local governments to give Tax breaks on things such as property taxes to entice new manufactures to bring jobs into the area. Who knows if the trade problem will ever be solved. So in the mean time local people have to look out for their local problems.

You have to bear in mind that all you are buying usually consists of assembly lines. The figure heads, Research and Development, Engineering, Metalurgical Research, and the like is back at the home office (overseas). These are the high dollar positions in the corporation and these positions are not brought into the local economy where the assembly plants are. Mike started this out with "$18 an hour top pay scale" or something of the like. The huge salaried positions are back at the overseas locales.

Buy American - or blame the gubnant - whatever.

Backhoe, the Chinese are stealing the technology you say brings the higher jobs. When one plant is built over there, they can and do sometimes copy the plant and procedures to produce the same products and compete with the U.S. technology. The chineses didn't build all that technology they use to compete with us themselves--- it came largely from us. They have no regard for intellectual property.

I have been around quite a few students and they are not all white collar potential. We need good jobs for all of them, not just the best.

Like I said before, I wouldn't be so vocal about these issues if we didn't have a trade deficit and we were not allowing the Chinese to gain so much of our currency they can use to waive over our heads just because they suppress their population in terms of freedom, liberty, media, ect.

We are working towards George Orwell's 1984.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
When people are not worried about starving, when people have the training to produce, Americans not only produce, they innovate.........

:lol: :lol: You been listening to John Kerry a little to much! :lol: We are talking about $18.00 per hour jobs and you want to talk about starvation and health care.... :lol:

You want to mention all the vets living under bridges also? :roll:

I have yet to meet a person in America that is worried about starvation, surely there is a couple but I have never seen any. I have even seen a few homeless and they seemed to be a little on the hefty side. I was a little concerned about the obesity problem amongst our homeless.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Tex said:
We are working towards George Orwell's 1984.

It has been 35 years or so since I read that book. Back then there was still the iron curtain and no internet communication - no computers and no bottled water etc. Orwell probably should have called that book 2084 :shock: We may get there.
 

Tex

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
Tex said:
We are working towards George Orwell's 1984.

It has been 35 years or so since I read that book. Back then there was still the iron curtain and no internet communication - no computers and no bottled water etc. Orwell probably should have called that book 2084 :shock: We may get there.

Then you forgot what you read. It isn't that there was no communication, it was that it was totally manipulated by the govt. agency in charge of that department and those they employed. That is more of a reality now than ever.
 

Tex

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Goodpasture said:
When people are not worried about starving, when people have the training to produce, Americans not only produce, they innovate.........

:lol: :lol: You been listening to John Kerry a little to much! :lol: We are talking about $18.00 per hour jobs and you want to talk about starvation and health care.... :lol:

You want to mention all the vets living under bridges also? :roll:

I have yet to meet a person in America that is worried about starvation, surely there is a couple but I have never seen any. I have even seen a few homeless and they seemed to be a little on the hefty side. I was a little concerned about the obesity problem amongst our homeless.

I don't listen to John Kerry but you seem to know what he says.

I am not talking starvation and health care-- you are. You are the one who thinks everything should be a flat tax to be fair. Let me just understand what you have suggested:

You have said we should not have a progressive tax rate (we have a regressive one now for the rich with capital gains tax rates trumping income tax rates) and should basically have a flat tax rate. If a "wealthier" person makes 100k and pays 10% in taxes, they pay 10k in taxes. You think everyone should pay the same so everyone should have to pay the 10K, just to be fair to the higher income person. From what you are saying, I guess you think everyone should have to pay the 10K, regardless of income. That means that the person making 10k should have to pay that 10k in taxes? Should they just live off of the crumbs of richer people's table who can afford to give crumbs away? Maybe all their income should go to pay those taxes and then they just work for you for crumbs. This is the view of people who make a lot-- that they deserve everything they get and everyone not getting as much as they are getting should get no "advantage" by being taxed at a lower rate or amount than you.

I am of the view that you should pay based on the amount that you make and can pay, not on a flat amount as you have suggested for the "richer" people.

Again, I ask you, what did Jesus say about this issue?

Greed and self interest is hard to see. It often does cloud the responsibility we have of making a fair society where everyone wins and can win big, not just a perpetuation of the rich and powerful who stack everything in their favor.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Tex said:
backhoeboogie said:
Tex said:
We are working towards George Orwell's 1984.

It has been 35 years or so since I read that book. Back then there was still the iron curtain and no internet communication - no computers and no bottled water etc. Orwell probably should have called that book 2084 :shock: We may get there.

Then you forgot what you read. It isn't that there was no communication, it was that it was totally manipulated by the govt. agency in charge of that department and those they employed. That is more of a reality now than ever.

I remember total control and complete censorship, cameras on everyone at all times, planned and rehearsed rebellion for all at a given time to end at a prescribed time etc. Loyalty between your spouse and the government and marriage to you for reproducing a child only. If the child turned in the parents for doing anything wrong he was celebrated and cheered.

When I read the book, there were no VCRs and the only folks with cameras had reel to reel jobs. We had 8 track tapes and cassettes were a new thing. Complete visual observation was something really far fetched. Go to a government building now and see the cameras. Heck, just go to a bank. And there was no communication media back then for direct deposit, purchase and tracking. Yes indeed it is much more of a reality now and big brother is indeed watching already.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Tex said:
aplusmnt said:
Goodpasture said:
When people are not worried about starving, when people have the training to produce, Americans not only produce, they innovate.........

:lol: :lol: You been listening to John Kerry a little to much! :lol: We are talking about $18.00 per hour jobs and you want to talk about starvation and health care.... :lol:

You want to mention all the vets living under bridges also? :roll:

I have yet to meet a person in America that is worried about starvation, surely there is a couple but I have never seen any. I have even seen a few homeless and they seemed to be a little on the hefty side. I was a little concerned about the obesity problem amongst our homeless.

I don't listen to John Kerry but you seem to know what he says.

I am not talking starvation and health care-- you are. You are the one who thinks everything should be a flat tax to be fair. .

Is your name Goodpasture? That reply was to him not you? I never said you are talking starvation or health care.

O wait did you mess up and sign in under wrong name and your name really is Goodpasture? I get it now..... :wink:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member



You have said we should not have a progressive tax rate (we have a regressive one now for the rich with capital gains tax rates trumping income tax rates) and should basically have a flat tax rate. If a "wealthier" person makes 100k and pays 10% in taxes, they pay 10k in taxes. You think everyone should pay the same so everyone should have to pay the 10K, just to be fair to the higher income person. From what you are saying, I guess you think everyone should have to pay the 10K, regardless of income. That means that the person making 10k should have to pay that 10k in taxes? Should they just live off of the crumbs of richer people's table who can afford to give crumbs away? Maybe all their income should go to pay those taxes and then they just work for you for crumbs. This is the view of people who make a lot-- that they deserve everything they get and everyone not getting as much as they are getting should get no "advantage" by being taxed at a lower rate or amount than you.

I am of the view that you should pay based on the amount that you make and can pay, not on a flat amount as you have suggested for the "richer" people.

Again, I ask you, what did Jesus say about this issue?

Greed and self interest is hard to see. It often does cloud the responsibility we have of making a fair society where everyone wins and can win big, not just a perpetuation of the rich and powerful who stack everything in their favor.[/quote]

No I want people paying less not more. For every wage group.

I have not read up much on it but I think I might like the raise in national sales tax and do away with income tax.

But as things stand I support doing away with Capital gains tax so the economy can grow so those get unearned income can one day be paying out of higher tax bracket.

We will never get anywhere with this discussion since your answer to problems is to punish hard work and success.

You do not want to look at ways to stimulate the economy you just want more of the same ole same ole. TAX, TAX, TAX. Typical Liberal thinking.

You have bought into all the Liberal Professors that taught you Liberal Econ 101.

I really do not mind paying more taxes than someone that makes less, but what I do not like is that it seems that those that pay less are a bigger drain on the system. How is it that people that pay very little or nothing in taxes then suck the money dry that the rest of us pay in. Social programs are the number one reason for National Debt. America's social programs dwarf our military spending.

As for Jesus, he spoke just as much about carrying ones own burden, and preached just as much about being lazy as he did being Greedy. He even went so far as to say if you "Don't work you don't eat"

Guess a person has to decide at what point a person is being greedy or tired of supporting those that are being lazy.

I don't think a person trying to provide nicely for his family and send his kids to college and be able to retire one day with out being a burden on anyone else is being Greedy. Now I imagine ole Warren Buffett might have to look long and hard at the greed issue, but then maybe that is why he is trying to make amends for those first 76 years of money mongering.
 

Tex

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Tex said:
aplusmnt said:
:lol: :lol: You been listening to John Kerry a little to much! :lol: We are talking about $18.00 per hour jobs and you want to talk about starvation and health care.... :lol:

You want to mention all the vets living under bridges also? :roll:

I have yet to meet a person in America that is worried about starvation, surely there is a couple but I have never seen any. I have even seen a few homeless and they seemed to be a little on the hefty side. I was a little concerned about the obesity problem amongst our homeless.

I don't listen to John Kerry but you seem to know what he says.

I am not talking starvation and health care-- you are. You are the one who thinks everything should be a flat tax to be fair. .

Is your name Goodpasture? That reply was to him not you? I never said you are talking starvation or health care.

O wait did you mess up and sign in under wrong name and your name really is Goodpasture? I get it now..... :wink:
We will never get anywhere with this discussion since your answer to problems is to punish hard work and success.

You do not want to look at ways to stimulate the economy you just want more of the same ole same ole. TAX, TAX, TAX. Typical Liberal thinking.

You have bought into all the Liberal Professors that taught you Liberal Econ 101.

Whoa, there, aplus, you are starting to sound a little like Hillary. I never said any of those things, but you must insist that I did so you can win an argument with yourself.

Do you think you can stick with reality here?

I have certainly said we should not give tax breaks when we have a federal deficit, with the possible exception of using a little national credit to get us out of a recession.

You seem to advocate tax breaks while borrowing from China, Japan, or whoever else will fund overspending---- at the cost of being master over our future.

Come to think of it, your short sightedness does remind me a little more of Bill Clinton than Hillary. You don't claim to be the first black neocon do you?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Tex said:
You seem to advocate tax breaks while borrowing from China, Japan, or whoever else will fund overspending---- at the cost of being master over our future.

Tex talking to you is like trying to push a rope up hill.

I will type it real slow this time so you can get it. I advocate cutting taxes so that the actual dollars received in Washington DC as Tax revenue increases so as to be able to better pay down that national debt.

You advocate increasing taxes so that businesses fail, stifle future growth and many times leave the U.S. for more friendly countries.

I Want Politicians to spend less
I want Politicians to tax less
I want politicians to pay down the debt

I don't want to continue to feed the money cow like you!

I trust the free market and people to make the best decisions with their own money and that includes the Rich.

In one breath you talk bad about the growing deficit and how bad the government has done at handling their finances but then you want to give them MORE to mismanage! :shock:

I will take my chances letting Bill Gates keep more of his hard earned money, because from what I see he has done a better job helping the middle class in America by creating jobs than the idiots in Washington have did!
 

Tex

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Tex said:
You seem to advocate tax breaks while borrowing from China, Japan, or whoever else will fund overspending---- at the cost of being master over our future.

Tex talking to you is like trying to push a rope up hill.

I will type it real slow this time so you can get it. I advocate cutting taxes so that the actual dollars received in Washington DC as Tax revenue increases so as to be able to better pay down that national debt.

You advocate increasing taxes so that businesses fail, stifle future growth and many times leave the U.S. for more friendly countries.

I Want Politicians to spend less
I want Politicians to tax less
I want politicians to pay down the debt

I don't want to continue to feed the money cow like you!

I trust the free market and people to make the best decisions with their own money and that includes the Rich.

In one breath you talk bad about the growing deficit and how bad the government has done at handling their finances but then you want to give them MORE to mismanage! :shock:

I will take my chances letting Bill Gates keep more of his hard earned money, because from what I see he has done a better job helping the middle class in America by creating jobs than the idiots in Washington have did!

Well, there you go again, Bill Clinton.

I want a govt. that does not have a budget deficit on avg. and one that pays the deficit off and even the national debt off, just as one would pay off their credit card. It gives you much more room to handle problems that come up to have all your debt paid down. Anyone can go out and spend more than they make, making it look like they have a better lifestyle or standard of living than they can afford---just because they are borrowing to have that lifestyle. Borrowing only gives the illusion that you have a better lifestyle because you don't count the debt enslavement against the lifestyle you are buying.

I think you and backhoe should both be leaders of the church to enrich the rich. Give all your money to them, if you believe in that. It is your right. They may even give you a job. Just don't ask for it to be national policy for everyone. Your church should be voluntary, not mandatory. Before you ask others to do that, do it yourself, or do you just want to be at the top of a ponzi scheme and not have to pay to enter your church of greed?

Our govt. should tax equal to what they spend, on average, with few exceptions. They should not borrow to go to war, nor borrow to give tax breaks. Governing is about making the decisions of scarce resources. We have a president who has created huge govt. liabilities and not gained the resources from the public to pay for them--- instead just borrow or in the case of no child left behind, another unfunded mandate. He has increased future claims via the drug plan without it being actuarilly sound, but he also has had no problem funding the govt. by using the SS surplus.


I would love the govt. to do less, aplus. They need to start by seeing if the regulatory agencies are doing their jobs, not just taking up space. If not, fire them and get new people--- oh, but it is the political appointees that are responsible for that problem so we can't do that. :roll:

If you are paying for tax cuts without balancing the budget, you are borrowing from your future to pay for current tax cuts. That is wrong (except for the rare event of a recession).

If we really had a progressive tax system that was based on how much our govt. spends on avg., the govt. would spend less and regular people would have more resources to run their lives because rich people would demand it. Right now, the middle class is taxed more than the rich. It is regressive. It is that way because rich special interests have gone to the Congress and asked them for special goodies that everyone else doesn't have.

You can't say Bill Gates wouldn't have done the same thing he did if he had to pay his fair share. It is another empty argument for your church member's consumption.

Our govt. might even be smaller if he had-- at least the debt would have. He might even get a tax break---once the Congress limited spending for govt. interests and let the private sector have more of the GDP.
 

Tex

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Tex said:
You seem to advocate tax breaks while borrowing from China, Japan, or whoever else will fund overspending---- at the cost of being master over our future.

Tex talking to you is like trying to push a rope up hill.

I will type it real slow this time so you can get it. I advocate cutting taxes so that the actual dollars received in Washington DC as Tax revenue increases so as to be able to better pay down that national debt.

You advocate increasing taxes so that businesses fail, stifle future growth and many times leave the U.S. for more friendly countries.

I Want Politicians to spend less
I want Politicians to tax less
I want politicians to pay down the debt

I don't want to continue to feed the money cow like you!

I trust the free market and people to make the best decisions with their own money and that includes the Rich.

In one breath you talk bad about the growing deficit and how bad the government has done at handling their finances but then you want to give them MORE to mismanage! :shock:

I will take my chances letting Bill Gates keep more of his hard earned money, because from what I see he has done a better job helping the middle class in America by creating jobs than the idiots in Washington have did!

Well, there you go again, Bill Clinton.

I want a govt. that does not have a budget deficit on avg. and one that pays the deficit off and even the national debt off, just as one would pay off their credit card. It gives you much more room to handle problems that come up to have all your debt paid down. Anyone can go out and spend more than they make, making it look like they have a better lifestyle or standard of living than they can afford---just because they are borrowing to have that lifestyle. Borrowing only gives the illusion that you have a better lifestyle because you don't count the debt enslavement against the lifestyle you are buying.

I think you and backhoe should both be leaders of the church to enrich the rich. Give all your money to them, if you believe in that. It is your right. They may even give you a job. Just don't ask for it to be national policy for everyone. Your church should be voluntary, not mandatory. Before you ask others to do that, do it yourself, or do you just want to be at the top of a ponzi scheme and not have to pay to enter your church of greed?

Our govt. should tax equal to what they spend, on average, with few exceptions. They should not borrow to go to war, nor borrow to give tax breaks. Governing is about making the decisions of scarce resources. We have a president who has created huge govt. liabilities and not gained the resources from the public to pay for them--- instead just borrow or in the case of no child left behind, another unfunded mandate. He has increased future claims via the drug plan without it being actuarilly sound, but he also has had no problem funding the govt. by using the SS surplus.

Not being fiscally conservative drops you out of being a real republican in my book, no matter what you call yourself. You are looking for something for nothing. GW has done nothing but fiscal pandering with his deficits and new programs he instituted to pay for them. It is the illusion of freebees without the cost being extracted not now, just delayed. Just wait till you hear the rich claim SS benefits have to be cut (only because they can not run the nation's businesses and promises made to the public). Let those former congressmen lose their congressional pay perks when this happens, not just the people they screwed while in office.


I would love the govt. to do less, aplus. They need to start by seeing if the regulatory agencies are doing their jobs, not just taking up space. If not, fire them and get new people--- oh, but it is the political appointees that are responsible for that problem so we can't do that. :roll:

If you are paying for tax cuts without balancing the budget, you are borrowing from your future to pay for current tax cuts. That is wrong (except for the rare event of a recession).

If we really had a progressive tax system that was based on how much our govt. spends on avg., the govt. would spend less and regular people would have more resources to run their lives because rich people would demand it. Right now, the middle class is taxed more than the rich. It is regressive. It is that way because rich special interests have gone to the Congress and asked them for special goodies that everyone else doesn't have.

You can't say Bill Gates wouldn't have done the same thing he did if he had to pay his fair share. It is another empty argument for your church member's consumption.

Our govt. might even be smaller if he had-- at least the debt would have. He might even get a tax break---once the Congress limited spending for govt. interests and let the private sector have more of the GDP.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Tex said:
aplusmnt said:
Tex said:
You seem to advocate tax breaks while borrowing from China, Japan, or whoever else will fund overspending---- at the cost of being master over our future.

Tex talking to you is like trying to push a rope up hill.

I will type it real slow this time so you can get it. I advocate cutting taxes so that the actual dollars received in Washington DC as Tax revenue increases so as to be able to better pay down that national debt.

You advocate increasing taxes so that businesses fail, stifle future growth and many times leave the U.S. for more friendly countries.

I Want Politicians to spend less
I want Politicians to tax less
I want politicians to pay down the debt

I don't want to continue to feed the money cow like you!

I trust the free market and people to make the best decisions with their own money and that includes the Rich.

In one breath you talk bad about the growing deficit and how bad the government has done at handling their finances but then you want to give them MORE to mismanage! :shock:

I will take my chances letting Bill Gates keep more of his hard earned money, because from what I see he has done a better job helping the middle class in America by creating jobs than the idiots in Washington have did!

Well, there you go again, Bill Clinton.

I want a govt. that does not have a budget deficit on avg. and one that pays the deficit off and even the national debt off, just as one would pay off their credit card. It gives you much more room to handle problems that come up to have all your debt paid down. Anyone can go out and spend more than they make, making it look like they have a better lifestyle or standard of living than they can afford---just because they are borrowing to have that lifestyle. Borrowing only gives the illusion that you have a better lifestyle because you don't count the debt enslavement against the lifestyle you are buying.

I think you and backhoe should both be leaders of the church to enrich the rich. Give all your money to them, if you believe in that. It is your right. They may even give you a job. Just don't ask for it to be national policy for everyone. Your church should be voluntary, not mandatory. Before you ask others to do that, do it yourself, or do you just want to be at the top of a ponzi scheme and not have to pay to enter your church of greed?

Our govt. should tax equal to what they spend, on average, with few exceptions. They should not borrow to go to war, nor borrow to give tax breaks. Governing is about making the decisions of scarce resources. We have a president who has created huge govt. liabilities and not gained the resources from the public to pay for them--- instead just borrow or in the case of no child left behind, another unfunded mandate. He has increased future claims via the drug plan without it being actuarilly sound, but he also has had no problem funding the govt. by using the SS surplus.


I would love the govt. to do less, aplus. They need to start by seeing if the regulatory agencies are doing their jobs, not just taking up space. If not, fire them and get new people--- oh, but it is the political appointees that are responsible for that problem so we can't do that. :roll:

If you are paying for tax cuts without balancing the budget, you are borrowing from your future to pay for current tax cuts. That is wrong (except for the rare event of a recession).

If we really had a progressive tax system that was based on how much our govt. spends on avg., the govt. would spend less and regular people would have more resources to run their lives because rich people would demand it. Right now, the middle class is taxed more than the rich. It is regressive. It is that way because rich special interests have gone to the Congress and asked them for special goodies that everyone else doesn't have.

You can't say Bill Gates wouldn't have done the same thing he did if he had to pay his fair share. It is another empty argument for your church member's consumption.

Our govt. might even be smaller if he had-- at least the debt would have. He might even get a tax break---once the Congress limited spending for govt. interests and let the private sector have more of the GDP.

You keep typing a lot but saying the same thing. I agree I want less spending!!!!!!!

But the question at hand is if the idiots in Washington do not spend less, will cutting taxes across the board help bring in more money or not?

I say cutting taxes and letting people and businesses invest more brings in more money than taxing anyone more does.

Bush cut taxes before and more tax money was created, Reagan did the same thing.

Now please explain why it does not work if it already has worked?

In the absence of less spending You are hung up on taxation as the solution, typical liberal solution.

You are so hung up on %%%%%%% you miss the gross $$$$$$$$ amount that has came in due to cutting taxes.
 

Tex

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Tex said:
aplusmnt said:
Tex talking to you is like trying to push a rope up hill.

I will type it real slow this time so you can get it. I advocate cutting taxes so that the actual dollars received in Washington DC as Tax revenue increases so as to be able to better pay down that national debt.

You advocate increasing taxes so that businesses fail, stifle future growth and many times leave the U.S. for more friendly countries.

I Want Politicians to spend less
I want Politicians to tax less
I want politicians to pay down the debt

I don't want to continue to feed the money cow like you!

I trust the free market and people to make the best decisions with their own money and that includes the Rich.

In one breath you talk bad about the growing deficit and how bad the government has done at handling their finances but then you want to give them MORE to mismanage! :shock:

I will take my chances letting Bill Gates keep more of his hard earned money, because from what I see he has done a better job helping the middle class in America by creating jobs than the idiots in Washington have did!

Well, there you go again, Bill Clinton.

I want a govt. that does not have a budget deficit on avg. and one that pays the deficit off and even the national debt off, just as one would pay off their credit card. It gives you much more room to handle problems that come up to have all your debt paid down. Anyone can go out and spend more than they make, making it look like they have a better lifestyle or standard of living than they can afford---just because they are borrowing to have that lifestyle. Borrowing only gives the illusion that you have a better lifestyle because you don't count the debt enslavement against the lifestyle you are buying.

I think you and backhoe should both be leaders of the church to enrich the rich. Give all your money to them, if you believe in that. It is your right. They may even give you a job. Just don't ask for it to be national policy for everyone. Your church should be voluntary, not mandatory. Before you ask others to do that, do it yourself, or do you just want to be at the top of a ponzi scheme and not have to pay to enter your church of greed?

Our govt. should tax equal to what they spend, on average, with few exceptions. They should not borrow to go to war, nor borrow to give tax breaks. Governing is about making the decisions of scarce resources. We have a president who has created huge govt. liabilities and not gained the resources from the public to pay for them--- instead just borrow or in the case of no child left behind, another unfunded mandate. He has increased future claims via the drug plan without it being actuarilly sound, but he also has had no problem funding the govt. by using the SS surplus.


I would love the govt. to do less, aplus. They need to start by seeing if the regulatory agencies are doing their jobs, not just taking up space. If not, fire them and get new people--- oh, but it is the political appointees that are responsible for that problem so we can't do that. :roll:

If you are paying for tax cuts without balancing the budget, you are borrowing from your future to pay for current tax cuts. That is wrong (except for the rare event of a recession).

If we really had a progressive tax system that was based on how much our govt. spends on avg., the govt. would spend less and regular people would have more resources to run their lives because rich people would demand it. Right now, the middle class is taxed more than the rich. It is regressive. It is that way because rich special interests have gone to the Congress and asked them for special goodies that everyone else doesn't have.

You can't say Bill Gates wouldn't have done the same thing he did if he had to pay his fair share. It is another empty argument for your church member's consumption.

Our govt. might even be smaller if he had-- at least the debt would have. He might even get a tax break---once the Congress limited spending for govt. interests and let the private sector have more of the GDP.

You keep typing a lot but saying the same thing. I agree I want less spending!!!!!!!

But the question at hand is if the idiots in Washington do not spend less, will cutting taxes across the board help bring in more money or not?

I say cutting taxes and letting people and businesses invest more brings in more money than taxing anyone more does.

Bush cut taxes before and more tax money was created, Reagan did the same thing.

Now please explain why it does not work if it already has worked?

In the absence of less spending You are hung up on taxation as the solution, typical liberal solution.

You are so hung up on %%%%%%% you miss the gross $$$$$$$$ amount that has came in due to cutting taxes.

No, I am not hung up on that at all. All I am saying is that cutting taxes without cutting spending is fiscal pandering. I am all for the govt. taking less of the GDP--- but not by borrowing (which is nothing more than leveraged future claims on our income via taxes).

There has never been a tax cut that has "paid for itself" in increased taxes. We can go over the capital gains tax cut and how that happened, if you want to understand what happened.

You can get to a point of marginal declines in taxes if you tax too much as a percent, like what happened when we had 70% taxes for the highest income group. The point of diminishing marginal returns is a real event, but we are not near that now. We should never do that and we don't have to if we hold our politicians accountable. GW has not been held accountable and instead, just like a credit card balance, has passed it on to the future. To make the problem worse, he took the whole Iraq war off budget, just to make the illusion better looking. It is easy to fool some people.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Tex said:
There has never been a tax cut that has "paid for itself" in increased taxes. We can go over the capital gains tax cut and how that happened, if you want to understand what happened.

"Tax rate reductions increase tax revenues. This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush's 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends. Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Finally, another inconvenient truth is that there have been 49 consecutive months of job growth as a result of the economic expansion induced by President Bush's 2003 tax rate reductions"


http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110010798

Check Mate!
 

Tex

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Tex said:
There has never been a tax cut that has "paid for itself" in increased taxes. We can go over the capital gains tax cut and how that happened, if you want to understand what happened.

"Tax rate reductions increase tax revenues. This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush's 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends. Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Finally, another inconvenient truth is that there have been 49 consecutive months of job growth as a result of the economic expansion induced by President Bush's 2003 tax rate reductions"


http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110010798

Check Mate!

Tying those revenues with the tax cuts is like tying Hurricane Katrina directly with global warming. Nothing but ideology here, not cause and effect at all, but a little selection of facts.

Google "Do tax cuts increase tax revenues?" and you get a very different article from the Wall Street Journal. I guess buying the Wall Street Journal has its benefits, if you are trying to push your rich religion. It also compromises your reputation.

July 11, 2006
Tax Cuts Do Not Pay for Themselves

George Bush, as recently as today, made the claim that tax cuts pay for themselves. No credible analysis suggests that they do, but the administration continues to spin this yarn anyway. When will people finally tire of being deceived? The claim Bush made today is refuted by the White House's own analysis, yet the claims are made anyway. Here's the CBPP's quote of Bush's statement:

A Smoking Gun: President’s Claim That Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves Refuted by Administration’s Own Analysis, by James Horney, CBPP: In remarks on July 11 touting revised deficit projections in the Mid-Session Review of the Budget, President Bush once again claimed that tax cuts pay for themselves:

Some in Washington say we had to choose between cutting taxes and cutting the deficit….Today’s numbers show that that was a false choice. The economic growth fueled by tax relief has helped send our tax revenues soaring. That’s what has happened.

These remarks mirror previous statements by the President, the Vice-President, and key Congressional leaders that the increase in revenues in 2005 and the increase now projected for 2006 prove that tax cuts “pay for themselves”...

Another CBPP piece documents claims made by the administration that tax cuts are self-financing. David Wessel of the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire summarizes the CBPP findings:

Do Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves?, by David Wessel, Washington Wire: Not if you read the fine print in the new White House midsession review of budget trends. “While difficult to estimate precisely,” Treasury long-run analyses of the effects of President Bush’s tax cuts “may ultimately” raise total national output of goods and services by 0.7%.

So is that enough to pay for the tax cuts, even after allowing them to work their economic magic over the next 10 years? The Center for Budget Policies and Priorities ... says it isn’t. “A 0.7 percent increase in the economic output that the Congressional Budget Office has projected for 2016 would represent an additional $146 billion [in gross domestic product],” it says. “If new revenues equaled as much as 20% of the additional output, the increase in revenues resulting from making the tax cuts permanent (assuming Treasury’s best-case assumptions) would be $29 billion.”

That’s a lot of money. But how does it compare to the size of the president’s tax cuts? The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation ... says making the president’s tax cuts permanent would reduce federal revenues in 2016 by $314 billion. That is more than 10 times what the Treasury analysis suggests tax cuts would generate by prompting more hours of work, more savings and investment and more efficient use of resources.

By the way, according to the CBPP analysis, "An increase in the level of economic output of 0.7 percent — the Treasury’s best-case scenario — in 20 years would represent an increase of about 4/100ths of one percentage point in the annual growth rate of the economy." That's 0.04% extra growth per year. For even more problems with the analysis, see Brad DeLong's post of Jason Furman's comments on dynamic scoring, the method used to evaluate the effect of tax cuts over time.

It's hard not to view this as anything but willful deception designed to sell an ideology. That deception is required to sell it tells you a lot about its validity. [Update: Brad DeLong has even more from Jason Furman echoing the CBPP analysis above].

Stop being fooled by people who mess with you for their own purposes, aplus. Start paying your tithe to your church. They aren't rich enough, or haven't put our country in a bad enough position yet. :roll: :roll:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
The largest 4 year tax revenue increase in the History of this country is not ideology.

I guess we have beat this horse to death. You are for more taxes and I am against them. You wish to punish hard work and success and I am against it. You think larger earners paying 35% while lower wage earners pay 10% is not a large enough spread.

We just keep stating the same points. I just hope enough people in America realize that higher taxes for anyone rich or not is not the answer to our problems. And I hope they use their right to vote to help bring taxes down and not put in to office a social monster that will only raise taxes and spending.

Not much more I can try to show you, you have drank the Kool-Aid so much your lips and tongue have turned purple from it. I can not undo that no matter how hard I try.
 

Tex

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
The largest 4 year tax revenue increase in the History of this country is not ideology.

I guess we have beat this horse to death. You are for more taxes and I am against them. You wish to punish hard work and success and I am against it. You think larger earners paying 35% while lower wage earners pay 10% is not a large enough spread.

We just keep stating the same points. I just hope enough people in America realize that higher taxes for anyone rich or not is not the answer to our problems. And I hope they use their right to vote to help bring taxes down and not put in to office a social monster that will only raise taxes and spending.

Not much more I can try to show you, you have drank the Kool-Aid so much your lips and tongue have turned purple from it. I can not undo that no matter how hard I try.

Punish hard work and success?

You keep pulling a Bill Clinton there, aplus. I have to keep correcting you.

I am not for increasing the spread between 10 and 35. I am for making sure that if it is law, that it really exists, which it doesn't. It is just a lie.

I also think the tax rate should be indexed for inflation. If we are going to have a real rate increase for a given amount of income, it should be apparent what the politicians are doing, not just letting it happen because our inflation rate is pushing it there because of all the monetary games.

I am also for govt. to be honest, stop putting spending on the nation's credit card, and having a balanced budget.

Aplus, you are so religious for your your new church that you just can't listen to anything except your tax cut for the rich mantra. What is in it for you?
 

Latest posts

Top