Aradhus wrote:In other words, lower taxes, and cut the deficit. Cognitive dissonance, work your magic.
How on earth are those dissonant? Oh yeah, the government's not allowed to cut spending.
Because cutting taxes makes cutting the deficit more difficult. Its like saying you want to stop the boat from sinking but don't want to pump any water out.
In effect tax cuts are counter productive to cutting a deficit.
Tax cuts are not enacted in a vacuum. It is proven economics that cutting taxes actually increases government revenues far beyond any loss of income from the actual cut. The fact that you liberals continue to spread this lie about tax cuts increasing the deficit is astounding.
spurgistan wrote:Apparently, a lot of people place a lot of value on living in New York. Maybe those tax dollars don't just go to lining the pockets of Tammany Hall bigwigs? Food for thought.
On a side note, Thomas Nast was a bigot.
Also, I feel like the fact that federal taxes (which are kind of the center of the tax debate atm) are at their lowest rates in 20 years ought to be mentioned here.
Saying federal taxes are at their lowest rates in 20 years is moot.
One.... it's only the federal taxes that are lower now than in 1990. My state tax has increased. My state sales tax has increased. My property tax and gas taxes have increased.
Two... federal taxes may be lower than they were in 1990... but they are higher than they were in 1890. I prefer the tax rates from 1790 myself. Federal income tax was zero then.
It's nice that you only go back as far as you want.
thegreekdog wrote:Here's what a person living in New York City (let's say she is a stock broker) and making over $200,000 per year pays in personal income taxes (based on tax rates).
- Income = $200,000 - US federal - Your tax is $41,754 + 33% of the amount over $171,550 ($9,389) = $51,143 - New York state personal income tax - Your tax is $13,303 plus 7.85% of the excess over $200,000 = $13,303 - New York city personal income tax - Your tax is $3,071 plus 3.648% of the excess of $90,000 ($4,013) = $7,084 - Social security tax - 6.2% on the first $106,800 of taxable earnings = $6,622 - Medicare tax - 1.45% on an employee's wages = $2,900
- Total tax = $81,052
I am sure she will be still very well off on the remaining $120,000
Aradhus wrote:In other words, lower taxes, and cut the deficit. Cognitive dissonance, work your magic.
How on earth are those dissonant? Oh yeah, the government's not allowed to cut spending.
Because cutting taxes makes cutting the deficit more difficult. Its like saying you want to stop the boat from sinking but don't want to pump any water out.
In effect tax cuts are counter productive to cutting a deficit.
Tax cuts are not enacted in a vacuum. It is proven economics that cutting taxes actually increases government revenues far beyond any loss of income from the actual cut. The fact that you liberals continue to spread this lie about tax cuts increasing the deficit is astounding.
Only if taxes are at the point where it is actually a disincentive to earn more. Otherwise why have taxes at all! obviously a rate of 1% ta would CLEARLY make the government so much more money. Why stop there? let's keep cutting taxes into fractions of a percent the government will have so much money the deficit will just disappear! Thank you for pointing out this magic government revenue source, i will be forwarding it to the ministry of finance with this windfall of money we'll be able to build more hospitals! Thanks Nightstrike for solving government revenue problems across the globe!
Crash your car and you'll pay...the New York City Fire Department?
According to Fox 5 New York, that's the plan being proposed by New York City officials, who want to charge motorists $490 for accidents involving injuries, $415 for vehicle fires, and $365 for any other collision that requires an emergency response.
The plan is set to go into effect on July 1, 2011, but non-binding public hearings will be held in January.
Aradhus wrote:In other words, lower taxes, and cut the deficit. Cognitive dissonance, work your magic.
How on earth are those dissonant? Oh yeah, the government's not allowed to cut spending.
Because cutting taxes makes cutting the deficit more difficult. Its like saying you want to stop the boat from sinking but don't want to pump any water out.
In effect tax cuts are counter productive to cutting a deficit.
Tax cuts are not enacted in a vacuum. It is proven economics that cutting taxes actually increases government revenues far beyond any loss of income from the actual cut. The fact that you liberals continue to spread this lie about tax cuts increasing the deficit is astounding.
Really? Did the Bush tax cuts provide these extra revenues? From what I can see they just added trillions of dolalrs to the deficit.
Aradhus wrote:In other words, lower taxes, and cut the deficit. Cognitive dissonance, work your magic.
How on earth are those dissonant? Oh yeah, the government's not allowed to cut spending.
Because cutting taxes makes cutting the deficit more difficult. Its like saying you want to stop the boat from sinking but don't want to pump any water out.
In effect tax cuts are counter productive to cutting a deficit.
Tax cuts are not enacted in a vacuum. It is proven economics that cutting taxes actually increases government revenues far beyond any loss of income from the actual cut. The fact that you liberals continue to spread this lie about tax cuts increasing the deficit is astounding.
Really? Did the Bush tax cuts provide these extra revenues? From what I can see they just added trillions of dolalrs to the deficit.
It's pretty convenient to forget the recession we had after 9/11, which was quickly alleviated because of the current tax rates being installed in 2002.
Night Strike wrote: It's pretty convenient to forget the recession we had after 9/11, which was quickly alleviated because of the current tax rates being installed in 2002.
Pretty sure Bush was posting deficits throughout his presidency recession or no. Obviously he should have cut taxes more then the government would have had much more money!
Night Strike wrote: It's pretty convenient to forget the recession we had after 9/11, which was quickly alleviated because of the current tax rates being installed in 2002.
Pretty sure Bush was posting deficits throughout his presidency recession or no. Obviously he should have cut taxes more then the government would have had much more money!
Those deficits were due to too much spending, not the tax rates.
Aradhus wrote:In other words, lower taxes, and cut the deficit. Cognitive dissonance, work your magic.
How on earth are those dissonant? Oh yeah, the government's not allowed to cut spending.
Because cutting taxes makes cutting the deficit more difficult. Its like saying you want to stop the boat from sinking but don't want to pump any water out.
In effect tax cuts are counter productive to cutting a deficit.
Tax cuts are not enacted in a vacuum. It is proven economics that cutting taxes actually increases government revenues far beyond any loss of income from the actual cut. The fact that you liberals continue to spread this lie about tax cuts increasing the deficit is astounding.
It's not that simple. Lower taxes does contribute more to economic growth and develop, but for revenue? You're starting to stretch it because the effects are more and more indirect and thus more difficult to correlate.
________________________________________
Also, please cut the misleading "you liberals" bullshit. You sound like you're regurgitating popular replublican talkshow-speak.
Did you know that there are plenty of liberal people who propound more liberal economic policies? Piss off with the propaganda; it always undermines your arguments and serves no purpose other than to piss off people. (lol, may as well be labeled "baiting" or "flaming" since you constantly present liberals as liars, con-artists, or these deviant bastards who are responsible for everything that's wrong in this world).
[Thus concluding BBS's post for the day].
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Night Strike wrote: It's pretty convenient to forget the recession we had after 9/11, which was quickly alleviated because of the current tax rates being installed in 2002.
Pretty sure Bush was posting deficits throughout his presidency recession or no. Obviously he should have cut taxes more then the government would have had much more money!
Baron, without a doubt, lower taxes do contribute to economic growth and development, but there are other factors at play that contributed and continue to contribute to the problem--particularly, the Fed with its monetary expansion policies and lack of oversight.
alex951 wrote:I guess people feel "robbed" almost you know like tax money had to bail them out, then they funded the tea party to regain some power in congress. the middle and lower class want the upper class to finally pay for lunch instead of the other way around. idk
Actually, the Tea Party wants everyone to pay for their own lunches, not make the rich pay for the poor.
depends on who you think the Tea Party represents
I vote for economic principles and fiscal responsibility,
In other words, lower taxes, and cut the deficit. Cognitive dissonance, work your magic.
Aradhus wrote:In other words, lower taxes, and cut the deficit. Cognitive dissonance, work your magic.
How on earth are those dissonant? Oh yeah, the government's not allowed to cut spending.
Because cutting taxes makes cutting the deficit more difficult. Its like saying you want to stop the boat from sinking but don't want to pump any water out.
In effect tax cuts are counter productive to cutting a deficit.
which is why, I am going to introduce the concept of cutting spending.
But Baron is right, and I feel the same way. A tax cut without matching spending has a chance to grow the deficit. so....CUT SPENDING TOO!
Of course it is not guaranteed to raise the debt, and a couple people over the years actually cut taxes and raised revenues at the same time. I forget who the dude was, but I think now they call it "Reaganomics" or something
Last edited by Phatscotty on Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Night Strike wrote: It's pretty convenient to forget the recession we had after 9/11, which was quickly alleviated because of the current tax rates being installed in 2002.
Pretty sure Bush was posting deficits throughout his presidency recession or no. Obviously he should have cut taxes more then the government would have had much more money!
Sure he was. He almost balanced the budget once too either in 03 or 04, as I think we only posted a 100 bil deficit. the dollar was sure strong back then, and gas was cheap too. good ingredients to make an economy hum
Dishonest conservatives, making intentionally misleading arguments, who knew that was possible!
Cutting taxes increases revenue, apparently a universal fact. You cut taxes, gov revenue is guaranteed to increase.
Come on, I know that not all conservatives are dishonest, have some integrity and one of you explain why what these knuckleheads are purporting is dishonest.
thegreekdog wrote:Here's what a person living in New York City (let's say she is a stock broker) and making over $200,000 per year pays in personal income taxes (based on tax rates).
- Income = $200,000 - US federal - Your tax is $41,754 + 33% of the amount over $171,550 ($9,389) = $51,143 - New York state personal income tax - Your tax is $13,303 plus 7.85% of the excess over $200,000 = $13,303 - New York city personal income tax - Your tax is $3,071 plus 3.648% of the excess of $90,000 ($4,013) = $7,084 - Social security tax - 6.2% on the first $106,800 of taxable earnings = $6,622 - Medicare tax - 1.45% on an employee's wages = $2,900
- Total tax = $81,052
I am sure she will be still very well off on the remaining $120,000
Not the point. Idiot.
Thank you for intelligently contributing to the discussion
Night Strike wrote: It's pretty convenient to forget the recession we had after 9/11, which was quickly alleviated because of the current tax rates being installed in 2002.
Pretty sure Bush was posting deficits throughout his presidency recession or no. Obviously he should have cut taxes more then the government would have had much more money!
Baron, without a doubt, lower taxes do contribute to economic growth and development, but there are other factors at play that contributed and continue to contribute to the problem--particularly, the Fed with its monetary expansion policies and lack of oversight.
[Thus concluding BBS's second post of the day].
I never argued otherwise, it is quite obvious that cutting taxes benefits the economy. My disagreement is with the statement that cutting taxes is a "scientifically" proven method of boosting tax revenues, when this is obviously not the case.
Night Strike wrote: It's pretty convenient to forget the recession we had after 9/11, which was quickly alleviated because of the current tax rates being installed in 2002.
Pretty sure Bush was posting deficits throughout his presidency recession or no. Obviously he should have cut taxes more then the government would have had much more money!
Sure he was. He almost balanced the budget once too either in 03 or 04, as I think we only posted a 100 bil deficit. the dollar was sure strong back then, and gas was cheap too. good ingredients to make an economy hum
For much of his presidency the global Economy was booming. I suspect that had much more to do with American economic performance than Bush's tax cuts.
Night Strike wrote: It's pretty convenient to forget the recession we had after 9/11, which was quickly alleviated because of the current tax rates being installed in 2002.
Pretty sure Bush was posting deficits throughout his presidency recession or no. Obviously he should have cut taxes more then the government would have had much more money!
Baron, without a doubt, lower taxes do contribute to economic growth and development, but there are other factors at play that contributed and continue to contribute to the problem--particularly, the Fed with its monetary expansion policies and lack of oversight.
[Thus concluding BBS's second post of the day].
I never argued otherwise, it is quite obvious that cutting taxes benefits the economy. My disagreement is with the statement that cutting taxes is a "scientifically" proven method of boosting tax revenues, when this is obviously not the case.
Yeah I misread what you originally wrote. SORRY BUD.
Aradhus wrote:Dishonest conservatives, making intentionally misleading arguments, who knew that was possible!
Cutting taxes increases revenue, apparently a universal fact. You cut taxes, gov revenue is guaranteed to increase.
Come on, I know that not all conservatives are dishonest, have some integrity and one of you explain why what these knuckleheads are purporting is dishonest.
Aradhus wrote:Dishonest conservatives, making intentionally misleading arguments, who knew that was possible!
Cutting taxes increases revenue, apparently a universal fact. You cut taxes, gov revenue is guaranteed to increase.
Come on, I know that not all conservatives are dishonest, have some integrity and one of you explain why what these knuckleheads are purporting is dishonest.
Thanks for posting this Scotty. This is what I was talking about Taxes will only increase in revenue if they are past the prohibitive threshold. The issue is figuring out where the prohibitive threshold is.
Aradhus wrote:Roughly 70% of Americans wanted the bush tax cuts on the rich to expire. Roughly the same number wanted a public option. Unless you exert pressure on these guys, they'll never do what people want.
I doubt that is true in regards to the tax cuts or the public option, but if it is it is only because they were ill informed. People who support class warfare are low information voters.
People who use meaningless phrases that they have been taught like "class warfare" instead of analysing the situation are low information voters.
I find arid's statement highly unlikely. To single out a small part of the most successful people for punishment, when everyone else gets to keep their tax cuts, is very unfair. Given that those same people already pay a much higher rate and infinitely more total taxes than everyone else, it's even more harsh. Don't forget, these people get taxed again up to 50% when they die. LEAVE THEM AND THEIR FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR THE f*ck ALONE!
This Looter Class demand for more of other people's money makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. It's disgusting. These people earned that money!
A fallacy perpetuated by those who were able to exploit the capitalist system to their benefit - Many people would have worked harder in their lives but returned lower salaries -
PFF? what?
earned is earned. of course A guy who doesnt even speak the native language and does manual work is not going to earn as much as Bill Gates, even though he works harder. What do you mean they didnt earn it? explain please. Did someone just give it to them or did it fall from the sky?
You sure have a curious way of breaking things down.
