................................................................
so you're saying that turfs thread was a waste of time ?
:0corn :facepalm:
Taxes on the rise
- Thread starter Turfgrass
- Start date
................................................................
so you're saying that turfs thread was a waste of time ?
:0corn :facepalm:
JD Longstreet, may want to look it up. A Palin lover, does a radio talk show on the calibur of Glenn Beck.
I have no idea who JD Longstreet is, so I?m not sure what you?re trying to imply there. I got this story from the Drudge Report. I even went so far as to post the link in post number 5 of this thread.
I never knew that this was such a highly critiqued forum that all information given must be sited with footnotes and sources listed.
Last edited:
I have always wonder how they call a one time tax rebate a tax cut?
as stated previously there is no doubt what tax cut did to economy and tax revenue--and we will find out what tax increases do.
--if there are any that still believe the "not one thin dime" grift they will soon have a wider eye opening--as this admin has went so far off deep end on deficit spending the wealthy will not be only ones subject as most of them will find way around his assualt anyway. He will have to go after his own base also- to remotely make any dent in monster spending. As a stated previously the Vat and internet will be their 1st venture.
Article below from Wall St Journal has pretty good projection IMO.
1 st the internet
Push for new Internet sales taxes; Would draw $23B...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...91852947182.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
The Obama Tax Trap
How some Republicans are preparing to walk right into it.
'Next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits step up. Because I'm calling their bluff."
That was President Barack Obama, the heretofore unknown deficit hawk, all but announcing the other day the tax trap that he's been laying for Republicans. From what we hear about intra-GOP debates, more than a few will be happy to walk right into it.
You don't need a Mensa IQ to figure this one out. Mr. Obama's plan has been to increase spending to new, and what he hopes will be permanent, heights. Then as the public and financial markets begin to fret about deficits and debt, he'll claim that the debt is "unsustainable" and that the only "responsible" policy is to raise taxes.
White House officials even talk privately about the galvanizing political benefit of a bond market crisis, which would force panicked Members of Congress to accept a big new value-added tax. The President's two looming tax reports?one from his deficit commission and the other from Paul Volcker's economic advisory group?are intended to propose a VAT and other tax options. Whatever their initial reception, the proposals will be there to be pulled from the shelf when the political moment is right.
Voila, Mr. Obama will have established a new spend-and-tax policy architecture that has the feds taking from 25% to 30% of GDP, up from the roughly 21% modern average.
***
This strategy explains why Mr. Obama is now starting to fret in public about deficits and debt. This week he even said reducing the debt will be "our project." Funny how debt seemed a lower priority when he was urging Congress to pass $862 billion in stimulus and $1 trillion in new health-care subsidies.
The Congressional Budget Office is contributing to this political drama by declaring this week that the "federal budget is on an unsustainable path." Of course, but why? The biggest reason is that Medicare and Medicaid keep rising at two to three times the rate of everything else in the economy and, as CBO explains, will eventually take up every dollar of tax revenues raised, leaving no money for anything else, including national defense.
"Slowing the growth rate of outlays for Medicare and Medicaid," advises CBO, "is the central long term challenge for federal fiscal policy." This is the same CBO that blessed ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion to 16 million more recipients.
What CBO's latest apocalyptic report doesn't stress is what we'd call the more important deficit in its forecast: the growth deficit. CBO predicts an annual rate of GDP growth of 2.2%. Yet since 1959 the U.S. economy has grown at an average rate of 3%, and during the 1980s and 1990s it was closer to 3.5%. The compounding effect of restoring this faster pace of growth would mean far more net national wealth and would certainly make debt repayment easier.
Even Mr. Obama's current spending level of 25% of GDP would be more manageable if the slow economic recovery weren't keeping tax revenue at unusual lows. In 2007, the economy threw off revenue of 18.5% of GDP. That fell to 14.8% in 2009 and may not be too much higher this year. The point is that there is no hope of balancing the federal budget without a return to higher levels of economic growth.
This is where Republicans need to maneuver around Mr. Obama's tax trap. He and his White House economists believe that taxes have little effect on growth so they can get revenues to 20% or 25% of GDP simply by raising tax rates or imposing a VAT. But if they're wrong about the impact of those taxes on a still-fragile economy recovery, they could keep the economy on a subpar growth path for years to come. We think the last thing the U.S. economy needs at the moment?and the worst policy for the deficit?is the big tax increase that will hit on January 1 with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
Yet we hear that even many Republicans are privately insisting that any extension of those Bush tax cuts must be "paid for" with other tax increases. Under Congress's perverse budget rules, extending those tax cuts will "cost" the Treasury revenue, even though extending those tax rates would only prevent a tax increase.
And because Congress still uses static revenue scoring?meaning no change in economic behavior from tax changes?the Joint Tax Committee thinks it will raise nearly $1 trillion over 10 years from the higher tax rates on incomes, dividends and capital gains. That's highly improbable.
After those tax rates were cut in 2003, total federal tax revenue increased by 44%, or $743 billion, from 2003-2007. :0008
In other words, Democrats have rigged the rules so that merely stopping a tax increase will be scored to increase the deficit. These are the same Democrats who haven't "paid for" trillions of spending in the last four years, but watch them soon denounce Republicans as fiscally irresponsible merely for trying to stop a tax increase. Orwell would love modern Washington.
If Republicans go along with this perverse pay-as-you-go logic, they will play into Mr. Obama's hands. He'll gladly offer to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to "pay for" extending the lower Bush rates on the middle class. Never mind that the tax increases on capital gains, dividends and income tax rates will do the most economic harm.
***
Republicans need to break out of their rhetorical preoccupation with debt and deficits, focusing their political aim instead on spending and above all on reviving economic growth. They should hold the line against all tax increases and begin to consider a menu of tax cuts to make the U.S. more competitive, especially if the economy continues to underperform.
Mr. Obama's strategy of spending our way to prosperity clearly hasn't worked, as the voters are coming to understand. But if the GOP policy response is merely to bemoan deficits, they will soon find themselves back at their historic stand as tax collectors for the welfare state. To avoid Mr. Obama's tax trap, Republicans also need a growth agenda
as stated previously there is no doubt what tax cut did to economy and tax revenue--and we will find out what tax increases do.
--if there are any that still believe the "not one thin dime" grift they will soon have a wider eye opening--as this admin has went so far off deep end on deficit spending the wealthy will not be only ones subject as most of them will find way around his assualt anyway. He will have to go after his own base also- to remotely make any dent in monster spending. As a stated previously the Vat and internet will be their 1st venture.
Article below from Wall St Journal has pretty good projection IMO.
1 st the internet
Push for new Internet sales taxes; Would draw $23B...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...91852947182.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
The Obama Tax Trap
How some Republicans are preparing to walk right into it.
'Next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits step up. Because I'm calling their bluff."
That was President Barack Obama, the heretofore unknown deficit hawk, all but announcing the other day the tax trap that he's been laying for Republicans. From what we hear about intra-GOP debates, more than a few will be happy to walk right into it.
You don't need a Mensa IQ to figure this one out. Mr. Obama's plan has been to increase spending to new, and what he hopes will be permanent, heights. Then as the public and financial markets begin to fret about deficits and debt, he'll claim that the debt is "unsustainable" and that the only "responsible" policy is to raise taxes.
White House officials even talk privately about the galvanizing political benefit of a bond market crisis, which would force panicked Members of Congress to accept a big new value-added tax. The President's two looming tax reports?one from his deficit commission and the other from Paul Volcker's economic advisory group?are intended to propose a VAT and other tax options. Whatever their initial reception, the proposals will be there to be pulled from the shelf when the political moment is right.
Voila, Mr. Obama will have established a new spend-and-tax policy architecture that has the feds taking from 25% to 30% of GDP, up from the roughly 21% modern average.
***
This strategy explains why Mr. Obama is now starting to fret in public about deficits and debt. This week he even said reducing the debt will be "our project." Funny how debt seemed a lower priority when he was urging Congress to pass $862 billion in stimulus and $1 trillion in new health-care subsidies.
The Congressional Budget Office is contributing to this political drama by declaring this week that the "federal budget is on an unsustainable path." Of course, but why? The biggest reason is that Medicare and Medicaid keep rising at two to three times the rate of everything else in the economy and, as CBO explains, will eventually take up every dollar of tax revenues raised, leaving no money for anything else, including national defense.
"Slowing the growth rate of outlays for Medicare and Medicaid," advises CBO, "is the central long term challenge for federal fiscal policy." This is the same CBO that blessed ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion to 16 million more recipients.
What CBO's latest apocalyptic report doesn't stress is what we'd call the more important deficit in its forecast: the growth deficit. CBO predicts an annual rate of GDP growth of 2.2%. Yet since 1959 the U.S. economy has grown at an average rate of 3%, and during the 1980s and 1990s it was closer to 3.5%. The compounding effect of restoring this faster pace of growth would mean far more net national wealth and would certainly make debt repayment easier.
Even Mr. Obama's current spending level of 25% of GDP would be more manageable if the slow economic recovery weren't keeping tax revenue at unusual lows. In 2007, the economy threw off revenue of 18.5% of GDP. That fell to 14.8% in 2009 and may not be too much higher this year. The point is that there is no hope of balancing the federal budget without a return to higher levels of economic growth.
This is where Republicans need to maneuver around Mr. Obama's tax trap. He and his White House economists believe that taxes have little effect on growth so they can get revenues to 20% or 25% of GDP simply by raising tax rates or imposing a VAT. But if they're wrong about the impact of those taxes on a still-fragile economy recovery, they could keep the economy on a subpar growth path for years to come. We think the last thing the U.S. economy needs at the moment?and the worst policy for the deficit?is the big tax increase that will hit on January 1 with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
Yet we hear that even many Republicans are privately insisting that any extension of those Bush tax cuts must be "paid for" with other tax increases. Under Congress's perverse budget rules, extending those tax cuts will "cost" the Treasury revenue, even though extending those tax rates would only prevent a tax increase.
And because Congress still uses static revenue scoring?meaning no change in economic behavior from tax changes?the Joint Tax Committee thinks it will raise nearly $1 trillion over 10 years from the higher tax rates on incomes, dividends and capital gains. That's highly improbable.
After those tax rates were cut in 2003, total federal tax revenue increased by 44%, or $743 billion, from 2003-2007. :0008
In other words, Democrats have rigged the rules so that merely stopping a tax increase will be scored to increase the deficit. These are the same Democrats who haven't "paid for" trillions of spending in the last four years, but watch them soon denounce Republicans as fiscally irresponsible merely for trying to stop a tax increase. Orwell would love modern Washington.
If Republicans go along with this perverse pay-as-you-go logic, they will play into Mr. Obama's hands. He'll gladly offer to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to "pay for" extending the lower Bush rates on the middle class. Never mind that the tax increases on capital gains, dividends and income tax rates will do the most economic harm.
***
Republicans need to break out of their rhetorical preoccupation with debt and deficits, focusing their political aim instead on spending and above all on reviving economic growth. They should hold the line against all tax increases and begin to consider a menu of tax cuts to make the U.S. more competitive, especially if the economy continues to underperform.
Mr. Obama's strategy of spending our way to prosperity clearly hasn't worked, as the voters are coming to understand. But if the GOP policy response is merely to bemoan deficits, they will soon find themselves back at their historic stand as tax collectors for the welfare state. To avoid Mr. Obama's tax trap, Republicans also need a growth agenda
CNN Quick vote
Which party bears more responsibility for current economic problems in the United States?
Republican 48% 86019
Same 27% 47938
Democratic 25% 44652
Total votes: 178609
...............................................................
With elections coming up end of year , this does not bode well for the neocon right wing tea party people.
:142smilie
Which party bears more responsibility for current economic problems in the United States?
Republican 48% 86019
Same 27% 47938
Democratic 25% 44652
Total votes: 178609
...............................................................
With elections coming up end of year , this does not bode well for the neocon right wing tea party people.
:142smilie
If you believe that we should have no prob on wager on seats changing hands (Dem gains vs Reb gains in house and sentate.
or is this just one more example of liberal character--
Champion gum bumpers :talk:
--but kurby like rabbit when confronted--
You a man or a mouse--Squeak up! :shrug:
...............................................................
do you have a chart to back that up ?
Do we interpret that as a --squeak squeak 
I guess I'll settle for turning your :142smilie
to a --:mj08:again
You think you could go to CNN article and solicit a wager or 2- in the comment section - from those 178609 that participated.
If you find just "1" sharing your opinion with conviction to back it up
---bring him over please :0008
I guess I'll settle for turning your :142smilie
to a --:mj08:again
You think you could go to CNN article and solicit a wager or 2- in the comment section - from those 178609 that participated.
If you find just "1" sharing your opinion with conviction to back it up
---bring him over please :0008
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Do we interpret that as a --squeak squeak
I guess I'll settle for turning your :142smilie
to a --:mj08:again
You think you could go to CNN article and solicit a wager or 2- in the comment section - from those 178609 that participated.
If you find just "1" sharing your opinion with conviction to back it up
---bring him over please :0008
I know that equal rights thing didn't go the way you wanted, but relax today.
Do we interpret that as a --squeak squeak
I guess I'll settle for turning your :142smilie
to a --:mj08:again
You think you could go to CNN article and solicit a wager or 2- in the comment section - from those 178609 that participated.
If you find just "1" sharing your opinion with conviction to back it up
---bring him over please :0008
..................................................................
so yu dont believe the cnn poll ?
it was posted yesterday.
I didnt see any comments.
so not sure what you are talking about
your talking about my silence.
when I have asked you many many questions you couldnt or refused to answer
:142smilie :142smilie ''
DTBlackgumby :142smilie :thefinger
Which party bears more responsibility for current economic problems in the United States?
Republican 49% 160426
Democratic 25% 82367
Same 25% 82322
Total votes: 325115
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
cnn still has the poll up except the GOP has
49% now :142smilie
and with 325,000 voters now :142smilie :facepalm:
go to cnn.com dumwit
Repubs are screwed again if ppl are blaming them for the economy '
holy chit
Republican 49% 160426
Democratic 25% 82367
Same 25% 82322
Total votes: 325115
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
cnn still has the poll up except the GOP has
49% now :142smilie
and with 325,000 voters now :142smilie :facepalm:
go to cnn.com dumwit
Repubs are screwed again if ppl are blaming them for the economy '
holy chit
Whats the poll got to do with it--The bet was per your--
+++++++++++++++++
"With elections coming up end of year , this does not bode well for the neocon right wing tea party people."
:142smilie
+++++++++++++++
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
--That made you do the O liberal 2 step - eg
:mj08:--- kurby --AGAIN
:0corn
Which party bears more responsibility for current economic problems in the United States?
Republican 50% 199339
Democratic 26% 102666
Same 25% 99270
as of today
:142smilie :142smilie
Republican 50% 199339
Democratic 26% 102666
Same 25% 99270
as of today
:142smilie :142smilie
The real jobs and deficit test will come when the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire at the end of the year. So many out there are alarmist -- especially when talking about tax cuts that drove us into the ground. Let them lapse, IMHO.
I have been looking at past history, as with the graph I posted previously. If history repeats, eliminating these tax cuts should reduce deficit fears with more money from revenues. The money can be intrigrated with business and maintain the infrastruture needed to create jobs. Some say it also reduces quick corporate greed as long range business models will become more prevalent to succeed.
If you study the history of the highest tax rates vs. national debt, there is a direct correlation: large cuts in the highest rates happened as our deficit rose the fastest. The work I have been reading comes from economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. Something to think about.
I have been looking at past history, as with the graph I posted previously. If history repeats, eliminating these tax cuts should reduce deficit fears with more money from revenues. The money can be intrigrated with business and maintain the infrastruture needed to create jobs. Some say it also reduces quick corporate greed as long range business models will become more prevalent to succeed.
If you study the history of the highest tax rates vs. national debt, there is a direct correlation: large cuts in the highest rates happened as our deficit rose the fastest. The work I have been reading comes from economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. Something to think about.
Just to clarify--from above one might be lead to believe GW only gave tax cuts to the rich--fact of the matter--tax breaks were as follows
27% rate goes to 25%
30% rate goes to 28%
35% rate goes to 33%
38.6% rate goes to 35%
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=4 bgColor=#999999 align=center valign="top"><TBODY><TR bgColor=#003366><TD class=pfhed colSpan=9> How Long Will They Last?</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small>Tax Break</TD><TD class=small align=middle>2003</TD><TD class=small align=middle>2004</TD><TD class=small align=middle>2005</TD><TD class=small align=middle>2006</TD><TD class=small align=middle>2007</TD><TD class=small align=middle>2008</TD><TD class=small align=middle>2009</TD><TD class=small align=middle>2010</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>Individual rate reductions</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>Expansion of 10% taxes bracket</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small colSpan=6 align=middle></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>Relief for married taxpayers</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small colSpan=6 align=middle></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>Increased child taxes credit</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small colSpan=6 align=middle></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>Alternative minimum taxes relief</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small colSpan=6 align=middle></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>Lower capital-gains rates</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small colSpan=2 align=middle></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>Lower rates on dividends</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small colSpan=2 align=middle></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>Larger Section 179 deduction</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small colSpan=5 align=middle></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>Immediate deduction for software</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small colSpan=5 align=middle></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>50% first-year bonus depreciation</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Without bring the "the chart" back up- The Dems rants were once again incorrect.
Tax revenues did nor suffer in fact they reached all time highs--
Capital gains tax revenue doubled after rates were cut.
The dems error in the past and again with Gumbies clan is thinking that raising taxes raises tax revenue--
The fact is -tax revenue increases with economic growth. Which GW and clan proved unequivically.
example--effect of his trying to rape investors to redistribute to his base will result in investment tax reduction from this one. I have moved my and wifes moneys out of any taxable situation other than checking accounts.
You will invarible see simliar from investors everywhere- resulting in lower tax revenue--
The only tax revenues O and Dems can raise effectively is property tax -energy tax-sales tax-a vat tax--all of which he/they will probably try to do.
Its the ole Dem- tax and spend--in spades.
I don't expect them to get it done though as they will lose their pass anything majority in Nov--also the slient majority is making noise--and takes a lot to get them vocal.
30% rate goes to 28%
35% rate goes to 33%
38.6% rate goes to 35%
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=4 bgColor=#999999 align=center valign="top"><TBODY><TR bgColor=#003366><TD class=pfhed colSpan=9> How Long Will They Last?</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small>Tax Break</TD><TD class=small align=middle>2003</TD><TD class=small align=middle>2004</TD><TD class=small align=middle>2005</TD><TD class=small align=middle>2006</TD><TD class=small align=middle>2007</TD><TD class=small align=middle>2008</TD><TD class=small align=middle>2009</TD><TD class=small align=middle>2010</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>Individual rate reductions</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>Expansion of 10% taxes bracket</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small colSpan=6 align=middle></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>Relief for married taxpayers</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small colSpan=6 align=middle></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>Increased child taxes credit</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small colSpan=6 align=middle></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>Alternative minimum taxes relief</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small colSpan=6 align=middle></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>Lower capital-gains rates</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small colSpan=2 align=middle></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>Lower rates on dividends</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small colSpan=2 align=middle></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>Larger Section 179 deduction</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small colSpan=5 align=middle></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>Immediate deduction for software</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small colSpan=5 align=middle></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#eeeeee><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66>50% first-year bonus depreciation</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD><TD class=small bgColor=#ffcc66 align=middle>*</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Without bring the "the chart" back up- The Dems rants were once again incorrect.
Tax revenues did nor suffer in fact they reached all time highs--
Capital gains tax revenue doubled after rates were cut.
The dems error in the past and again with Gumbies clan is thinking that raising taxes raises tax revenue--
The fact is -tax revenue increases with economic growth. Which GW and clan proved unequivically.
example--effect of his trying to rape investors to redistribute to his base will result in investment tax reduction from this one. I have moved my and wifes moneys out of any taxable situation other than checking accounts.
You will invarible see simliar from investors everywhere- resulting in lower tax revenue--
The only tax revenues O and Dems can raise effectively is property tax -energy tax-sales tax-a vat tax--all of which he/they will probably try to do.
Its the ole Dem- tax and spend--in spades.
I don't expect them to get it done though as they will lose their pass anything majority in Nov--also the slient majority is making noise--and takes a lot to get them vocal.
--a few more "facts" on consequences of tax cuts--
The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that this is exactly what happened (see Table 3):
<LI nodeIndex="1">The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.
<LI nodeIndex="2">The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/01/Ten-Myths-About-the-Bush-Tax-Cuts
The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that this is exactly what happened (see Table 3):
- GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.
<LI nodeIndex="1">The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.
<LI nodeIndex="2">The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/01/Ten-Myths-About-the-Bush-Tax-Cuts
I was only talking about the highest tax rate versus the deficit. DTB, your figures are all well and good but doesn't address my point.
I personally don't remember all the screaming about tax rates in the 50-70's when our GDP, manufacturing, and economy was just fine. There is evidence some and only some took the opportunity for greed in the 20's and now. So many comparisons happening right now, it is hard to throw it in the trash without at least thinking about it. Why flirt with depression history if we don't have too? Without much thought, everyone is getting on the tax cuts, cut spending bandwagon. The same thing happened before the depression. Look at Japan, they are spending 25% of GDP on interest right now. Their spending has been austere for a long time.
I fear we are making mistakes and are about to make a big one without all the information. Politics preying on public sentiment isn't going to work by any party. I'm trying not to make this political. This is no time for either party to run in a huff to their perspective corners, claiming there is only one way out. This has to be worked out or else, and the else doesn't look real good.
Bruce Bartlett, a Reaganomics economist, is another I have been reading. He calls anyone wanting to reduce deficits before a full recovery is on the way is an idiot. As you know DTB, I also follow what Krugman writes. I made a good effort to sweep politics aside here, I'm afraid it won't be percieved that way. I welcome tax cuts at the appropriate time as well as tackling entitlements, minus Social Security, as it is almost self sustaining if Congress kept their mitts off of it.
I personally don't remember all the screaming about tax rates in the 50-70's when our GDP, manufacturing, and economy was just fine. There is evidence some and only some took the opportunity for greed in the 20's and now. So many comparisons happening right now, it is hard to throw it in the trash without at least thinking about it. Why flirt with depression history if we don't have too? Without much thought, everyone is getting on the tax cuts, cut spending bandwagon. The same thing happened before the depression. Look at Japan, they are spending 25% of GDP on interest right now. Their spending has been austere for a long time.
I fear we are making mistakes and are about to make a big one without all the information. Politics preying on public sentiment isn't going to work by any party. I'm trying not to make this political. This is no time for either party to run in a huff to their perspective corners, claiming there is only one way out. This has to be worked out or else, and the else doesn't look real good.
Bruce Bartlett, a Reaganomics economist, is another I have been reading. He calls anyone wanting to reduce deficits before a full recovery is on the way is an idiot. As you know DTB, I also follow what Krugman writes. I made a good effort to sweep politics aside here, I'm afraid it won't be percieved that way. I welcome tax cuts at the appropriate time as well as tackling entitlements, minus Social Security, as it is almost self sustaining if Congress kept their mitts off of it.
Personally I think 50% to take from anyone is way too much--and I believe that there was probably some complaining from those being taxed 50%.
I am not a fan of Krugmans spend/tax your way out of it theories at all. He was 100% against Bush tax cuts and was 100% on wrong end of speculation on it.
Maybe they could change my mind if they would produced some concrete facts like those above instead of hypthothosis and theories.
--for instance I'm waiting for he or anyone to produce any "factual data" supporting how raising taxes has boosted economy/productivity anywhere at any time in the past.
Its going to be a tough sell- trying to convince the "tax paying portion" of public that higher taxes and increased deficit spending is good for them.
I am not a fan of Krugmans spend/tax your way out of it theories at all. He was 100% against Bush tax cuts and was 100% on wrong end of speculation on it.
Maybe they could change my mind if they would produced some concrete facts like those above instead of hypthothosis and theories.
--for instance I'm waiting for he or anyone to produce any "factual data" supporting how raising taxes has boosted economy/productivity anywhere at any time in the past.
Its going to be a tough sell- trying to convince the "tax paying portion" of public that higher taxes and increased deficit spending is good for them.
I could easily be wrong, I doubt you will see any tax increases in the forseeable future. I do think the upper 3% tax cut will lapse. I would also bet the middle class bracket will probably receive another cut.
As for seeing more facts, all you need is the great depression. Cutting the deficit and tax cuts killed us then. All those Bush tax cuts wouldn't work now. You have the public on your side big time, and I don't see it changing. So my prediciction for a recovery in 5-6 years goes out the window. We are in for a bad ride to the bottom. That's what happens when politics trumps what is right for the country. I just don't understand how those sworn to put America first can do it.
As for seeing more facts, all you need is the great depression. Cutting the deficit and tax cuts killed us then. All those Bush tax cuts wouldn't work now. You have the public on your side big time, and I don't see it changing. So my prediciction for a recovery in 5-6 years goes out the window. We are in for a bad ride to the bottom. That's what happens when politics trumps what is right for the country. I just don't understand how those sworn to put America first can do it.
