Ben Stein On 'Fox & Friends': 'Taxes Are Too Low'

[theHawk]

No one is denying this.

After the economy has recovered, taxes will go up...AFTER spending is cut.

Not one dime in new taxes until Washington balances the budget with current revenue...

Then, if we need to raise taxes TO PAY DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT...and for that exclusive purpose ONLY...we will talk about raising taxes.

The problem is simple; you are blind. First off, the idea will never be to pay down the debt. We have never tried, and the reason is simple; it's a stupid idea. By growing the economy, we can outgrow the debt if we get the budget in order, meaning that at worst, we run a small deficit every year. As Ben Stein said, and as many other have been saying, it's not just a spending problem. Revenues are down 20% from their average norm over the past 50 years as a percentage of GDP. This is a problem caused by rates being too low.

As has been proven, there is no relationship with lower taxes and increased growth. If there was, we would have an economy that was bursting at the seams due to the incredibly low tax rates that we already have. Republicans need to get back to the idea of real fiscal responsibility rather than telling us we need to cut tax rates forever in order to spur economic growth.

Fiscal responsibility is not in the vocabulary of the present GOP. Decrease government income by 5 trillion. Increase military spending by two trillion unneeded dollars, and balance the budget how?

It starts with putting 12+ million people back to work. 12 million more taxpayers.

A small percent of something is a whole lot more than a high percent of nothing.

 

[theHawk]

And just to prove I'm no Johnny-come-lately to this position, I said the same thing 5 months ago-

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/222401-gop-seeks-austerity-3.html#post5243795


And last year-

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/181260-rick-perry-middle-income-americans-dont-pay-enough-income-taxes-3.html#post4024096

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/180290-if-you-were-president.html#post3997453

Now I just happen to agree with that. The little that the Bush tax cuts gave me would not hurt me to pay. However, if I am going to pay, the people with incomes 10 or more time mine damned well better be paying at least the percentage that I am. When one of you Republicans support that, I will support spending cuts. Not until.

People at higher tax brackets of income do pay a higher percentage, always have.

The super wealthy that you libs hate so much don't even make their money off of "income". It mostly comes from investments. Raising taxes on that just means they will invest less, or move their cash out of the country.

 

[Missourian]

No one is denying this.

After the economy has recovered, taxes will go up...AFTER spending is cut.

Not one dime in new taxes until Washington balances the budget with current revenue...

Then, if we need to raise taxes TO PAY DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT...and for that exclusive purpose ONLY...we will talk about raising taxes.

The problem is simple; you are blind. First off, the idea will never be to pay down the debt. We have never tried, and the reason is simple; it's a stupid idea. By growing the economy, we can outgrow the debt if we get the budget in order, meaning that at worst, we run a small deficit every year. As Ben Stein said, and as many other have been saying, it's not just a spending problem. Revenues are down 20% from their average norm over the past 50 years as a percentage of GDP. This is a problem caused by rates being too low.

As has been proven, there is no relationship with lower taxes and increased growth. If there was, we would have an economy that was bursting at the seams due to the incredibly low tax rates that we already have. Republicans need to get back to the idea of real fiscal responsibility rather than telling us we need to cut tax rates forever in order to spur economic growth.

The only thing I agree with in your post is that paying down the debt has never been tried...the rest is hogwash.

What the debt SHOULD be is a buffer to smooth out the lean years, not a perpetually forged chain of limitless borrowing to fund superfluous wasteful spending that increases year after year until it reaches the Grecian Disaster Point.

The time to raise taxes is during the boon years, pay down the debt. Lower taxes during the lean years...borrow if necessary.

And as I've said before, everyone should be paying something, even if it's only $1.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why should I give a shit what a Hollywood actor and game show host says?

You forgot....

.....Nixon apologist.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No one is denying this.

After the economy has recovered, taxes will go up...AFTER spending is cut.

Not one dime in new taxes until Washington balances the budget with current revenue...

Then, if we need to raise taxes TO PAY DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT...and for that exclusive purpose ONLY...we will talk about raising taxes.

The only thing I agree with in your post is that paying down the debt has never been tried...

....And, you'd be wrong.​

September 27, 2000

Blow "Taps" For Bush Tax-Cuts;
Get BACK To Clinton Rates​

"Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone."

 

[LoneLaugher]

This is great! Our resident nutters are ready to raise revenues. Obama has honored his side of the bargain.

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

 

[Mac1958]

.

Cut corporate taxes to exactly 0% (and watch an unprecedented flood of domestic & global capital return), get the massive monkey of paying for health care benefits off the backs of business (and watch another flood of capital become instantly available to businesses of all sizes), identify & eliminate redundancies & inefficiencies in business regulation (and watch yet another monkey jump off the backs of business while maintaining the effective regulation critical to the operation of a strong, safe & fruitful relationship between business and consumer).

Now that we've freed up American business while maintaining effective and proper regulation, we can raise individual marginal income tax rates moderately while requiring minimum rates across the board to deal with proper deductions and credits. With the explosion of business activity and abundance of domestic capital created by paragraph one of this fabulous and gripping post, I think we could maintain a marginal tax rate schedule of something like (nominal tax rate/minimum tax exposure) 49%/35%, 44%/30%, 39%/25%, 34%/20%, and 29%/15%. Something like that. It's early, I'd have to think about it.

Then - and this is for another thread - we reduce the size, breadth, depth and cost of government with prudent cuts, including military. If we don't start running a significant surplus soon, all this will be moot. Most people clearly don't understand the ramifications of our debt.

Both sides oughtta hate this idea.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You flatter yourself.

You live in a fantasy land where income taxes can support our nation. Revenues from taxing corporate PROFITS ( meaning AFTER salaries have been paid and costs accounted for ) cannot be ZERO in any serious discussion of our economy.

We agree that health care should be universal and not something businesses should even consider. Very progressive of you.

If you do not name the inefficiencies and redundancies, you don't get to pretend that they can be eliminated......let alone that they exist. Nobody likes regulations when they effect what they do.....but they are clearly necessary given the motives of any business. In the end, they promote an environment where business has more opportunity. Otherwise, they are revised or repealed with normal legislative process.

Minimum rates across the board? Bullshit. We have a progressive tax system....like all major industrialized nations....for a reason. Low income people spend all of their money in the economy. Whining that some people do not have skin in the game is just not going to move us forward.

Finally, a surplus is not required. That is a talking point that you cannot substantiate with any real world example.

 

[Missourian]

And just to prove I'm no Johnny-come-lately to this position, I said the same thing 5 months ago-

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/222401-gop-seeks-austerity-3.html#post5243795


And last year-

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/181260-rick-perry-middle-income-americans-dont-pay-enough-income-taxes-3.html#post4024096

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/180290-if-you-were-president.html#post3997453

Now I just happen to agree with that. The little that the Bush tax cuts gave me would not hurt me to pay. However, if I am going to pay, the people with incomes 10 or more time mine damned well better be paying at least the percentage that I am. When one of you Republicans support that, I will support spending cuts. Not until.

They already pay much more than you do in income tax...and exactly the same rate you do on capital gains from investments.

 

[Mac1958]

You flatter yourself.

A hardcore lefty didn't like my little idea?

Ouch. I'm shocked.

I must lay down for a while.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You flatter yourself.

A hardcore lefty didn't like my little idea?

Ouch. I'm shocked.

I must lay down for a while.

.

Wrong. I liked part of it. Wanna discuss that?

 

[Mac1958]

You flatter yourself.

A hardcore lefty didn't like my little idea?

Ouch. I'm shocked.

I must lay down for a while.

.

Wrong. I liked part of it. Wanna discuss that?

Absolutely.

.

 

[kiwiman127]

Conservative economist Ben Stein noted on Fox News' Fox & Friends that spending is a problem but also that taxes were too low.
===================================

“With all due respect to Fox, who I love like brothers and sisters, taxes are too low,” said Stein.

“That sounds like Bowles-Simpson,” said Gretchen Carlson.

“It is Bowles-Simpson,” Stein replied.

“The evidence is that there is no clear connection between the level of taxation and the level of economic activity,” said Stein. “The biggest growth and prosperity we’ve ever had in this country was from roughly 1941 to 1973. That was the best years we’ve ever had and those were years of much higher taxes than we have now.”

“Taxes were at 70, 80 percent then,” said Steve Doocy.

“And yet, we were very prosperous,” Stein replied. “The highest rate was in the 90s during parts of the 50s, and yet we were very prosperous.”
Ben Stein Stuns Fox & Friends: ‘All Due Respect To Fox’ But ‘Taxes Are Too Low’ | Mediaite

Ben Stein Apologizes Profusely for Being Truthful About Taxes on Fox News - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

Both links feature the video of Stein's appearance on Fox & Friends where he makes his case.

======================================

In other words, Stein is in favor of austerity where everyone sacrifices, not just the middle class and the poor.
Stein is 100% correct.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/255641-soak-the-rich.html

 

[kiwiman127]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/255641-soak-the-rich.html

Not necessarily. Just shared sacrifice for the betterment of the country.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Ben Stein On 'Fox & Friends': 'Taxes Are Too Low' (VIDEO)

Wow, a voice of reason from the right.


No shit taxes are too low. People talk about how great it was for the economy when he cut taxes they forget he cut (the top bracket) them to 50% from nearly 70%. That's EASY!

 

[auditor0007]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/255641-soak-the-rich.html

You got it; we need to tax the rich at a rate of 90% on all their earnings.

How is it soaking the rich when we ask them to pay a little bit more during tough times, after they have been given one tax cut after another over the years? They are paying less now than they have ever paid in the last 60 plus years.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/255641-soak-the-rich.html

You got it; we need to tax the rich at a rate of 90% on all their earnings.

How is it soaking the rich when we ask them to pay a little bit more during tough times, after they have been given one tax cut after another over the years? They are paying less now than they have ever paid in the last 60 plus years.

Soak Rich and Hit Poor
April 5, 1954

........Let's try to set down some of the main objections:

1.It is a dubious moral principle, an abuse of democracy, and an invasion of minority rights, for a majority to impose on a minority a higher tax rate than it accepts for itself.

2.The legal requirement of time-and-a-half wage rates for overtime is based on the assumption that progressive incentives are necessary to get people to work longer and that progressive rewards are justified as the workload increases. But the present income tax is based on precisely the opposite principle of decreasing rewards for increasing work. Take, for hypothetical illustration, a top-level surgeon who averages $500 an operation and might take on 240 paid operations a year. This would bring his income before taxes to $120,000. For his first operation in January he would get and keep $500. Going into February he would only be earning net (after income tax) $310 per operation. Along about June he would be getting (net) only $140 an operation. And when he got into November he would be turning over $445 of every $500 fee to the government and getting only $55 for himself. Under the present income tax the same principle applies, if less dramatically, to the incomes of all of us. The more hours we work, the less we get paid per hour.

3.Under this system people are penalized in direct proportion to their productiveness. Inevitably this tends to kill incentives to production and reduces the total national income and living standards.

4.The progressive income tax skims off precisely the funds most likely to go into new investment — into building the new tools and equipment that increase the productivity of the country and lift the living standards of the workers. It slows down the rate of economic progress.

5.And lastly, these confiscatory rates do not even raise revenue. They destroy the sources of revenue. The great illusion of the present age is that through these confiscatory rates we have been able to throw the burden of huge government spending on to the very rich. But analysis shows that only 8 percent of the personal income tax is paid by those making more than $100,000 a year, and only 16 percent is paid by those making more than $50,000 a year. Looking at the matter from the other end, 74 percent of the income tax is paid by people earning less than $25,000 a year, and 59 percent of it is paid by people earning less than $10,000 a year.

For a few reasons and there are more.

 

[Listening]

Finally Ben Stein got something right. I just thought he was stupid and a liar.

No, that would make him your relative.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/255641-soak-the-rich.html

Not necessarily. Just shared sacrifice for the betterment of the country.

It's been done!

We merely need to allow those BU$HCO tax-cuts to die, and get-back to rates that have....

.....PROVEN to work!!!!!