CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 148,628
- 71,933
- 2,330
Raising revenues and raising taxes are two totally different things
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That is what they said. Some of them were interviewed on the Fox Business channel today and those were their exact words. Short simple and honest.
I just laugh at how liberals get owned over and over....even by their own posts or sources
Some people will just never admit you can raise tax revenue without raising rates.
They said to raise taxes by lowering the rate, cutting write offs thereby broading the base which would increase the revenue brought in.
That IS Romney's plan.
I just laugh at how liberals get owned over and over....even by their own posts or sources
Some people will just never admit you can raise tax revenue without raising rates.
In 2000, federal revenues were 20.5% of GDP. Since then, taxes have been cut numerous times. Federal revenues today are only around 15% of GDP. It didn't work. Even when revenues did go up when the economy was doing okay due to the housing bubble, revenues dropped as a percentage of GDP. There is only so much blood in a turnip.
The idea that you can increase the revenue stream by reducing taxes can work under certain conditions. One of those conditions is that tax rates are too high to begin with. That is not the case today as we have cut taxes over and over again to the point that they are now at their lowest levels in over 60 years. Every argument you make for reducing taxes at this point is completely wrong. If we end up going that route, you will see the deficit balloon even more than it has already.
When Reagan cut tax rates, the top rate was 70%. Today it's only 35%. Reagan cut taxes from 70% to 28%, but he left the capital gains tax at 28%, same as regular income. Even with that, the deficit ballooned under Reagan because his spending increased dramatically.
I just laugh at how liberals get owned over and over....even by their own posts or sources
Some people will just never admit you can raise tax revenue without raising rates.
In 2000, federal revenues were 20.5% of GDP. Since then, taxes have been cut numerous times. Federal revenues today are only around 15% of GDP. It didn't work. Even when revenues did go up when the economy was doing okay due to the housing bubble, revenues dropped as a percentage of GDP. There is only so much blood in a turnip.
The idea that you can increase the revenue stream by reducing taxes can work under certain conditions. One of those conditions is that tax rates are too high to begin with. That is not the case today as we have cut taxes over and over again to the point that they are now at their lowest levels in over 60 years. Every argument you make for reducing taxes at this point is completely wrong. If we end up going that route, you will see the deficit balloon even more than it has already.
When Reagan cut tax rates, the top rate was 70%. Today it's only 35%. Reagan cut taxes from 70% to 28%, but he left the capital gains tax at 28%, same as regular income. Even with that, the deficit ballooned under Reagan because his spending increased dramatically.
Some people will just never admit you can raise tax revenue without raising rates.
In 2000, federal revenues were 20.5% of GDP. Since then, taxes have been cut numerous times. Federal revenues today are only around 15% of GDP. It didn't work. Even when revenues did go up when the economy was doing okay due to the housing bubble, revenues dropped as a percentage of GDP. There is only so much blood in a turnip.
The idea that you can increase the revenue stream by reducing taxes can work under certain conditions. One of those conditions is that tax rates are too high to begin with. That is not the case today as we have cut taxes over and over again to the point that they are now at their lowest levels in over 60 years. Every argument you make for reducing taxes at this point is completely wrong. If we end up going that route, you will see the deficit balloon even more than it has already.
When Reagan cut tax rates, the top rate was 70%. Today it's only 35%. Reagan cut taxes from 70% to 28%, but he left the capital gains tax at 28%, same as regular income. Even with that, the deficit ballooned under Reagan because his spending increased dramatically.
Snipper. Read and re read the above statement. See if your little pea brain can grasp what is being said. Becaue what was said is the truth.
Thanks auditor.
The working class pays way, way under what they should be taxed based on what they consume, and these numbers are getting exponentially worse.
But the middle class will not vote for anyone who will raise their taxes, and they will not vote for anyone who will cut their freebies.
We are Greece.
The working class pays way, way under what they should be taxed based on what they consume, and these numbers are getting exponentially worse.
But the middle class will not vote for anyone who will raise their taxes, and they will not vote for anyone who will cut their freebies.
We are Greece.
Now you want a consumption tax on the working class. Wtf is wrong with you?
But are you saying that the upper income class WILL vote for someone that raises THEIR taxes? Dumbest thing you've said all morning.
In 2000, federal revenues were 20.5% of GDP. Since then, taxes have been cut numerous times. Federal revenues today are only around 15% of GDP. It didn't work. Even when revenues did go up when the economy was doing okay due to the housing bubble, revenues dropped as a percentage of GDP. There is only so much blood in a turnip.
The idea that you can increase the revenue stream by reducing taxes can work under certain conditions. One of those conditions is that tax rates are too high to begin with. That is not the case today as we have cut taxes over and over again to the point that they are now at their lowest levels in over 60 years. Every argument you make for reducing taxes at this point is completely wrong. If we end up going that route, you will see the deficit balloon even more than it has already.
When Reagan cut tax rates, the top rate was 70%. Today it's only 35%. Reagan cut taxes from 70% to 28%, but he left the capital gains tax at 28%, same as regular income. Even with that, the deficit ballooned under Reagan because his spending increased dramatically.
Snipper. Read and re read the above statement. See if your little pea brain can grasp what is being said. Becaue what was said is the truth.
Thanks auditor.
Auditor2007 is a freeloader.
He doesn't matter.
But explain why this condition is true:
One of those conditions is that tax rates are too high to begin with.
Give it a shot, you ignorant fuck. We can use a laugh this morning.
I just laugh at how liberals get owned over and over....even by their own posts or sources
Some people will just never admit you can raise tax revenue without raising rates.
In 2000, federal revenues were 20.5% of GDP. Since then, taxes have been cut numerous times. Federal revenues today are only around 15% of GDP.
CEOs Call for Deficit Action - WSJ.com
Chief executives of more than 80 big-name U.S. corporations, from Aetna Inc. AET +1.09%to Weyerhaeuser Co., WY -0.94%are banding together to pressure Congress to reduce the federal deficit with tax-revenue increases as well as spending cuts.
The CEOs who signed the manifesto deem tax increases inevitable no matter which party succeeds at the polls in November. "There is no possible way; you can do the arithmetic a million different ways" to avoid raising taxes, said Mark Bertolini, CEO of Aetna. "You can't tax your way to fix this problem, and you can't cut entitlements enough to fix this problem."
You are now free to spin the yarn.
True spending cuts will never happen. So it's silly to suggest it.
The problem is that democraps don't have a problem RAISING taxes, it's the CUTTING spending they never get around to, so this thread is a fucking FAIL.