Big name CEOs: Cut spending AND raise taxes

[CrusaderFrank]

Raising revenues and raising taxes are two totally different things

 

[auditor0007]

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.

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.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Romney also promised a 20 trillion dollar tax cut, or has he changed his position, again?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Obama didn't work.

You can't hate free enterprise and entrepreneurship and hope to run a successful economy

Romney wins in November, the economy recovers, Dems face record losses again in 2014 and by 2016 they're just a political rounding error

 

[Moonglow]

Romney wants to give himself a 0% tax bracket for his investment funds

 

[zeke]

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.

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.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

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.

 

[zeke]

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.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

Not what I said, you ignorant ass.


LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Blaming Bushs tax rates for Obama's failed economy is just stupid. It like blaming building code for Hiroshima

 

[zeke]

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.

Give what a shot you dumb fuk? Auditor already showed you todays tax rates vs rates when your man Reagan was is office. You having a hard time reading. Or comprehending?

And you think that you do matter? Fuk you. You are a joke. A nasty joke.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

Here is what you are not considering.

Government spending artificially inflates GDP when it is done with borrowed money.

Remove the artificially propped government spending element from GDP, and the percentage of GDP received in taxes is in line with historic norms.

The problem, of course, is GUBMINT SPENDING BEYOND ITS MEANS.


You rather suck at auditing, I reckon.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

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.

 

[Katzndogz]

We must grow our way out of this mess. It really is the only way. Lower tax rates, cut non-essential spending, get more people working and paying taxes.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

True spending cuts will never happen. So it's silly to suggest it.

 

[SniperFire]

True spending cuts will never happen. So it's silly to suggest it.

You are in the Romney / Ryan camp.

The political reality is that true cuts won't happen.

We can only semi-cap spending (Romney would like to cap spending as a % GDP) and catch up with 4-5% growth over at least 10 years.

Yes, it is a moonshot.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

This thread is a fail? The purpose of this thread was to post an article and have a discussion about it. I've posted the article, and we are having a discussion about it. So it seems to me that I've accomplished exactly what I set out to do.

Everyone knows that trying to get the Democrats to cut spending is like trying to pull teeth. Why do you intentionally omit half the story, though? Trying to get Republicans to raise taxes is equally like trying to pull teeth. What we need is for Congress to compromise to execute both. But both sides refuse to give an inch.