Ifyou think raising taxs will bring in more money than this thread is for you.

[Jroc]

Lower tax rates increase government's tax revenue


Published: Saturday, October 09, 2010, 10:24 AM Updated: Sunday, October 10, 2010, An ad for a candidate for governor claims that reducing tax rates will lower the revenue to Oregon's government by $800 million. Experience proves that government's revenue actually increases when tax rates are lowered.

For some reason, many people refuse to acknowledge the economic boom (including increased tax revenue) created by the Reagan tax cuts. So let's look at an earlier example.

the Coolidge/Mellon tax cut lowered the federal maximum marginal income tax rate (i.e. "taxes on the rich") from 73% to 25%. Revenue to the federal government rose by 2%. At the same time, the percent of the tax burden paid by "rich" people nearly doubled.

In 1932, the federal maximum marginal income tax rate went from 25% to 63%. Government tax revenue dropped from $834 million in 1931 to $427 million in 1932. The tax burden on people making less than $25,000 went from 21% in 1931 to 36.5% in 1932, while the burden on the "rich" decreased!

Our Founding Fathers knew that increased tax rates lower the tax revenue to the government.

"…[if] the government needed more revenue it would increase taxes and try other experiments like adding penalties. For a while tax revenues would increase—until people found ways to elude the new taxes. Government officials would get the false impression that raising taxes also raises the amount of money going into the federal treasury. This false impression would take a long time to correct. Necessity, especially in politics, often occasions false hopes, false reasoning, and a system of measures correspondingly erroneous…

" Taxation policy requires extensive information and a thorough knowledge of political economic principles. Anyone who understands these principles will not want oppressive taxes nor will they want to sacrifice any group of citizens to get more tax revenue.

"The most productive system of obtaining governmental revenue will always be the least burdensome. In order to tax judiciously, the person with the power to tax should understand the general characteristics, habits, and thinking of the people, and the country’s resources. Let every thinking citizen judge for himself who has the required qualifications." Federalist Paper # 35 [paragraphs 4, 11]*

*The Federalist Papers: Modern English Edition Two

Lower tax rates increase government's tax revenue | OregonLive.com

 

[sangha]

Lower tax rates increase government's tax revenue


Published: Saturday, October 09, 2010, 10:24 AM Updated: Sunday, October 10, 2010, An ad for a candidate for governor claims that reducing tax rates will lower the revenue to Oregon's government by $800 million. Experience proves that government's revenue actually increases when tax rates are lowered.

For some reason, many people refuse to acknowledge the economic boom (including increased tax revenue) created by the Reagan tax cuts. So let's look at an earlier example.

the Coolidge/Mellon tax cut lowered the federal maximum marginal income tax rate (i.e. "taxes on the rich") from 73% to 25%. Revenue to the federal government rose by 2%. At the same time, the percent of the tax burden paid by "rich" people nearly doubled.

In 1932, the federal maximum marginal income tax rate went from 25% to 63%. Government tax revenue dropped from $834 million in 1931 to $427 million in 1932. The tax burden on people making less than $25,000 went from 21% in 1931 to 36.5% in 1932, while the burden on the "rich" decreased!

Our Founding Fathers knew that increased tax rates lower the tax revenue to the government.

"…[if] the government needed more revenue it would increase taxes and try other experiments like adding penalties. For a while tax revenues would increase—until people found ways to elude the new taxes. Government officials would get the false impression that raising taxes also raises the amount of money going into the federal treasury. This false impression would take a long time to correct. Necessity, especially in politics, often occasions false hopes, false reasoning, and a system of measures correspondingly erroneous…

" Taxation policy requires extensive information and a thorough knowledge of political economic principles. Anyone who understands these principles will not want oppressive taxes nor will they want to sacrifice any group of citizens to get more tax revenue.

"The most productive system of obtaining governmental revenue will always be the least burdensome. In order to tax judiciously, the person with the power to tax should understand the general characteristics, habits, and thinking of the people, and the country’s resources. Let every thinking citizen judge for himself who has the required qualifications." Federalist Paper # 35 [paragraphs 4, 11]*

*The Federalist Papers: Modern English Edition Two

Lower tax rates increase government's tax revenue | OregonLive.com

If lower tax rates result in more govt revenue, then won't it result in a Big Govt that SPENDS MORE?

I thought wingnuts were against spending and big govt.


Tax cuts also increase budget deficits and the national debt. I thought wingnuts were opposed to deficits and debt

 

[Jroc]

I don't have as much time as some of you idiots, I've got to get to work but Tax cuts along with spending cuts and reform of entitlements is what will bring the economy back, NOT TAX INCREASES AND MORE SPENDING, more entilements (Obama care) more regualtion with you're fake ass global warming (Carbon tax) You stupid libs won't be happy untill everybody is as miserable as you

 

[sangha]

I don't have as much time as some of you idiots, I've got to get to work but Tax cuts along with spending cuts and reform of entitlements is what will bring the economy back, NOT TAX INCREASES AND MORE SPENDING, more entilements (Obama care) more regualtion with you're fake ass global warming (Carbon tax) You stupid libs won't be happy untill everybody is as miserable as you

Wingnuts want our Big Govt to engage in Big Spending because they like Big Deficits and Big Debt

 

[thereisnospoon]

You can watch the whole video or cut to time frame 3:49 Charlie Gibson asked obama in the 2008 democratic debat. "why raise taxes when lower taxes brings in more money" Or something like that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLlxxWaJZM&feature=related

Lower taxes don't bring in more money. It's a comical post hoc fallacy that even more comically has become the foundation of modern conservative economic lunacy.

Wrong...
Now..question... What , if anything has government done correctly or to the benefit of Americans by raising their taxes?
Is it more desirable to have the private sector flourish or to have government in control of wealth?

 

[uscitizen]

So.. How many people think GROSSING $250,000 a year is rich? Since I have a small business, I'll let you know... Nobody with a brain thinks that. After paying expenses and taxes what do you actually make? $100,000 if that? How many people think that if you've worked all your life paid you're taxes and saved a little money, had a little property, when you die and your assets add up to over a million dollars the government should come in and take half? "Death Tax"

The dirty little secret is very wealthy people have their money already. they don't really care if their taxes increased. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet ect.. They’ve already made their money, It's the people that want to become wealthy, people that want to build their businesses to that point, and the people they would have employed, they are the ones really being hurt "taxes on the wealthy” You Libs should wake up and quit falling for the talking points use you're friken brain

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

Taxes are levied on INCOME, not GROSS revenue

Jroc's probably lying about owning a business too if he's so dumb that he pays taxes on his GROSS revenue

100K profit from a business grossing 250K is so high as to be unbelievable.
I am calling BS on this.

Now maybe if you are pushing illegal drugs...

 

[Jroc]

If lower tax rates result in more govt revenue, then won't it result in a Big Govt that SPENDS MORE?

I thought wingnuts were against spending and big govt.


Tax cuts also increase budget deficits and the national debt. I thought wingnuts were opposed to deficits and debt

NO CUT SPENDING IDIOT!!! IT MUST BE DONE WE DON'T HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM!! WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM !!!! SPENDING!!! SPENDING!! SPENDING!! Wake the hell up man!! Quit defending this madness!! We should actually eliminate the income tax entirely in favor of a consumption tax so EVERYBODY PAYS NOT JUST HALF THE COUNTRY

 

[Jroc]

So.. How many people think GROSSING $250,000 a year is rich? Since I have a small business, I'll let you know... Nobody with a brain thinks that. After paying expenses and taxes what do you actually make? $100,000 if that? How many people think that if you've worked all your life paid you're taxes and saved a little money, had a little property, when you die and your assets add up to over a million dollars the government should come in and take half? "Death Tax"

The dirty little secret is very wealthy people have their money already. they don't really care if their taxes increased. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet ect.. They’ve already made their money, It's the people that want to become wealthy, people that want to build their businesses to that point, and the people they would have employed, they are the ones really being hurt "taxes on the wealthy” You Libs should wake up and quit falling for the talking points use you're friken brain

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

Taxes are levied on INCOME, not GROSS revenue

Jroc's probably lying about owning a business too if he's so dumb that he pays taxes on his GROSS revenue

100K profit from a business grossing 250K is so high as to be unbelievable.
I am calling BS on this.

Now maybe if you are pushing illegal drugs...

I was just giving an example I don't gross $250,000 but all those points still stand

 

[sangha]

You can watch the whole video or cut to time frame 3:49 Charlie Gibson asked obama in the 2008 democratic debat. "why raise taxes when lower taxes brings in more money" Or something like that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLlxxWaJZM&feature=related

Lower taxes don't bring in more money. It's a comical post hoc fallacy that even more comically has become the foundation of modern conservative economic lunacy.

Wrong...
Now..question... What , if anything has government done correctly or to the benefit of Americans by raising their taxes?
Is it more desirable to have the private sector flourish or to have government in control of wealth?

If lowering taxes bring in more money, than lowering taxes will cause the govt to increase in size and spending.

Raising income taxes will decrease spending, decrease the budget deficit, lower the national debt, increase employment, and shrink the size of govt.

That's why wingnuts don't want to raise taxes

 

[sangha]

So.. How many people think GROSSING $250,000 a year is rich? Since I have a small business, I'll let you know... Nobody with a brain thinks that. After paying expenses and taxes what do you actually make? $100,000 if that? How many people think that if you've worked all your life paid you're taxes and saved a little money, had a little property, when you die and your assets add up to over a million dollars the government should come in and take half? "Death Tax"

The dirty little secret is very wealthy people have their money already. they don't really care if their taxes increased. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet ect.. They’ve already made their money, It's the people that want to become wealthy, people that want to build their businesses to that point, and the people they would have employed, they are the ones really being hurt "taxes on the wealthy” You Libs should wake up and quit falling for the talking points use you're friken brain

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

Taxes are levied on INCOME, not GROSS revenue

Jroc's probably lying about owning a business too if he's so dumb that he pays taxes on his GROSS revenue

100K profit from a business grossing 250K is so high as to be unbelievable.
I am calling BS on this.

Now maybe if you are pushing illegal drugs...

Of course he's lying!!

What business owner doesn't know that income taxes are paid on INCOME, and not GROSS REVENUE?

 

[sangha]

If lower tax rates result in more govt revenue, then won't it result in a Big Govt that SPENDS MORE?

I thought wingnuts were against spending and big govt.


Tax cuts also increase budget deficits and the national debt. I thought wingnuts were opposed to deficits and debt

NO CUT SPENDING IDIOT!!! IT MUST BE DONE WE DON'T HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM!! WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM !!!! SPENDING!!! SPENDING!! SPENDING!! Wake the hell up man!! Quit defending this madness!! We should actually eliminate the income tax entirely in favor of a consumption tax so EVERYBODY PAYS NOT JUST HALF THE COUNTRY

Idiot wingnuts think they can reduce govt spending by giving the govt MORE MONEY TO SPEND!!!!

 

[sangha]

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

Taxes are levied on INCOME, not GROSS revenue

Jroc's probably lying about owning a business too if he's so dumb that he pays taxes on his GROSS revenue

100K profit from a business grossing 250K is so high as to be unbelievable.
I am calling BS on this.

Now maybe if you are pushing illegal drugs...

I was just giving an example I don't gross $250,000 but all those points still stand

The wingnut still doesn't realize that income taxes are paid on INCOME and not GROSS REVENUE

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Lower taxes don't bring in more money. It's a comical post hoc fallacy that even more comically has become the foundation of modern conservative economic lunacy.

Wrong...
Now..question... What , if anything has government done correctly or to the benefit of Americans by raising their taxes?
Is it more desirable to have the private sector flourish or to have government in control of wealth?

If lowering taxes bring in more money, than lowering taxes will cause the govt to increase in size and spending.

Raising income taxes will decrease spending, decrease the budget deficit, lower the national debt, increase employment, and shrink the size of govt.

That's why wingnuts don't want to raise taxes

Holy shit wingnut that was a big fucking spin there. Oh by the way you are a fucking liar.

 

[sangha]

Wrong...
Now..question... What , if anything has government done correctly or to the benefit of Americans by raising their taxes?
Is it more desirable to have the private sector flourish or to have government in control of wealth?

If lowering taxes bring in more money, than lowering taxes will cause the govt to increase in size and spending.

Raising income taxes will decrease spending, decrease the budget deficit, lower the national debt, increase employment, and shrink the size of govt.

That's why wingnuts don't want to raise taxes

Holy shit wingnut that was a big fucking spin there. Oh by the way you are a fucking liar.

Another wingnut reduced to cursing.

I accept your surrender

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If lowering taxes bring in more money, than lowering taxes will cause the govt to increase in size and spending.

Raising income taxes will decrease spending, decrease the budget deficit, lower the national debt, increase employment, and shrink the size of govt.

That's why wingnuts don't want to raise taxes

Holy shit wingnut that was a big fucking spin there. Oh by the way you are a fucking liar.

Another wingnut reduced to cursing.

I accept your surrender

Thats not a form of surrender thats just me being me. I am straight forward aND DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

 

[Jroc]

Tax Cut Myths and Realities

President Bush's tax cuts provide a convenient scapegoat for the nation's budget and economic challenges. Demagogued as "tax cuts for the rich," they've been blamed for everything from "runaway" deficits to "drastic" cuts in anti-poverty programs.

Fortunately, virtually all of the conventional wisdom on this subject is wrong. Here are 10 widely held myths about the tax cuts -- and the facts that debunk them:

Myth 1: Tax revenues are too low. Fact: Revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the postwar historical average.

Myth 2: The tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit. Fact: In 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a 10-year budget projection that assumed a healthy surplus in 2006. Yet even after all tax cuts, revenues in 2006 came in just $58 billion below the projected level. The deficit resulted more from Washington spending $514 billion above its projected level for 2006.

Myth 3: Supply-side economics assumes all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves. Fact: What is assumed is that some, not necessarily all, lost revenues will be replenished. Reducing tax rates encourages the taxed behavior, and the increased economic activity offsets some lost revenues. Whether a tax cut fully pays for itself depends on how much new activity it generates.

Myth 4: Cuts in the capital-gains tax don't pay for themselves. Fact: Capital gains revenues doubled after the 2003 capital gains tax cuts, from $50 billion to $103 billion in 2006. Before the tax cuts, the CBO projected such revenues would rise to only $68 billion.

Myth 5: The tax cuts are to blame for projected budget deficits. Fact: Revenues are already projected to jump from 18 percent of GDP today to a record 23 percent by 2050 -- and repealing the tax cuts would nudge revenues to only 24 percent. Massive future deficits will result from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid costs pushing projected federal spending from 20 percent of GDP to at least 38 percent, according to CBO.

Myth 6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue. Fact: Revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92 percent to 35 percent. Yet revenues have remained constant at 18 percent of GDP. Thus, boosting revenues requires expanding the economy.

Myth 7: Reversing upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues. Fact: The popular child tax credit expansion, marriage penalty relief, the 10 percent bracket and fix of the Alternative Minimum Tax will combine this year to lower revenues by three times as much as the maligned cuts in capital gains, dividend and estate taxes. The latter tax cuts also produce some of the most positive economic benefits.

Myth 8: Tax cuts help by "putting money in our pockets." Fact: Redistributing money between governments and taxpayers merely shifts -- and does not increase -- total spending power in an economy. So government spending does not "inject" new money into an economy, nor do tax rebates help by "putting money in our pockets." Rather, low tax rates increase incentives to work, save and invest, thereby sparking productivity and economic growth.

Myth 9: The tax cuts haven't boosted the economy. Fact: The 2003 tax cuts lowered rates for income, capital gains and dividend taxes. Business investment, the stock market, job numbers and economic growth -- all of which had been stagnant -- immediately surged.

Myth 10: The tax cuts tilted toward the rich. Fact: The rich now shoulder even more of the burden. Since 2000, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent of taxpayers dropped from zero to minus 4 percent -- meaning the average family in this group got a subsidy from the refundable child tax credit or earned income tax credit. The share of income taxes paid by the top fifth of taxpayers climbed from 81 percent to 85 percent.

America faces real budget challenges. In particular, the impending retirement of 77 million Baby Boomers is set to unleash a $39 trillion tsunami of unfunded Social Security and Medicare spending.

Congress should focus on preventing that looming fiscal disaster, not on repealing the Bush tax cuts or letting them expire. Repealing the tax cuts would not increase revenues significantly. But it would discourage investors and entrepreneurs, reduce incentives to work and slow economic growth. Lawmakers would do well to remember America cannot tax itself to prosperity


Tax Cut Myths and Realities | The Heritage Foundation

 

[Jroc]

Deficits and Public Debt

Context: Before 2009, the largest budget deficit recorded since the end of World War II had been 6 percent of GDP in 1983. The Bush Administration oversaw budget deficits averaging 3.2 percent of GDP.
The 2009 budget deficit of 9.9 percent of GDP shattered the postwar record. Furthermore, the budget deficit is projected to be 9.2 percent of GDP in 2010, and to remain above 5.7 percent of GDP indefinitely.
After remaining between 23 percent and 49 percent of GDP since the end of World War II, the public debt currently stands at 62 percent of GDP and is projected to top 100 percent by 2020.
By 2020, the budget forecasts a $1.9 trillion annual budget deficit, a public debt of 101 percent of GDP, and annual net interest spending of $1.1 trillion.
By 2020, nearly half of all income tax revenues would go toward paying interest on the national debt.
Over eight years of an Obama Administration, baseline budget deficits are projected to total $10 trillion—triple the $3.3 trillion in deficits accumulated by President George W. Bush.[7] The public debt—7.5 trillion at the end of 2009—is projected to triple to $23.5 trillion by 2020.
As the budget deficit increases over the next decade, so will net interest spending, from $187 billion (1.3 percent of GDP) in 2009 to $1,109 billion (4.8 percent of GDP) by 2020. Even that assumes that interest rates remain lower than they were in the 1990s. Every percentage point rise in interest rates over projected levels would add approximately $1 trillion in net interest costs over the decade.[8]
The coming tsunami of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs are projected to push the federal public debt to more than 300 percent of GDP by 2050 and above 800 percent of GDP by 2080.[9] The CBO does not project that the expensive Obamacare legislation will significantly bend the health care cost curve downward.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...g-Not-Falling-Revenues-Risks-Drowning-America

 

[Jroc]

I didn't know how to get this to line properly but as you can see Obama is the king of spending as a percintage Of GDP...


Year GDP-US $ billion Federal Deficit-fed pct GDP
1900 20.6 -0.20 a
1901 22.3 -0.27 a
1902 24.1 -0.34 a
1903 25.9 -0.24 i
1904 25.7 -0.06 i
1905 28.8 0.01 i
1906 31 -0.12 i
1907 33.9 -0.30 i
1908 30.1 0.02 i
1909 32.2 0.09 i
1910 33.4 -0.11 i
1911 34.3 -0.12 i
1912 37.4 0.01 i
1913 39.1 0.02 a
1914 36.5 0.20 i
1915 38.7 0.56 i
1916 49.6 0.31 i
1917 59.7 1.82 i
1918 75.8 11.88 i
1919 78.3 16.86 i
1920 88.4 -0.68 i
1921 73.6 -0.91 i
1922 73.4 -0.68 a
1923 85.4 -0.66 i
1924 86.9 -0.73 i
1925 90.6 -0.47 i
1926 96.9 -0.67 i
1927 95.5 -0.98 a
1928 97.4 -0.68 i
1929 103.6 -0.46 i
1930 91.2 -0.96 i
1931 76.5 0.17 i
1932 58.7 2.78 a
1933 56.4 3.27 i
1934 66 3.11 a
1935 73.3 4.12 i
1936 83.8 4.76 a
1937 91.9 2.84 i
1938 86.1 1.42 a
1939 92.2 2.32 i
1940 101.4 3.02 a
1941 126.7 3.73 i
1942 161.9 12.04 a
1943 198.6 28.05 i
1944 219.8 22.35 a
1945 223 24.07 i
1946 222.2 9.06 a
1947 244.1 -1.32 i
1948 269.1 -4.33 a
1949 267.2 -1.48 i
1950 293.7 0.43 a
1951 339.3 -2.30 a
1952 358.3 -0.06 a
1953 379.3 1.52 a
1954 380.4 0.49 a
1955 414.7 0.37 a
1956 437.4 -1.21 a
1957 461.1 -1.15 a
1958 467.2 0.01 a
1959 506.6 1.59 a
1960 526.4 -0.48 a
1961 544.8 0.65 a
1962 585.7 1.22 a
1963 617.8 0.77 a
1964 663.6 0.89 a
1965 719.1 0.20 a
1966 787.7 0.47 a
1967 832.4 1.04 a
1968 909.8 2.77 a
1969 984.4 -0.33 a
1970 1038.3 0.27 a
1971 1126.8 2.04 a
1972 1237.9 1.89 a
1973 1382.3 1.08 a
1974 1499.5 0.41 a
1975 1637.7 3.25 a
1976 1824.6 4.04 a
1977 2030.1 2.64 a
1978 2293.8 2.58 a
1979 2562.2 1.59 a
1980 2788.1 2.65 a
1981 3126.8 2.53 a
1982 3253.2 3.93 a
1983 3534.6 5.88 a
1984 3930.9 4.72 a
1985 4217.5 5.03 a
1986 4460.1 4.96 a
1987 4736.4 3.16 a
1988 5100.4 3.04 a
1989 5482.1 2.78 a
1990 5800.5 3.81 a
1991 5992.1 4.49 a
1992 6342.3 4.58 a
1993 6667.4 3.83 a
1994 7085.2 2.87 a
1995 7414.7 2.21 a
1996 7838.5 1.37 a
1997 8332.4 0.26 a
1998 8793.5 -0.79 a
1999 9353.5 -1.34 a
2000 9951.5 -2.37 a
2001 10286.2 -1.25 a
2002 10642.3 1.48 a
2003 11142.1 3.39 a
2004 11867.8 3.48 a
2005 12638.4 2.52 a
2006 13398.9 1.85 a
2007 14077.6 1.14 a
2008 14441.4 3.18 a
2009 14258.2 9.91 a
2010 14623.9 10.64 b

Legend:
a - actual reported
i - interpolated between actual reported values
b - budgeted estimate in US fy11 budget


US Federal Deficit As Percent Of GDP in United States 1900-2010 - Federal State Local

 

[rdean]

The bubbles on the left is the deficit growing under the Democrats plan. The bubbles on the right is the deficit growing under the Republicans plan.

You can't complain about Democrats spending when Bush turned a surplus into a 2.4 trillion dollar deficit. And now, the Republicans in the house want to give 750 billion in increased deficit by giving money to billionaires by borrowing and leaving the middle class holding the bag.

Why should millionaires and billionaires get ANOTHER 750 billion? Shouldn't we have a fabulous economy from the last 2.4 trillion?

GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion to deficit, panel finds

 

[sangha]

Holy shit wingnut that was a big fucking spin there. Oh by the way you are a fucking liar.

Another wingnut reduced to cursing.

I accept your surrender

Thats not a form of surrender thats just me being me. I am straight forward aND DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

IOW, 'I have no facts and when I use curses and insults to hide this, I am being "straight forward" '