Leave the Tax Rates Alone

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2009
67,733
7,923
1,840
Nashville
The WSJ this AM has a super editorial where they skewer many myths we see repeated here daily. The biggest is that the Bush tax cuts caused this deficit (they didnt). Or that we need higher tax rates to close the deficiit (we dont).
The current tax structure has provided a return of 18.5% of GDP. That is historically the optimum amount. Returns are lower now because of slow growth and lingering recession.
Review & Outlook: Obama's Real Revenue Problem - WSJ.com
President Obama was right about his audacity, if not always the hope. Six months after he agreed to a bipartisan extension of current tax rates, he is now insisting on tax increases as part of the debt-ceiling talks. At his press conference yesterday he repeated this demand, as well as his recent talking point that taxes are lower than they've been in generations. Let's examine that claim because it explains Washington's real revenue problem—slow economic growth.

Mr. Obama has a point that tax receipts are near historic lows, but the cause isn't tax rates that are too low. As the nearby table shows, as recently as 2007 the current tax structure raised 18.5% of GDP in revenue, which is slightly above the modern historical average. Even in 2008, when the economy grew not at all, federal tax receipts still came in at 17.5% of the economy.

Today's revenue problem is the result of the mediocre economic recovery. Tax collections in 2009 fell below 15% of GDP, the lowest level since 1950. But remarkably, tax receipts stayed that low even in the recovery year of 2010. So far this fiscal year tax receipts are growing at a healthy 10% clip, so the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) January estimate of 14.8% of GDP is probably low. We suspect revenues will be closer to 16%, but even that would be the weakest revenue rebound from any recession in 50 years, and far below the average tax take since 1970 of 18.2%.
more at the source.
 
Yeah... the Wall Street Journal has no self interest in taxes, does it? Look at their audience, look at who they are trying to sell papers to. Furthermore... look who owns the newspaper.
 
Yeah... the Wall Street Journal has no self interest in taxes, does it? Look at their audience, look at who they are trying to sell papers to. Furthermore... look who owns the newspaper.

How about looking at the article, reading it and making an intelligent statement about it. You don't have a intelligent retort.

The audience of the Wallstreet Journal is middle to upper-income Americans. You obviously have a very negative opinion of them.
 
Yeah... the Wall Street Journal has no self interest in taxes, does it? Look at their audience, look at who they are trying to sell papers to. Furthermore... look who owns the newspaper.

How about looking at the article, reading it and making an intelligent statement about it. You don't have a intelligent retort.

The audience of the Wallstreet Journal is middle to upper-income Americans. You obviously have a very negative opinion of them.

Because reading it and looking at the chart and developing criticism would take a base of knowledge and brain power, neither of which he has.
 
Yeah... the Wall Street Journal has no self interest in taxes, does it? Look at their audience, look at who they are trying to sell papers to. Furthermore... look who owns the newspaper.

Using your child-like logic let's ignore all news articles now.

MSNBC is owned by the megalithic General Electric, so we can't listen to them.

CBS is beholden to Westinghouse Electric Company, part of the Nuclear Utilities Business Group of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), let's ignore any news articles they report.

Of course Fox News is run by, and I know this because I get all of the news from the Daily Show, Lucifer. Enough said there.

I'm sure you get all of your information from independent, non-corporatism bloggers, that's why you are so uninformed. :clap2:
 
Yeah... the Wall Street Journal has no self interest in taxes, does it? Look at their audience, look at who they are trying to sell papers to. Furthermore... look who owns the newspaper.

How about looking at the article, reading it and making an intelligent statement about it. You don't have a intelligent retort.

The audience of the Wallstreet Journal is middle to upper-income Americans. You obviously have a very negative opinion of them.


Yup. You couldn't get anymore middle class than my Dad and he alway got the WSJ.

I'm sure he'd like to know he was rich. LOL
 
What a bunch of shit. Imagine that... the Wall Street Journal says.. don't raise taxes.

That would be like "Welfare Recipients Daily" saying don't cut our benefits.

Charts? CHARTS? I've seen Progressives put up chart after chart showing how the Debt has INCREASED MORE under Republican Administrations and you turn your heads... I've seen Progressives show article after article that you guys turn your heads.

So... I guess what your saying is that only media YOU Agree with is accurate. Bullshit.
 
If they are so gung ho to raise taxes on the top earners then by gum we should raise everyones taxes.

Rich, middle and poor.

Yup fair is fair. Of course we wouldn't get to much out of the poor but anyone drawing from the public largesse should have some skin in the game.

Then lets just sit back and watch the eonomy boom.

Hint. Don't hold your breath.
 
What a bunch of shit. Imagine that... the Wall Street Journal says.. don't raise taxes.

That would be like "Welfare Recipients Daily" saying don't cut our benefits.

Charts? CHARTS? I've seen Progressives put up chart after chart showing how the Debt has INCREASED MORE under Republican Administrations and you turn your heads... I've seen Progressives show article after article that you guys turn your heads.

So... I guess what your saying is that only media YOU Agree with is accurate. Bullshit.


We are waiting for you to say something intelligent.

This is the mentality of the left, given information they disagree with they rely on insults and shallow remarks.

Let me ask you this. With unemployment hovering around 9%--the real number around 15%--economic growth stagnant at 1%, national debt at $14,000,000,000,000, how is raising taxes going to solve any of this?

Now continue with me, if you will, what did the Stimulus Act achieve? Let's see if you know the answer to this question. Which top Obama corporate contributor received billions of dollars of stimulus money at .01% interest. Now I'm getting this information from the NY Times is that ok?
 
If they are so gung ho to raise taxes on the top earners then by gum we should raise everyones taxes.

Rich, middle and poor.

Yup fair is fair. Of course we wouldn't get to much out of the poor but anyone drawing from the public largesse should have some skin in the game.

Then lets just sit back and watch the eonomy boom.

Hint. Don't hold your breath.

Yeah... fuck it if the poor can't eat, right? Fuck it if the Middle Class can't afford to buy the things that keep the economy rolling... But heaven forbid if some extremely rich person has to modify his investment portfolio.
 
What a bunch of shit. Imagine that... the Wall Street Journal says.. don't raise taxes.

That would be like "Welfare Recipients Daily" saying don't cut our benefits.

Charts? CHARTS? I've seen Progressives put up chart after chart showing how the Debt has INCREASED MORE under Republican Administrations and you turn your heads... I've seen Progressives show article after article that you guys turn your heads.

So... I guess what your saying is that only media YOU Agree with is accurate. Bullshit.


We are waiting for you to say something intelligent.

This is the mentality of the left, given information they disagree with they rely on insults and shallow remarks.

Let me ask you this. With unemployment hovering around 9%--the real number around 15%--economic growth stagnant at 1%, national debt at $14,000,000,000,000, how is raising taxes going to solve any of this?

Now continue with me, if you will, what did the Stimulus Act achieve? Let's see if you know the answer to this question. Which top Obama corporate contributor received billions of dollars of stimulus money at .01% interest. Now I'm getting this information from the NY Times is that ok?

It wont solve anything but it will stick it to all those rich fat cats he hates so much.
 
What a bunch of shit. Imagine that... the Wall Street Journal says.. don't raise taxes.

That would be like "Welfare Recipients Daily" saying don't cut our benefits.

Charts? CHARTS? I've seen Progressives put up chart after chart showing how the Debt has INCREASED MORE under Republican Administrations and you turn your heads... I've seen Progressives show article after article that you guys turn your heads.

So... I guess what your saying is that only media YOU Agree with is accurate. Bullshit.

The source of the charts in the article, which you obviously couldn't be bothered to read before making your ignorant rants, were the Congressional Budget Office.

You Progressive Charts are propaganda with a source much less credible than the Congressional Budget Office.

Instead of showing everyone how full of shit you are, after reading the article make a actual point.
 
What a bunch of shit. Imagine that... the Wall Street Journal says.. don't raise taxes.

That would be like "Welfare Recipients Daily" saying don't cut our benefits.

Charts? CHARTS? I've seen Progressives put up chart after chart showing how the Debt has INCREASED MORE under Republican Administrations and you turn your heads... I've seen Progressives show article after article that you guys turn your heads.

So... I guess what your saying is that only media YOU Agree with is accurate. Bullshit.

Since the article is too long for you to read and make a intelligent response to let's shorten it. Here is an excerpt:

"Mr. Obama has a point that tax receipts are near historic lows, but the cause isn't tax rates that are too low. As the nearby table shows, as recently as 2007 the current tax structure raised 18.5% of GDP in revenue, which is slightly above the modern historical average. Even in 2008, when the economy grew not at all, federal tax receipts still came in at 17.5% of the economy.

Today's revenue problem is the result of the mediocre economic recovery."

What is not true in that part? Screw it, can you name one thing in the article that you believe is not based on solid facts? Do you know what facts are?
 
We cannot solve the economic problms we're having MERELY by taxing the wealthy.

Not that I don't think we need to make some changes to the system we have now, but that in and of itself will not solve a damned thing in the longer run and in the shorter run I actually think imposing taxes might actually hurt the economy.

Where we really need improvment is income distribution and nothing in the tax code is going to really solve THAT problem.
 
Yeah... the Wall Street Journal has no self interest in taxes, does it? Look at their audience, look at who they are trying to sell papers to. Furthermore... look who owns the newspaper.

How about looking at the article, reading it and making an intelligent statement about it. You don't have a intelligent retort.

The audience of the Wallstreet Journal is middle to upper-income Americans. You obviously have a very negative opinion of them.

So he should just agree with it because the article says so? Yeah, that's brilliant. I assume you're going to agree with an article that says taxes should be raised on the top 1% if it makes a strong argument?

On to the point. Not raising taxes on the top tax bracket will mean that more programs need to be cut to balance the budget which in turn will hurt the middle class even more. Because we all know that the Repubs want to cut things like Social Security, Medicare and Education. Why is it that the middle class is going to receive the brunt of it when it was mostly people in the top tax bracket who got us in this mess? Also, if the middle class shrinks then the rich can say goodbye to their demand.
 
What a bunch of shit. Imagine that... the Wall Street Journal says.. don't raise taxes.

That would be like "Welfare Recipients Daily" saying don't cut our benefits.

Charts? CHARTS? I've seen Progressives put up chart after chart showing how the Debt has INCREASED MORE under Republican Administrations and you turn your heads... I've seen Progressives show article after article that you guys turn your heads.

So... I guess what your saying is that only media YOU Agree with is accurate. Bullshit.


We are waiting for you to say something intelligent.

This is the mentality of the left, given information they disagree with they rely on insults and shallow remarks.

Let me ask you this. With unemployment hovering around 9%--the real number around 15%--economic growth stagnant at 1%, national debt at $14,000,000,000,000, how is raising taxes going to solve any of this?

Now continue with me, if you will, what did the Stimulus Act achieve? Let's see if you know the answer to this question. Which top Obama corporate contributor received billions of dollars of stimulus money at .01% interest. Now I'm getting this information from the NY Times is that ok?

First off.... POT? Meet Kettle. You guys slam anyone who posts articles YOU don't agree with.

Raising taxes means more revenue to work with, add to that the $1T in cuts already proposed(and more to be negotiated), that means we can pay down this debt.

To continue with you... the Stimulus Act achieved the prevention of an economic collapse.

Yep... you're probably right on the Corporate Contributer thing... that's why I want Publicly funded Elections... BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS TO DO THESE THINGS TO GET ELECTED!!!! Not just Obama, Not just Dems... But EVERYONE! in 2010, the GOP took over the house of Representatives and won many Governorships with the new "unlimited anonymous" donation ruling. But you don't want to talk about that, do you?

Once again.. POT... Meet Kettle.

Finally, I love how you idiots come across with the "Obama is a Marxist" bullshit.. then the truth comes out... he's a politician.. just like everyone before him. But he's still the Devil to you.
 
If they are so gung ho to raise taxes on the top earners then by gum we should raise everyones taxes.

Rich, middle and poor.

Yup fair is fair. Of course we wouldn't get to much out of the poor but anyone drawing from the public largesse should have some skin in the game.

Then lets just sit back and watch the eonomy boom.

Hint. Don't hold your breath.

Yeah... fuck it if the poor can't eat, right? Fuck it if the Middle Class can't afford to buy the things that keep the economy rolling... But heaven forbid if some extremely rich person has to modify his investment portfolio.

And selective equal treatment rears it's ugly liberal head again

It's as simple as you want what they have and you want them to pay for other things you want on top of that
 
Yeah... the Wall Street Journal has no self interest in taxes, does it? Look at their audience, look at who they are trying to sell papers to. Furthermore... look who owns the newspaper.

How about looking at the article, reading it and making an intelligent statement about it. You don't have a intelligent retort.

The audience of the Wallstreet Journal is middle to upper-income Americans. You obviously have a very negative opinion of them.

So he should just agree with it because the article says so? Yeah, that's brilliant. I assume you're going to agree with an article that says taxes should be raised on the top 1% if it makes a strong argument?

On to the point. Not raising taxes on the top tax bracket will mean that more programs need to be cut to balance the budget which in turn will hurt the middle class even more. Because we all know that the Repubs want to cut things like Social Security, Medicare and Education. Why is it that the middle class is going to receive the brunt of it when it was mostly people in the top tax bracket who got us in this mess? Also, if the middle class shrinks then the rich can say goodbye to their demand.


No, he should read the article and if he has something he disagrees with do so without attacking the ownership and the readers of the Wallstreet Journal.

You wouldn't understand this, obviously, because you aren't doing it.

Raising taxes is not going to solve the budget deficits we have. Nor is it going to do a damn thing to turn this economy around.

"the direct revenue loss from the combination of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts contributed roughly $216 billion, or only about 9.5% of the $2.29 trillion. "

Focus. Take just those facts and tell me how eliminating the Bush taxes is going to do anything about a $14,000,000,000,000 deficit.

Eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts or, and thank god you and other leftists are being more honest, raising taxes would only add somewhere around $3 trillion annually to a budget deficit that is growing at a much faster rate than that. That $3 trillion number is very generous too, given that historically when taxes are raised corporations and higher income earners generally employ sophisticated tactics to dodge taxes. Tax revenues would increase at first, and then die down. This is history.
 
The WSJ this AM has a super editorial....
BZZZT!!!!

Sorry, contestant....The Murdoch Street Journal is no-longer a valid economic/business-reference.

As-far-as tax-rates are concerned, they should proceed as designed....​

"The curious may want to know why the Bush tax cuts are set to expire in the first place. After all, if then-President George W. Bush and Congress thought they were a good idea when they passed them in the early 2000s, why make them temporary?

The answer is that President Bush and a complicit Congress didn’t want to show the magnitude of the deficits that would result from their tax cuts. To hide those deficits as they were pushing them through they used a variety of accounting tricks. One of those tricks was attaching expiration dates so that, on paper, there wouldn’t be any long-term costs. This made the long-term deficit picture look fairly rosy on paper even as it doomed Bush’s successor and the current Congress to cleaning up the mess."

 
The WSJ this AM has a super editorial....
BZZZT!!!!

Sorry, contestant....The Murdoch Street Journal is no-longer a valid economic/business-reference.

As-far-as tax-rates are concerned, they should proceed as designed....​

"The curious may want to know why the Bush tax cuts are set to expire in the first place. After all, if then-President George W. Bush and Congress thought they were a good idea when they passed them in the early 2000s, why make them temporary?

The answer is that President Bush and a complicit Congress didn’t want to show the magnitude of the deficits that would result from their tax cuts. To hide those deficits as they were pushing them through they used a variety of accounting tricks. One of those tricks was attaching expiration dates so that, on paper, there wouldn’t be any long-term costs. This made the long-term deficit picture look fairly rosy on paper even as it doomed Bush’s successor and the current Congress to cleaning up the mess."


Yet the winger 'americanprogress.org' is a valid site??

You're one stupid piece of shit
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top