Obama Peddles Myths About Taxes And The Rich

[bripat9643]

Sorry, all I need is to review the economic success of the US and it's clear to me that the bigger and stronger the middle class, the better everyone does. So, to get the deficit under control, yes, increase taxes on the top 1%. If we look back, lowering taxes on this group has not increased employment save when JFK did it and the highest bracket at that time was 71%. It's clear to me that stupidly high taxes on the rich hurt the economy and that stupidly low taxes on the rich hurt the economy. It's also clear to me that the Clinton rates were just about right.

The U.S. has had lower taxes than almost all of it's competitors for it's entire history. So how does that prove that taxation caused prosperity? Where is the evidence that low tax levels hurt the economy? We had low tax levels the entire history of the country before the Democrat criminals got the income tax passed. Are you claiming our economy performed poorly then?

Cutting taxes has worked every time it has been tried. It worked when Bush did it. It worked when Reagan did it. It worked when Kennedy did it. And it worked when Harding did it.

Your knowledge of history is sadly deficient.

 

[edthecynic]

More LimpTard bullshit! When St Ronnie cut taxes in 1981 revenue went DOWN, not up. Revenue didn't go up until AFTER Reagan RAISED taxes, and then it went up year after year as Reagan raised taxes year after year. What paid professional liars like your MessiahRushie do is include the increased revenue after Reagan raised taxes as revenue generated by Reagan's earlier failed tax cuts.

From the radical extremist Heritage foundation's own chart you can clearly see that revenue fell in 1982 and 1983 after Reagan's August 1981 tax cuts. After that Reagan raised taxes 8 times in 6 years and revenue went up.

Revenue went down because we were in a recession, nitwit. Revenue also went down in 2009, 2010. Was that because of tax cuts?

Reagan never raised taxes to the level they were at when he was inaugurated. The top marginal rate was 70% then. By the time his term was done, the top marginal rate was 28%. The fact is tax increases seldom generate the promised revenue because, as you readily concede, the rich have ways of shielding their income from taxation.

nice bit of CON$ervative revisionist history!

Reagan cut taxes in August 1981 and the Reagan Recession began July 1982. Reagan's tax cuts came first and the Reagan Recession followed. After Reagan raised taxes we pulled out of the Reagan Recession.

While St Ronnie cut the progressive income tax, he raised numerous regressive taxes like the gas tax and he also started taxing SS benefits. As a result overall taxes went down on the rich and up on the middle class.

In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up from 17.7% to 18.4%, shifting some of the tax burden from the PROGRESSIVE income tax to the REGRESSIVE payroll tax.

 

[edthecynic]

Sorry, all I need is to review the economic success of the US and it's clear to me that the bigger and stronger the middle class, the better everyone does. So, to get the deficit under control, yes, increase taxes on the top 1%. If we look back, lowering taxes on this group has not increased employment save when JFK did it and the highest bracket at that time was 71%. It's clear to me that stupidly high taxes on the rich hurt the economy and that stupidly low taxes on the rich hurt the economy. It's also clear to me that the Clinton rates were just about right.

The U.S. has had lower taxes than almost all of it's competitors for it's entire history. So how does that prove that taxation caused prosperity? Where is the evidence that low tax levels hurt the economy? We had low tax levels the entire history of the country before the Democrat criminals got the income tax passed. Are you claiming our economy performed poorly then?

Cutting taxes has worked every time it has been tried. It worked when Bush did it. It worked when Reagan did it. It worked when Kennedy did it. And it worked when Harding did it.

Your knowledge of history is sadly deficient.

Your revisionist history is sadly deficient.
Cutting taxes has never worked because the GOP always cuts the wrong tax!!! The tax to cut to grow the economy is the payroll tax, which Reagan raised!!!

What I would do to stimulate the economy and create AMERICAN jobs is to REPLACE each of Bush's American job killing tax cuts when they expire, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, with a cut in the job killing payroll taxes.
This would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny thus stimulating demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance. The businesses that employ the most AMERICANS will get the most benefit from the tax cuts, exactly the group of people you would want to benefit most from tax cuts.

Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts

EFFECT OF REAGAN, KENNEDY, AND BUSH TAX CUTS ON REVENUES

 

[The Rabbi]

The topic is taxes not wealth creation.
Try to divert again.

Only congenital imbeciles believe the two aren't intimately related.

edtheshmuck is the living embodiment of the term "congenital imbecile."

 

[rdean]

...tax advantages of the economic ELITE are not nearly enough to satisfy their pure greed!!!!! ...

Hatred for the rich is not justified.

A music composer who creates a beautiful melody is making something of value. Wealth is that which has value, so artists create wealth, become wealthy, and we should thank them instead of hating them. Same for the scientist who discovers a new cure for a dread disease. Sure they can give their wealth away if they want (and that's what many wealthy people do), but the point is that creating wealth is not a bad thing.

Nor does hatred for the rich help anyone else.

When people migrate they go from areas of poverty to areas of wealth. People are better off when they're around the rich then when they're near the poor.

Republicans are cutting funding for the arts.

When scientists discover or invent something, they only get what they were paid. If they are employed at 100k a year, unless their company has a "bonus" program for "patents", they only get their regular salary.

Most inventions and discoveries don't come from a single person, but from a group of people working together.

Republicans should never bring up art. Their Christan music sucks and for art, they rely on gays like Phillip Johnson, Di Vinci and Michaelangelo.

Republicans should never bring up science. They are anti education and only a measly 6% of scientists in the US will admit to being a Republican. Better they stick with their lies. They have proven to be exceptional in that area.

 

[expat_panama]

...a complete moron or a liberal would claim wealth creation is not a good thing.

That's bad enough. What's worse is they call it a 'sin' and want to punish those who do it.