Those fiscally responsible Democrats...

[Polk]

That argument makes no sense. If Reagan's "fiscally conservative" policies resulted in 17 years, why was the growth not harmed by the three rounds of tax increases?

Try to stay focused. Marginal tax rates are not what we are discussing.

You took the position that massive deficit spending by the gov't in the form of "stimulus" is helpful for the economy. I've shown you that they are not effective in the long term. If you want to discuss tax rates, I'd be happy to shatter any myths you hold. High tax rates inevitably result in lower revenue for the treasury.

Do I think the world will end if the top marginal rates increase to 40% after the Bush tax cuts expire? No, but it will not help spur economic growth or treasury receipts. It will extend the downturn. The answer is to get goverment the hell out of the way! Let capitalism work. Cut corporate tax rates, cut personal income taxes and CUT SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!! The economy will bounce back on it's own. It is not the govermnents job to micromanage the economy or peoples lives.

Spending also increased over that period. So what part of his policy was "fiscally conservative"?

 

[Polk]

That argument makes no sense. If Reagan's "fiscally conservative" policies resulted in 17 years, why was the growth not harmed by the three rounds of tax increases?

CHeck this graph out.....

Marginal tax rates dropped from 70% down to under 30% during the Reagan era. Hence the 17 year sustained expansion. Even minor increases couldn't stop the momentum. Obama could turn his entire term around if he cut taxes, cut spending,and told the American people to take care of themselves. It is not the govt's job to play nursemaid to it citizenry.

Those numbers are really misleading. The top line rates dropped, but at the same time, a lot of loopholes were removed. No one was really ever paying 70%.

 

[Zander]

That argument makes no sense. If Reagan's "fiscally conservative" policies resulted in 17 years, why was the growth not harmed by the three rounds of tax increases?

CHeck this graph out.....

Marginal tax rates dropped from 70% down to under 30% during the Reagan era. Hence the 17 year sustained expansion. Even minor increases couldn't stop the momentum. Obama could turn his entire term around if he cut taxes, cut spending,and told the American people to take care of themselves. It is not the govt's job to play nursemaid to it citizenry.

Those numbers are really misleading. The top line rates dropped, but at the same time, a lot of loopholes were removed. No one was really ever paying 70%.

Oh yeah, sure they weren't.

Face it Polk, you're wrong. Stimulus spending does not work in the long run and your own examples make that brutally clear. What needs to happen is for Obama and the government to get the hell out of the way. Stop this crazy spending. Leave income taxes alone or, better yet, lower them. Lower the corporate tax rate, we have the highest ratre in the world. Get out of the way, stop screwing things up, and the economy will take care of itself.

PS: We don't need government telling us how to eat, how to breath, what time to go to bed, and what doctor we can see. Get the fuck out of our lives.

 

[Zander]

Why does no one ever mention the depression of 1920? Perhaps because no one knows about it because we recovered so quickly? Anyone know why we recovered so fast?

Because we let the economy take care of itself?

 

[Zander]

High tax rates inevitably result in lower revenue for the treasury.

Define: high

It would seem there'd be a 'sweet spot' in a given economy where the treasury's income from taxation would be maximized.

There is. The concept is known as the "Laffer Curve".

Personally, I think that an income tax rate higher than 15% is counterproductive. As it stands now, before I make any transactions for my business or in my personal life, I look at the tax ramifications first. At 15%- I wouldn't worry about it -but at 35% I do. Lower tax rates to 15% and you'd have a BOOMING economy. Cut government spending and you'd restore confidence. Stop trying to ram a bad healthcare bill down our throats and the economy would literally take off. Why would anyone even consider hiring a new person now? It is too uncertain. The economy doesn't like uncertainty.

Get government off our backs and we'd all have the ability to take care of ourselves and the people we love.

 

[Polk]

CHeck this graph out.....

Marginal tax rates dropped from 70% down to under 30% during the Reagan era. Hence the 17 year sustained expansion. Even minor increases couldn't stop the momentum. Obama could turn his entire term around if he cut taxes, cut spending,and told the American people to take care of themselves. It is not the govt's job to play nursemaid to it citizenry.

Those numbers are really misleading. The top line rates dropped, but at the same time, a lot of loopholes were removed. No one was really ever paying 70%.

Oh yeah, sure they weren't.

Face it Polk, you're wrong. Stimulus spending does not work in the long run and your own examples make that brutally clear. What needs to happen is for Obama and the government to get the hell out of the way. Stop this crazy spending. Leave income taxes alone or, better yet, lower them. Lower the corporate tax rate, we have the highest ratre in the world. Get out of the way, stop screwing things up, and the economy will take care of itself.

PS: We don't need government telling us how to eat, how to breath, what time to go to bed, and what doctor we can see. Get the fuck out of our lives.

They weren't. Just like no corporations are actually paying our current corporate income tax at the full rate.

 

[Polk]

High tax rates inevitably result in lower revenue for the treasury.

Define: high

It would seem there'd be a 'sweet spot' in a given economy where the treasury's income from taxation would be maximized.

There is. The concept is known as the "Laffer Curve".

Personally, I think that an income tax rate higher than 15% is counterproductive. As it stands now, before I make any transactions for my business or in my personal life, I look at the tax ramifications first. At 15%- I wouldn't worry about it -but at 35% I do. Lower tax rates to 15% and you'd have a BOOMING economy. Cut government spending and you'd restore confidence. Stop trying to ram a bad healthcare bill down our throats and the economy would literally take off. Why would anyone even consider hiring a new person now? It is too uncertain. The economy doesn't like uncertainty.

Get government off our backs and we'd all have the ability to take care of ourselves and the people we love.

Art Laffer should be stripped of his degrees for being such a massive fraud. For starters, his "creation" is actually a rephrasing of an idea already put forward by Keynes (and one that can be traced back to Ibn Khaldun).

Also, you can think that number all you want, but that doesn't make it true. And the research literature shows the revenue peak not only occurs at a point higher than 15%, it occurs at one above our current rates.

 

[Zander]

Define: high

It would seem there'd be a 'sweet spot' in a given economy where the treasury's income from taxation would be maximized.

There is. The concept is known as the "Laffer Curve".

Personally, I think that an income tax rate higher than 15% is counterproductive. As it stands now, before I make any transactions for my business or in my personal life, I look at the tax ramifications first. At 15%- I wouldn't worry about it -but at 35% I do. Lower tax rates to 15% and you'd have a BOOMING economy. Cut government spending and you'd restore confidence. Stop trying to ram a bad healthcare bill down our throats and the economy would literally take off. Why would anyone even consider hiring a new person now? It is too uncertain. The economy doesn't like uncertainty.

Get government off our backs and we'd all have the ability to take care of ourselves and the people we love.

Art Laffer should be stripped of his degrees for being such a massive fraud. For starters, his "creation" is actually a rephrasing of an idea already put forward by Keynes (and one that can be traced back to Ibn Khaldun).

Also, you can think that number all you want, but that doesn't make it true. And the research literature shows the revenue peak not only occurs at a point higher than 15%, it occurs at one above our current rates.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your word for it, you have a habit of making blanket statements with no proof.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Define: high

It would seem there'd be a 'sweet spot' in a given economy where the treasury's income from taxation would be maximized.

There is. The concept is known as the "Laffer Curve".

Personally, I think that an income tax rate higher than 15% is counterproductive. As it stands now, before I make any transactions for my business or in my personal life, I look at the tax ramifications first. At 15%- I wouldn't worry about it -but at 35% I do. Lower tax rates to 15% and you'd have a BOOMING economy. Cut government spending and you'd restore confidence. Stop trying to ram a bad healthcare bill down our throats and the economy would literally take off. Why would anyone even consider hiring a new person now? It is too uncertain. The economy doesn't like uncertainty.

Get government off our backs and we'd all have the ability to take care of ourselves and the people we love.

Art Laffer should be stripped of his degrees for being such a massive fraud. For starters, his "creation" is actually a rephrasing of an idea already put forward by Keynes (and one that can be traced back to Ibn Khaldun).

Also, you can think that number all you want, but that doesn't make it true. And the research literature shows the revenue peak not only occurs at a point higher than 15%, it occurs at one above our current rates.

um....


don't most economists build on ideas already forwarded?


You know, I'm pretty sure that's why the biggest school of thought is known as neoclassical- because it's built atop classical lines of thought.

In the physical sciences, this is known as standing on the shoulders of giants or simply not being a moron and trying to reinvent to wheel when all you need is a stronger axle.

 

[Zander]

There is. The concept is known as the "Laffer Curve".

Personally, I think that an income tax rate higher than 15% is counterproductive. As it stands now, before I make any transactions for my business or in my personal life, I look at the tax ramifications first. At 15%- I wouldn't worry about it -but at 35% I do. Lower tax rates to 15% and you'd have a BOOMING economy. Cut government spending and you'd restore confidence. Stop trying to ram a bad healthcare bill down our throats and the economy would literally take off. Why would anyone even consider hiring a new person now? It is too uncertain. The economy doesn't like uncertainty.

Get government off our backs and we'd all have the ability to take care of ourselves and the people we love.

Art Laffer should be stripped of his degrees for being such a massive fraud. For starters, his "creation" is actually a rephrasing of an idea already put forward by Keynes (and one that can be traced back to Ibn Khaldun).

Also, you can think that number all you want, but that doesn't make it true. And the research literature shows the revenue peak not only occurs at a point higher than 15%, it occurs at one above our current rates.

um....


don't most economists build on ideas already forwarded?


You know, I'm pretty sure that's why the biggest school of thought is known as neoclassical- because it's built atop classical lines of thought.

In the physical sciences, this is known as standing on the shoulders of giants or simply not being a moron and trying to reinvent to wheel when all you need is a stronger axle.

Indeed. Laffer himself does not even claim to have invented the concept, attributing it to 14th century Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun and to Keynes . Obviously Keynes should be stripped of his credentials too, he is a thief - right Polk?

 

[Polk]

There is. The concept is known as the "Laffer Curve".

Personally, I think that an income tax rate higher than 15% is counterproductive. As it stands now, before I make any transactions for my business or in my personal life, I look at the tax ramifications first. At 15%- I wouldn't worry about it -but at 35% I do. Lower tax rates to 15% and you'd have a BOOMING economy. Cut government spending and you'd restore confidence. Stop trying to ram a bad healthcare bill down our throats and the economy would literally take off. Why would anyone even consider hiring a new person now? It is too uncertain. The economy doesn't like uncertainty.

Get government off our backs and we'd all have the ability to take care of ourselves and the people we love.

Art Laffer should be stripped of his degrees for being such a massive fraud. For starters, his "creation" is actually a rephrasing of an idea already put forward by Keynes (and one that can be traced back to Ibn Khaldun).

Also, you can think that number all you want, but that doesn't make it true. And the research literature shows the revenue peak not only occurs at a point higher than 15%, it occurs at one above our current rates.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your word for it, you have a habit of making blanket statements with no proof.

No proof? I've been the only one providing hard numbers in this thread.

 

[Polk]

There is. The concept is known as the "Laffer Curve".

Personally, I think that an income tax rate higher than 15% is counterproductive. As it stands now, before I make any transactions for my business or in my personal life, I look at the tax ramifications first. At 15%- I wouldn't worry about it -but at 35% I do. Lower tax rates to 15% and you'd have a BOOMING economy. Cut government spending and you'd restore confidence. Stop trying to ram a bad healthcare bill down our throats and the economy would literally take off. Why would anyone even consider hiring a new person now? It is too uncertain. The economy doesn't like uncertainty.

Get government off our backs and we'd all have the ability to take care of ourselves and the people we love.

Art Laffer should be stripped of his degrees for being such a massive fraud. For starters, his "creation" is actually a rephrasing of an idea already put forward by Keynes (and one that can be traced back to Ibn Khaldun).

Also, you can think that number all you want, but that doesn't make it true. And the research literature shows the revenue peak not only occurs at a point higher than 15%, it occurs at one above our current rates.

um....


don't most economists build on ideas already forwarded?


You know, I'm pretty sure that's why the biggest school of thought is known as neoclassical- because it's built atop classical lines of thought.

In the physical sciences, this is known as standing on the shoulders of giants or simply not being a moron and trying to reinvent to wheel when all you need is a stronger axle.

Yes, researchers build on the work of others. They don't pivot and claim the work as their own.

 

[Polk]

Art Laffer should be stripped of his degrees for being such a massive fraud. For starters, his "creation" is actually a rephrasing of an idea already put forward by Keynes (and one that can be traced back to Ibn Khaldun).

Also, you can think that number all you want, but that doesn't make it true. And the research literature shows the revenue peak not only occurs at a point higher than 15%, it occurs at one above our current rates.

um....


don't most economists build on ideas already forwarded?


You know, I'm pretty sure that's why the biggest school of thought is known as neoclassical- because it's built atop classical lines of thought.

In the physical sciences, this is known as standing on the shoulders of giants or simply not being a moron and trying to reinvent to wheel when all you need is a stronger axle.

Indeed. Laffer himself does not even claim to have invented the concept, attributing it to 14th century Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun and to Keynes . Obviously Keynes should be stripped of his credentials too, he is a thief - right Polk?

Keynes didn't run around calling it the "Keynes Curve".

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont think Laffer ran around calling it the Laffer Curve either. Someone else gave it that name.
But dont let facts bother you. They never have before.

 

[Zander]

um....


don't most economists build on ideas already forwarded?


You know, I'm pretty sure that's why the biggest school of thought is known as neoclassical- because it's built atop classical lines of thought.

In the physical sciences, this is known as standing on the shoulders of giants or simply not being a moron and trying to reinvent to wheel when all you need is a stronger axle.

Indeed. Laffer himself does not even claim to have invented the concept, attributing it to 14th century Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun and to Keynes . Obviously Keynes should be stripped of his credentials too, he is a thief - right Polk?

Keynes didn't run around calling it the "Keynes Curve".

You see to regularly spew random nonsense without doing any research and with absolutely no proof or corroboration.

It would have taken you less than 30 seconds to know that Laffer never named it the "laffer curve". He explained the concept so well that others dubbed it the" Laffer curve", not him. You sure are lazy!

 

[rightwinger]

The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007. That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion. I was disgusted with that., there is simply no reason to spend more than you take in year after year after year. NONE. But it is getting far worse thanks to the Democrat Congress.

The next year 2008, under the Pelosi-Reid Democratic Congress, the deficit shot up to $458 billion. The next year, in 2009, it was a mind-boggling $1.4 trillion.

In this new budget, of course, The Democrats and Obama propose to spend $1.6 trillion more than we have! The Democrats are on pace to triple the national debt by 2020. Nice work assholes!!

No amount of fairy dust, unicorn rides, and "Hopeychangey" feelings can hide these facts. These aren't just abstract numbers on a graph. This is grotesque government spending - and the tax increases that inevitably accompany such spending –will only kill jobs. That is precisely what we don't need right now.

November cannot come soon enough......

The biggest problem with that fiscally irresponsible budget is paying for two fiscally irresponsible wars and using a fiscally irresponsible tax cut to pay for them

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually none of those things are responsible. But you knew that already.

 

[Polk]

Actually none of those things are responsible. But you knew that already.

The Bush tax cuts alone are the source of over half of the deficit.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually none of those things are responsible. But you knew that already.

The Bush tax cuts alone are the source of over half of the deficit.

Escuse me? I couldn't hear what you said because it's your ass talking.

 

[Polk]

Actually none of those things are responsible. But you knew that already.

The Bush tax cuts alone are the source of over half of the deficit.

Escuse me? I couldn't hear what you said because it's your ass talking.

"Rabbi", don't you have another rant to go on about how Obama is a tool of the Rothschild family?