Do Taxes Encourage or Discourage Behavior?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Is this one of those "Kids Say the Darnedest Things" threads?



Asking a Leftie to explain logic: You might as well ask the common Lemming to 'splain survival tactics.

However, I expect a response rooted in emotion: Smoking, Drinking make us feel sad; taxing anyone with a successful business makes us feel glad, thus it is OK.

****, you people really avoid the details, don't you?

What details?

Be specific.

Details?? he's trying to change the subject after he lost yet another debate.

Do taxes change behavior? Sure when Ireland lowered its corporate tax rate almost every major corporation opened there.

When they gave a tax break on municipal bonds billion of dollars flowed in!!

Its like asking what will happen when you raise a price? Will you sell more or less? Only a liberal would be confused by that question.

 

[Rozman]

Would be nice if this administration could get a budget passed.

 

[Rshermr]

So. We're hearing a lot of hysteria that we need to raise taxes (again) to solve the deficit.

But here's what I'd like the Lefties to 'splain:

If taxes are used to discourage things such as Smoking and Drinking, why do you think that Taxing Productivity and Investment doesn't likewise discourage these activities?

Please 'splain.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Really simple to explain. Tax increases do not in and of themselves have much effect on the economy. And, though I am probably getting way to deep for you, tax decreases in a good economy can be good or bad. Either spurring growth or increasing inflation, or both.
But our economy is not good, except for a small percentage of our citizens. We have high unemployment, still. So, here is the thing. If you decrease taxes during bad economic times to the middle class, it will have a stimulative effect on the economy. Demand will be increased. If you decrease taxes on the wealthy, it will have no effect to speak of. Very little, if any. So, why is that??? Because the middle class tends to live payroll to payroll, and spend nearly all of their available dollars. The wealthy, on the other hand, do not increase spending much at all.
Now, I know this is complex if you are a con tool. You are not used to thinking. But the point is, by decreasing taxes to the middle class, you get some stimulus. By increasing taxes to the wealthy, you see very decrease in stimulus.

Now, here is the thing. By taxing the wealthy, primarily, you gain revenue. And that revenue can be used for stimulus spending. Which creates jobs. Which create more jobs. Because, you see, the stimulus is spent on projects employing many middle class workers who spend their incomes and create demand. And that demand creates more jobs.

So, great theory, eh. But I can show you why this theory, which is not my own, obviously, works. It worked for FDR. It worked for Clinton. It worked for reagan.

So, your agenda would suggest that decreasing taxes would be more likely to help. Overall tax decreases, going mostly to the wealthy. Perhaps you would like to suggest when that ever helped in this country during high unemployment times??? It would be so much more useful than your usual conservative dogma.

 

[Rshermr]

Is this one of those "Kids Say the Darnedest Things" threads?



Asking a Leftie to explain logic: You might as well ask the common Lemming to 'splain survival tactics.

However, I expect a response rooted in emotion: Smoking, Drinking make us feel sad; taxing anyone with a successful business makes us feel glad, thus it is OK.

****, you people really avoid the details, don't you?

What details?

Be specific.

Specifically, were you born stupid, or did you just watch fox for too long???

Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

 

[Samson]

****, you people really avoid the details, don't you?

What details?

Be specific.

Specifically, were you born stupid, or did you just watch fox for too long???

Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone?



Are you ******* kidding me?

 

[Samson]

Would be nice if this administration could get a budget passed.

Has it ever?

I don't recall.

 

[Rshermr]

****, you people really avoid the details, don't you?

What details?

Be specific.

Details?? he's trying to change the subject after he lost yet another debate.

Do taxes change behavior? Sure when Ireland lowered its corporate tax rate almost every major corporation opened there.

When they gave a tax break on municipal bonds billion of dollars flowed in!!

Its like asking what will happen when you raise a price? Will you sell more or less? Only a liberal would be confused by that question.

Ed, you are delusional, of course. You never, ever won a debate, except in your own little mind. I know you are mentally ill, and that it is not your fault. But still, congenital stupidity is annoying.

 

[Rshermr]

What details?

Be specific.

Specifically, were you born stupid, or did you just watch fox for too long???

Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone?



Are you ******* kidding me?

I know this is probably too difficult for your little conservative mind, or whatever serves as one. But the study was not done by rolling stone, me boy. Just quoted by them. And quoted in many many other sources as well. Oddly, cons just do not believe the study. But that is what the studies say. Being a con makes you stupid, and attracts stupid people. Sorry about that. It is just the way it is.

Here are a few more that help explain your malady:
University Study Shows People With Lower IQ's Are Political Conservatives
University Study Shows People With Lower IQ's Are Political Conservatives


Brock University Study Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience


New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist

U of Arkansas study Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) : Gene Expression

Alterman Study: Conservatives Display Ignorance | Nel's New Day

Enjoy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What details?

Be specific.

Details?? he's trying to change the subject after he lost yet another debate.

Do taxes change behavior? Sure when Ireland lowered its corporate tax rate almost every major corporation opened there.

When they gave a tax break on municipal bonds billion of dollars flowed in!!

Its like asking what will happen when you raise a price? Will you sell more or less? Only a liberal would be confused by that question.

Ed, you are delusional, of course. You never, ever won a debate, except in your own little mind. I know you are mentally ill, and that it is not your fault. But still, congenital stupidity is annoying.

Do taxes change behavior? Sure when Ireland lowered its corporate tax rate almost every major corporation opened there.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Conservatives Display Ignorance [/url]

Enjoy.

So then why be so afraid to tell us where the ignorance is in Aristotle Jefferson Smith Buckley Friedman and the whole conservative intellectual canon????

take your pick- Aristotle, Chesterton, Strauss, De Tracy, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adam Smith, John Locke, Milton Friedman, Nosick, Hayek, Von Mises, Sowell, Wm. Buckley, Kirk, Burke, Q. Wilson, Rand, Patrick Henry, C.S Lewis, Voegelin, Belloc

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."--- C.S. Lewis

 

[Rshermr]

So. We're hearing a lot of hysteria that we need to raise taxes (again) to solve the deficit.

But here's what I'd like the Lefties to 'splain:

If taxes are used to discourage things such as Smoking and Drinking, why do you think that Taxing Productivity and Investment doesn't likewise discourage these activities?

Please 'splain.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Based on the assumption that you, as a 2013 Republican, are all about "deficit reduction,"

How do you propose to do so without raising taxes? (Please bear with me a moment.)

When the negotiations between Obama and Boehner were ongoing back in the summer of 2011, the repubs had a package of $800 billion in more revenue on the table. Obama wanted more and the deal fell through. Had a similar deal offered prior to the fiscal cliff on Jan 1, so the repubs have been willing to raise taxes, albeit admittedly reluctant to do so. So it is a lie to suggest otherwise, Obama and the dems got their tax increases with almost no spending cuts, it is now time for the balanced approach by addressing the spending side rather than asking for even more in taxes. Too bad the democrats weren't willing to make the big deal back in december and avoid all the bullshit, but there were political points to be garnered and scores to settle, and of course the overwhelming desire to screw the GOP as much as possible.

Perhaps I would be inclined to believe your drivel if you would provide a link. But as is, looks like another bunch of con dogma. Name the revenue sources, or maybe, if you are actually honest about it, provide a link.
Because all I have heard is no new taxes. And maybe some tax loopholes that we will agree to, but we will not name them. Got more, dipshit, or are you simply posting dogma and wasting everyones time.

 

[Rshermr]

Rather than get into specific programs, I'd cap the growth of spending across the baord to 2% of the previous year's budget, and I'd require overruns from the previous year to be paid for in the current year. No exceptions, and I'd require reforms in the entitlement programs to make them sustainable. I would also reform the tax code for both individuals and corporations, limiting deductions and exemptions to a certain percentage. A flat tax would work for me.

So, basically, you would insist that no public employee gets more than a 2% wage increase per year. Is that correct? Because, after inflation, it provides no incentive for retaining an experienced work force.


Didn't say that at all. Let me tell you about the federal work force, specifically civil service. There is always stiff competition for gov't jobs, aside from the better pay and benefits; job security is a heck of a lot better except at the local levels, and even then they have a very strong union to protect them. So retaining an experienced work force is not a problem, and never has been.

I would tie wages and benefits for public employees to some index or collaborated indexes to arrive at fair compensation for whatever the private sector gets, with a peridoic adjustment one way or the other to bring it back in sync. I'd be looking at privatizing wherever possible to save money so needed functions could be maintained. And if necessary I'd cut back on hiring in agencies and programs that are not as necessary.


ALSO, are you basically inferring reduced entitlement spending? I'm good with that, as long as it's across the board--including farmers, retired federal workers (especially military), and "disabled."


Especially military? Why's that, it's one thing to change the rules for those who haven't reached retirement age or near it, but quite another to change the deal for those who've alrerady held up their end of the deal.

We've got to control the rising costs of our entitlement programs. The ACA isn't doing that, so some how some way we have to find away to cap it. I don't think a gov't run system like ObamaCare is going to do that; the old system didn't work to well in cost containment either, but all we've done is substitute one bad system for another.

And I see no reason why we can't find a way to reform Social Security; bump the age limit higher, means test the benefits, whatever it takes to get it done so that young people today can have the same program 40 or 50 years from now that we have today.



ALSO, wouldn't eliminating the progressive income tax and installing your so-called "flat" tax INCREASE taxes on the poorest workers and CUT taxes on the wealthiest? Is that your intention?

No reason why we couldn't set a floor for income subject to the flat tax. Say the first $20,000 is tax free, after that you pay in something. No deductions, no exemptions, no breaks for mortgage interest, dividends and cap gains, no tax shelters, no charity either. Or maybe you limit it to say 10% total of your income. Same deal for companies big and small. You could file your return in less than an hour, and we could really cut the rates to significantly encourage investments here in the US of A.

IMHO, we need more people on the lower end of the income ladder paying taxes. They need to have some skin in the game for how their money is spent, right now the concern is what do I get instead of how can I earn more and get richer. I know some people obsess over the taxes on the wealthy, as though it makes any difference to the rest of us. The fact is that some people are growing to get rich in a capitalistic economy. Instead of busting your ass to hurt them you should focus more on creating an environment where more people can move up the income ladder. You know the story of the golden goose, right? Think about it.

Now, that is a really, really stupid post. The flat tax will never happen. It is pushed by a bunch of very wealthy folks, and tea party types. the first, because it is they who will benefit. The latter because they are congenital idiots. But, enough people capable of actual thought, as opposed to con tools simply posting dogma like you, will not go for it.
And yeah, that idea of the cons that con tools like you put out there over and over and over, which says that taxing the job creators will cost jobs is so stupid that it is hard to believe that even you would try it. When are you going to show me when it was that lowering income taxes when unemployment was high, to the wealthy, ever helped the economy.

 

[Rshermr]

So. We're hearing a lot of hysteria that we need to raise taxes (again) to solve the deficit.

But here's what I'd like the Lefties to 'splain:

If taxes are used to discourage things such as Smoking and Drinking, why do you think that Taxing Productivity and Investment doesn't likewise discourage these activities?

Please 'splain.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Based on the assumption that you, as a 2013 Republican, are all about "deficit reduction,"

How do you propose to do so without raising taxes? (Please bear with me a moment.)

You are mistaken in assuming that I'm a Republican.

I propose rolling back government spending to where we were in 2007, and then requiring a balanced budget with spending not to exceed 20% of GDP (unless we are truly engaged in a world war). This will require a narrowing of the scope of government activities, getting rid of corporate welfare, getting rid of unions for federal employees to milk excessive benefits, and restructuring SS and Medicare...and terminating Obamacare.

I'd also like to see the Glen Reynolds' proposal put in place which taxes income at 75% when a former elected official or bureaucrat takes a lobbying job within 5 years of leaving public service. Also, it would be better to get rid of pensions for elected officials. Let them have to make a living in the private sector under the rules they have passed after they leave office.

On final thing: tax reform. Low flat tax for all with no loopholes or deductions.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You are not a republican. Right. What do you confess to be. You have absolute libertarian ideas. None of which have ever worked.
Economists who are non partisan will probably diagree with you by at least 5 to 1 on the idea of a balanced budget. Because, you see, requiring a balanced budget will absolutely flush the economy in bad times. Stupid, really stupid, economic idea.
Pinning spending on any past year would be about as popular as a fart in church with the people of this country. Most are not interested in the libertarian ideal. So, that idea is doa. And stupid. Had you ever noticed that the population is growing. Had you ever noticed that there is inflation. Always.
And you support the flat tax. What a surprise. The flat tax is proposed by wealthy people who lie like crazy to get stupid people to support it. Because, of course, it is the wealth that benefit big time.

What I see in you is a person who has his/her nose up the ass of the Koch brothers. Every one of your ideas passes the Koch test. Odd, eh, for a non republican. Maybe a libertarian, eh. Or are you simply dishonest??

 

[Wiseacre]

So, basically, you would insist that no public employee gets more than a 2% wage increase per year. Is that correct? Because, after inflation, it provides no incentive for retaining an experienced work force.


Didn't say that at all. Let me tell you about the federal work force, specifically civil service. There is always stiff competition for gov't jobs, aside from the better pay and benefits; job security is a heck of a lot better except at the local levels, and even then they have a very strong union to protect them. So retaining an experienced work force is not a problem, and never has been.

I would tie wages and benefits for public employees to some index or collaborated indexes to arrive at fair compensation for whatever the private sector gets, with a peridoic adjustment one way or the other to bring it back in sync. I'd be looking at privatizing wherever possible to save money so needed functions could be maintained. And if necessary I'd cut back on hiring in agencies and programs that are not as necessary.


ALSO, are you basically inferring reduced entitlement spending? I'm good with that, as long as it's across the board--including farmers, retired federal workers (especially military), and "disabled."


Especially military? Why's that, it's one thing to change the rules for those who haven't reached retirement age or near it, but quite another to change the deal for those who've alrerady held up their end of the deal.

We've got to control the rising costs of our entitlement programs. The ACA isn't doing that, so some how some way we have to find away to cap it. I don't think a gov't run system like ObamaCare is going to do that; the old system didn't work to well in cost containment either, but all we've done is substitute one bad system for another.

And I see no reason why we can't find a way to reform Social Security; bump the age limit higher, means test the benefits, whatever it takes to get it done so that young people today can have the same program 40 or 50 years from now that we have today.



ALSO, wouldn't eliminating the progressive income tax and installing your so-called "flat" tax INCREASE taxes on the poorest workers and CUT taxes on the wealthiest? Is that your intention?

No reason why we couldn't set a floor for income subject to the flat tax. Say the first $20,000 is tax free, after that you pay in something. No deductions, no exemptions, no breaks for mortgage interest, dividends and cap gains, no tax shelters, no charity either. Or maybe you limit it to say 10% total of your income. Same deal for companies big and small. You could file your return in less than an hour, and we could really cut the rates to significantly encourage investments here in the US of A.

IMHO, we need more people on the lower end of the income ladder paying taxes. They need to have some skin in the game for how their money is spent, right now the concern is what do I get instead of how can I earn more and get richer. I know some people obsess over the taxes on the wealthy, as though it makes any difference to the rest of us. The fact is that some people are growing to get rich in a capitalistic economy. Instead of busting your ass to hurt them you should focus more on creating an environment where more people can move up the income ladder. You know the story of the golden goose, right? Think about it.

Now, that is a really, really stupid post. The flat tax will never happen. It is pushed by a bunch of very wealthy folks, and tea party types. the first, because it is they who will benefit. The latter because they are congenital idiots. But, enough people capable of actual thought, as opposed to con tools simply posting dogma like you, will not go for it.
And yeah, that idea of the cons that con tools like you put out there over and over and over, which says that taxing the job creators will cost jobs is so stupid that it is hard to believe that even you would try it. When are you going to show me when it was that lowering income taxes when unemployment was high, to the wealthy, ever helped the economy.

I give you Ronald Reagan, about 30 years ago. And LBJ, about 20 years before that. Really those cuts were Jack Kennedy's idea, but nonetheless. You know why guys like Warren Buffet pay a lower tax rate than their secretary? Cuz they get to write off so many deductions and exemptions. Take that away and I'm thinking he and other rich guys like him will pay more. Oh, almost forgot the tax cuts under Bill Clinton, when the Gingrich led Congress cut taxes in his 2nd term and spurred the economy to better results than when he raised taxes in 1993. Only a completely arrogant and ignorant fool disregards history, which pretty much sums you up.

 

[Rshermr]

So, I asked Wiseaker the following:
When are you going to show me when it was that lowering income taxes when unemployment was high, to the wealthy, ever helped the economy. And that was the EXACT question, copied and pasted to here. With the highlight added. And this becomes a really funny post, as Wiseacre actually gets is all wrong, and then tries to insult me for not having things historically correct.

I give you Ronald Reagan, about 30 years ago.

Reagan did indeed lower taxes one time when the ue rate was high. In February, 1981. When the ue rate was 7.3%. And, the result was that the UE rate went to 10.8% by Nov of 1982. Caused quite a panic. The deficit also soared. So, what happened then, my poor ignorant con?? Why, he raised taxes 11 times. And he borrowed more than all of the presidents before him, from the formation of the country. Tripled the national debt. And greatly increased the size of the gov. You know wiseaker, if you actually looked this stuff up, you could prevent this embarrassment.

And LBJ, about 20 years before that. Really those cuts were Jack Kennedy's idea, but nonetheless.

Sorry, my poor ignorant con. the issue is what do you do in a bad economy with high unemployment. At the time of the tax decrease you are talking about, the UE rate was about 5.4%. Now, Wiseacre, go look at the question again. See if you can a. Understand it, and 2. look for a relevant case. And, then apply the UE at the time. Do you think 5.4% is bad?? If you do, you are truly an idiot. So, now, try to understand, me boy. Neither economists not democrats think that tax decreases are bad. That comes to your mind because of the simplistic repub economic agenda, which is decrease taxes under all cases. And NEVER increase them. Actual thinking people know that taxes are much more complex than that. And that decreasing taxes can be a very good thing. Or bad. Depending on the state of inflation. Oops. I am sure you are lost by now.

You know why guys like Warren Buffet pay a lower tax rate than their secretary? Cuz they get to write off so many deductions and exemptions. Take that away and I'm thinking he and other rich guys like him will pay more.

Yup. That would be true. But that is not the only reason, as you should know. It is because the wealthy, as in the case of Buffett, often pay primarily capital gains tax rates. Which is the reason that so many of the wealthy pay very low rates.

Oh, almost forgot the tax cuts under Bill Clinton, when the Gingrich led Congress cut taxes in his 2nd term and spurred the economy to better results than when he raised taxes in 1993.

Wiseacre, again, you could really help yourself not look like a complete idiot by simply checking the drivel you are about to post BEFORE you post it. Jesus, you are slow. Again, look at the question. It says, quite clearly, I might add, income tax decreases during HIGH unemployment times. If you had checked, you would see that the economy had turned around a great deal by the time the tax decrease you mention took place. And, by the way, it was as much Clinton's as anyone's, as he pushed it. And, by the way, though you do not specify what you are talking about, I would assume you are talking about the capital gains tax decrease of 4% towards the end of his term.
The idea that this small tax decrease "spurred the economy to better results than when he raised taxes in 1993" is too stupid to believe. Even you should know better. It may have indeed helped an excellent economy, but not by any major amount. If you thing it did, bring on an impartial source to explain how that occurred. Dipshit. Jesus you are dishonest.

Only a completely arrogant and ignorant fool disregards history, which pretty much sums you up.

Now, me poor ignorant con, that is quite a sentence after your post. You were historically wrong in every point you tried to make. You were unable to understand my question, which was quite simple. Now, you should feel like the fool you are. But then, you lie a lot, and it does not seem to embarrass you when it is pointed out. Must be a sad existence.

Here is the thing, in a nutshell. You are unable to understand that economists see no issue with lowering taxes in a good economy. One where unemployment is low. Had you noticed that unemployment is high right now??? Did you ever wonder if the question I asked you, which was to name a time when lowering income taxes during times of high unemployment had ever helped that economy, may have been related to the current economic situation? Or are you simply too ignorant to connect the dots??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

name a time when lowering income taxes during times of high unemployment had ever helped that economy,

too stupid but perfectly liberal !! the Stimulus was half tax cuts. THe payroll tax was reduced, for example, it just went back up and all seem to agree it killed retail!!

What planet have you been on???

 

[Rshermr]

name a time when lowering income taxes during times of high unemployment had ever helped that economy,

too stupid but perfectly liberal !! the Stimulus was half tax cuts. THe payroll tax was reduced, for example, it just went back up and all seem to agree it killed retail!!

What planet have you been on???

So, we have another lie from Ed. Above, he cut and pasted a quote of mine and left out what he did not want in. Which, of course, completely changed the question. Took a portion out of the middle of the sentence and added a word. Here is the question I asked, EXACTLY as I asked it, with the portion ed deleted highlighted:

When are you going to show me when it was that lowering income taxes when unemployment was high, to the wealthy, ever helped the economy.

As ed should know, assuming he has cognitive capability, since I have told him more than once, is that tax decreases to the middle class are stimulative. Dems and economists all agree with that. And the payroll tax was indeed a tax on the middle class, almost entirely. And you say that the fact that it has gone back up, by 2%, has "killed retail"??? What planet are YOU on.

Relative to the tax decreases in the stimulus, yes indeed they were there. And they did very little to help the economy. That is not me saying that, but the CBO. And those tax cuts were forced on the bill by congressional repubs. By the way, the CBO stated that the least helpful component of the stimulus was tax decreases to the wealthy.

Ed, you need to not misquote people. It simply adds to your reputation as a liar.

 

[yidnar]

So. We're hearing a lot of hysteria that we need to raise taxes (again) to solve the deficit.

But here's what I'd like the Lefties to 'splain:

If taxes are used to discourage things such as Smoking and Drinking, why do you think that Taxing Productivity and Investment doesn't likewise discourage these activities?

Please 'splain.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Based on the assumption that you, as a 2013 Republican, are all about "deficit reduction,"

How do you propose to do so without raising taxes? (Please bear with me a moment.)

how do you propose to lower the debt without cutting spending ??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

tax decreases to the middle class are stimulative.

too stupid!! giving people their money back is not stimulative. If a robbery takes your money and then gives it back
he cant take credit for your spending!!! How utterly stupid can you be!!!!!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And you say that the fact that it has gone back up, by 2%, has "killed retail"??? What planet are YOU on.

Still, the payroll tax remains target No. 1 for some retailers worried about their future. The industry's trade group, the National Retail Federation, released survey results last week that it says showed recent payroll tax changes were heavily swaying shoppers.

"Almost half of consumers, about 45 percent, say that they're going to spend less overall as a result of the new federal tax laws," says Kathy Grannis, an NRF spokesperson.

OF course tax increases hurt retail and the entire economy which is why Barry cut them with the stimulus!!