Do Taxes Encourage or Discourage Behavior?

[Mr Natural]

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!!!!!!!

Then for whom are tax cuts stimulative?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the CBO stated that the least helpful component of the stimulus was tax decreases to the wealthy.

.

Well, that’s not how Reuters described it:

CBO says tax hike for wealthy won’t kill growth

And here is the story:

Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans would not hurt U.S. economic growth much in 2013 if Congress extends expiring tax rates on lower income levels, the Congressional Budget Office said on Thursday.

In a report expected to fuel Democrats’ post-election demands for higher taxes on the rich, the CBO said extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts, along with changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax, would boost U.S. gross domestic product growth by 1.5 percentage points, compared to letting these rates snap back to prior levels.

If the tax rates were extended only for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earnings less than $250,000, CBO said growth would rise by 1.25 percent — just a quarter point less than extending all of the cuts.

Or another way to put it is that raising those top-end rates would hurt growth by 0.25 pct points. And keep in mind the economy might well grow less than 2% next year as is. I think losing a quarter point is a pretty good chunk of growth

 

[Rshermr]

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!!!!!!!

Then for whom are tax cuts stimulative?

Not to worry. Ed does not believe anything stimulates any body.

 

[Rshermr]

the CBO stated that the least helpful component of the stimulus was tax decreases to the wealthy.

.

Well, that’s not how Reuters described it:

CBO says tax hike for wealthy won’t kill growth

And here is the story:

Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans would not hurt U.S. economic growth much in 2013 if Congress extends expiring tax rates on lower income levels, the Congressional Budget Office said on Thursday.

In a report expected to fuel Democrats’ post-election demands for higher taxes on the rich, the CBO said extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts, along with changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax, would boost U.S. gross domestic product growth by 1.5 percentage points, compared to letting these rates snap back to prior levels.

If the tax rates were extended only for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earnings less than $250,000, CBO said growth would rise by 1.25 percent — just a quarter point less than extending all of the cuts.

Or another way to put it is that raising those top-end rates would hurt growth by 0.25 pct points. And keep in mind the economy might well grow less than 2% next year as is. I think losing a quarter point is a pretty good chunk of growth

Ed, what drugs are you on. I was talking about the stimulus as it related to tax decreases in the stimulus. Your little article is about the bush tax cuts. Two different things, me boy. Get a grip.

By the way, ed, you need to provide links to your proof. Since I caught you today changing my question, I have no reason to believe that your quotes are unmodified. You are a proven liar. Not a good type of person to believe.

 

[Rshermr]

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!!

People who call standing presidents, republican or democrat, by pet names, are scum. You have no respect for the position. And it really helps to explain what you are. Dipshit.

 

[Rshermr]

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!!!!!!!

Ever here of the term "We, the people??? Dipshit. The gov has your money. You are not getting it back. Then, suddenly, they say to you here is a tax deduction, worth $500. That is money you did not have, and so were not going to spend. Now you have it, and you spend it. That is $500 in the economy that was not there before, and would not be had you not received it as a tax deduction. POW. That happens 1 million times, and that is a half a billion in stimulus.

Now I tried to make this like I was talking to a 1st grader. Is it still too advanced for you???

 

[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.)

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

Uh, are you asking a serious question??

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

So your answer, basically, is to cut spending. So now, answer this:

What are you going to cut?

You could start with military spending, but in the last few weeks that just became Democrats sacred cow, because Obama flipped his position and now claims any cuts in military would destroy the economy.

The question is and should always be if for anyone claiming to have a way to balance the budget is to give at lest some number in the realm of what they think new revenues will be. This should not matter if that revenue is through raising taxes or through cuts in spending.

The issue we keep running into is the raising of taxes can’t even break 100 billion, sometimes even in multiple years combined. Yet this is all the left gives us. Raising taxes was never about solving the deficit, it was about dividing the country even more. Pitting a majority (like the 47%) against a minority (like the top 1%).

To balance the budget or get close is not hard, you simply must do massive cuts… Massive spending causes massive new debt, and we have done that, prior to Obama becoming President in fact. When Bush did it you hated it, now that Obama does it you love it, just like when Obama held the country hostage by not voting to up the debt ceiling it was heroic but now that Reps do it it’s “holding the country hostage,” despite of course the debt ceiling being raised yet again in the end, just like when Obama did it.

The problem I see is that most people are the same, we want a balanced budget, we want a sensible foreign policy, we want a stable economy…. But too many people have fallen for the political traps set by politicians. Look at the fighting in this thread, when did Democrats become ok with massive deficit spending that they condemned Bush for? How about pointless costly wars that Bush did? How about the patriot act and homeland security? I know, the moment a Democrat (Obama) was elected? Same goes for Republicans before Bush was elected….

The answer is we need to stop spending, neither side really supports it, the answer is we need to stop expanding old wars and starting new wars to replace old wars… the answer is we need less Government agencies… We all agree on this yet we only get more of the opposite. I see people here fighting about what party does more of the very thing that person now has to defend, think for a second how retarded people look to those that see and point out the hypocrisies of both sides.


You have the Senate and Obama as President, why is military spending grater than under the Evil war President Bush?

 

[Avorysuds]

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 ??

Uh, are you asking a serious question??

I’m sorry but I truly do not believe you have the required amount of intelligence to honestly answer that question.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

point out the hypocrisies of both sides.

they really are not hypocrisies they are functions of a two party system in which flip flopping independents decide elections, not
the base of either party.

 

[yidnar]

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!!!!!!!

damn this is the dumbest post i have ever seen !! you can't spend,save,or invest money that has been taken from you !! according to the logic of the left, higher taxes [ robberies ] is good for everybody !! if this is true why not tax [rob] us 100 % !! hell take it all !! then we can all live in paradise !!

 

[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!!!!!!!

damn this is the dumbest post i have ever seen !! you can't spend,save,or invest money that has been taken from you !! according to the logic of the left, higher taxes [ robberies ] is good for everybody !! if this is true why not tax [rob] us 100 % !! hell take it all !! then we can all live in paradise !!

great points! In Econ. 101 they teach S=I (saving equal investment)
how much savings and investment can there be with libturds wanting to tax more and more especially from those who have enough to save a lot!!

why not make liberals illegal as the Constitution intended??

 

[Avorysuds]

point out the hypocrisies of both sides.

they really are not hypocrisies they are functions of a two party system in which flip flopping independents decide elections, not
the base of either party.

And yet Reps voted for Bush 2x and Dems voted for Obama 2x.... Bush was incredibly progressive and Obama expanded near every policy progressives/democrats/liberals claim to have hated under Bush.

How does a party get behind people like that and not come across as showing off their hypocrisy?

Either Bush was a Neo-con and Obama is a Neo-con, or Bush was a Progressive and Obama is a Progressive.... meaning most of America and the world hates progressives when seen in action. Government was massive after Bush left, so was our debt, so I'll stick with Bush was a Progressive, he sure did like getting the Government involed in education, housing, healthcare and wars... just like Obama.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

point out the hypocrisies of both sides.

they really are not hypocrisies they are functions of a two party system in which flip flopping independents decide elections, not
the base of either party.

And yet Reps voted for Bush 2x and Dems voted for Obama 2x.... Bush was incredibly progressive and Obama expanded near every policy progressives/democrats/liberals claim to have hated under Bush.

How does a party get behind people like that and not come across as showing off their hypocrisy?

as I said they are playing to those who decide the next election: flip flopping independents so its not hypocrisy its reading the ever changing windblown sands. Is this really over your head???

 

[Rshermr]

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

Uh, are you asking a serious question??

I’m sorry but I truly do not believe you have the required amount of intelligence to honestly answer that question.

Funny, a libertarian who can not name a single successfull libertarian economy but who believes anyway calling someone stupid. Ever here of consider the source???

So, let me make it real simple for you. You have a bank account that will not cover your expenses. You could 1. find a way to cut your expenses, or 2. increase your deposits to the account. Is that too difficult for you??
your answer, from your question, is cut your expenses, which you see as the only way.

So, you have a deficit again this year, around $865. You could reduce that budget in a number of ways:
1, Cut spending. Which requires that you stop congressional members from adding new projects, and cutting existing ones.
2. You can attack unemployment, the bigger problem at any rate. Doing so puts more to work, which increases tax receipts. And, of course, if you look a the history, the deficit always goes up with high unemployment and down with high unemployment, assuming you can keep congress under control.
3. You can increase taxes to the more well to do. More receipts, which would allow for deficit spending, helping 2 above.

But, you can not find a single case where just cutting spending has ever helped our economy when unemployment is high. It has been tried, but it never, ever works. It has, for obvious reasons to rational people, the opposite effect. Every single time.
Let me know if you need additional education.

 

[Rshermr]

point out the hypocrisies of both sides.

they really are not hypocrisies they are functions of a two party system in which flip flopping independents decide elections, not
the base of either party.

And yet Reps voted for Bush 2x and Dems voted for Obama 2x.... Bush was incredibly progressive and Obama expanded near every policy progressives/democrats/liberals claim to have hated under Bush.

How does a party get behind people like that and not come across as showing off their hypocrisy?

Either Bush was a Neo-con and Obama is a Neo-con, or Bush was a Progressive and Obama is a Progressive.... meaning most of America and the world hates progressives when seen in action. Government was massive after Bush left, so was our debt, so I'll stick with Bush was a Progressive, he sure did like getting the Government involed in education, housing, healthcare and wars... just like Obama.

Wow. Two libertarians having what passes for them as a conversation. Profound.
By the way, Avory. When are you going to going to provide me with that successful libertarian economy??? You will not find it on the net. The libertarians there are all asking the same question.

 

[Wiseacre]

See, Rshermr's answer to the problem is higher taxes on the rich, as though it is possible to get that much more money to cover all the deficit spending. He thinks we can go back to the 90% rate the rich guys paid back in the 50s, with no problems or consequences. As if today's global market doesn't have other options for making a better ROI than existed back then. And of course, he doesn't realize that the additional revenue still doesn't cover the deficit, but he doesn't care anyway. Liberals don't care about such things as rising interest payments and the debt overhang that drags down economic growth. Nor do they seem to care about who will eventually get stuck with the bill somewhere down the road. Rich guys can pay for it all!

 

[Rshermr]

So wiseacre, believing that he has some economic understanding, says:

See, Rshermr's answer to the problem is higher taxes on the rich, as though it is possible to get that much more money to cover all the deficit spending.

No, me poor ignorant con. It is apparently too complex for you. Just two components, but apparently you need just one. It is about deficit spending, and the taxes are just the most rational means.
Just as reagan did not borrow or tax to get enough money to cover his deficit, no president needs to do so. It is called, me boy, increasing demand. Which takes a mere fraction of the deficit. And reagan's economy soared. Sorry you missed that point, somewhere along the line. But, you could study the Clinton admin. Or the Reagan admin. Or, you could forget it and just stay in those bat shit crazy con sites you troll. Ignorance is bliss, eh, wiseacre. Trying to cover the deficit with tax increases or spending cuts is a pipe dream. You either get unemployment under control, or just give it up.

He thinks we can go back to the 90% rate the rich guys paid back in the 50s, with no problems or consequences. As if today's global market doesn't have other options for making a better ROI than existed back then.

That would be your opinion. And from nothing that I said. Dipshit. It is disingenuous to suggest something that has no basis in fact. Just plain lying. Because, me boy, you are proving you have a total lack of integrity. Going back to a 90% tax rate would be stupid. Going back to the tax rate that Clinton had, on the other hand, is smart. Unless, of course, you want unemployment to remain high. As the koch brothers do. Keeps their labor rates low. More proffit. And there is wiseacre perfectly alligned with the koch brothers. What a surprise.
By the way, dipshit. Did you notice that the obama tax increase is 4%, to 39%. Are you capable of understanding the difference between 39 and 90? You know, the clinton rate when the economy soared.

And of course, he doesn't realize that the additional revenue still doesn't cover the deficit, but he doesn't care anyway.

And poor Wiseacre, trolling the bat shit crazy con web sites has no idea of what the actual rational part of the world knows. Like, oh, say, economists. And he knows nothing of history. If he did, he would know that there has never been a case of getting the economy back in shape when unemployment is high. He simply has his nose up the ass of the Koch brothers, who want less taxes. So, Wiseacre wants less taxes. Like W. Now that worked out well, eh. The great republican recession of 2008. But, W did lower taxes. big time.

Liberals don't care about such things as rising interest payments and the debt overhang that drags down economic growth. Nor do they seem to care about who will eventually get stuck with the bill somewhere down the road. Rich guys can pay for it all!

So, you have proven yourself to be a tool. You can not find a case where decreasing spending has ever helped in an economy with bad unemployment. And, with your head up your ass, all you can do is quote conservative propaganda. No proof of anything you say. Just conservative dogma.
If you cared about the future generations, you would make an actual attempt to educate yourself so that you could understand what policies would actually help. Instead, you just spend your time backing the koch brothers. Every policy you espouse is great for the koch bros. Odd how that happens. But you have zero knowledge based on impartial data.

And you can not show a single case where cutting taxes has helped this country when the unemployment rate was bad. Must be embarrassing to not have a single example. Must be embarrassing to have had your attempts shown to be wrong. Just plain untrue.

Must be embarrassing to know you can not argue your points of view with any proof of anything, because your arguments are simply vacuous.

You are really looking bad, wiseacre. Only your fellow con tools back you. You need some ammo. Because this is just too easy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And you can not show a single case where cutting taxes has helped this country when the unemployment rate was bad.

too stupid!! Obama cut taxes with his stimulus. A supply side stimulus helps!!!!! Feel like a fool now??

When Kennedy was asked why he cut taxes to grow the economy he said, "don't you remember your Econ. 101!!

 

[Rshermr]

And you can not show a single case where cutting taxes has helped this country when the unemployment rate was bad.

too stupid!! Obama cut taxes with his stimulus. A supply side stimulus helps!!!!! Feel like a fool now??

When Kennedy was asked why he cut taxes to grow the economy he said, "don't you remember your Econ. 101!!

Yes they were. Put there by repubs, not by obama. His mistake was allowing them. Now, according to the cbo, the least effective component of the stimulus was tax increases to the wealthy, with just about NO effect at all. Second were general tax cuts, with very little effect.
Tax decreases to the poor and middle class are stimulative. Not greatly so, but somewhat. Particularly tax decreases attached to payroll, because it meteres out evenly over a period of time. Which is what I have always maintained.
And Kennedy lowered taxes in a very good economy with low unemployment. No one I know of ever said that lowering taxes in a good economy was a bad idea. Generally it is a good idea, as many presidents have found. What I did say, many times, is that lowering taxes and spending (which go together, generally) is a BAD idea. And though you have tried, you can not disprove that statement. But then, you are a libertarian. That is their dogma. Maybe that is why there has never, ever been a successful libertarian economy.

Back to your con tool web sites.