The Depression of 1920

[Iriemon]

Even if the government gets less revenue, he would raise taxes:
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/54jr3Ceu894&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/54jr3Ceu894&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

You seem like a bright and thoughtful person, and one who would know better than to rely on a "cut-n-paste" job for your views.

In fact, it was a loaded question. Gibson's assertion that "in each instance" when cap gains taxes were cut revenues went up was just dead wrong.

Capital gains taxes were cut 25% in 2003 to just 15%. Yet capital gains tax revenues in 2003, 2004 and 2005 (the lastest data I've found) show that capital gains tax revenues were far lower than in 2000, when the cap gain tax rate was higher (at 20%).

You can see the cap gain revenues reported by CBO here:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7047/02-23-CapitalGains.pdf

This is one area where I agree with Reagan and disagree with Obama and Clinton. Cap gains tax rates should be the same as the income tax rates, like Reagan had it.

There's little reason I can see that folks like Warren Buffet, trust fund babies, and fund managers should pay less than half the tax rate on their income than folks who work for it.

 

[Paulie]

Those are good points and make sense, though both have the effect of increasing the funds available to investors, which in the late 20s used them to speculate in the stock market.

I think a real problem in the 20s was the fact that investors could margin 90% of a stock purchase, leaving precious little floor and in essence wiping out their investment (and worse, subjecting them to calls to cover the margins) if stock prices fell 10%.

Why shouldn't investors be allowed to invest their own money though? ...

I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

A number of folks (and not you to my knowledge) have argued that the Fed caused things like the 1929 GD and the current one because its money policies made too much money available and that fueled the market speculation. I don't necessarily agree with that proposition, but for those who make it, it seems to me you'd have to also say that lower tax rates on those who are investors would also have this effect.

Yes, I am one of those folks, and no, lower tax rates certainly do NOT have to have the same effect as artificially low interest rates. Artificially low interest rates are already contributing to the problem from the beginning, by enticing too many people to leverage themselves more than they can sustain. This time around the malinvestment happened in housing, but it was a culumination of all the excess debt that caused the WHOLE problem. This is a credit crisis, right? The crisis is too much debt.

Now, lower taxes can only contribute to a problem like that if you believe that every dollar given back to taxpayers is going right into some kind of malinvestment. That would be an absurd belief of course, because it's a foregone conclusion that a LOT of it is simply going to go into growing a business, investing wisely, or deleveraging. Obviously some of it will be misused as well, but it's impossible to compare whatever a small portion of malinvested tax relief would cause, to a huge amount of excess leverage.

At worst, tax savings would ADD to what was already a major problem to begin with. If today's credit crisis is mainly a problem of unsustainable debt burdens, then the Bush tax cuts could really only have ultimately added to a problem that would have happened regardless. There's no way to know exactly how much of those tax cuts added to all of the malinvesting, but it's a fact that the debt problem has been fueled by artificially low interest rates. It's not like that's a dirty little secret. It's been alluded to quite often in the mainstream at this point. The documentary "House of Cards" that CNBC airs every so often starts right off by making that claim, as a prime cause of the housing boom. I'm not sure how it could really be argued at this point, when rates are that low and money is flowing like wine, why NOT buy a house?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even if the government gets less revenue, he would raise taxes:
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/54jr3Ceu894&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/54jr3Ceu894&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

You seem like a bright and thoughtful person, and one who would know better than to rely on a "cut-n-paste" job for your views.

In fact, it was a loaded question. Gibson's assertion that "in each instance" when cap gains taxes were cut revenues went up was just dead wrong.

Capital gains taxes were cut 25% in 2003 to just 15%. Yet capital gains tax revenues in 2003, 2004 and 2005 (the lastest data I've found) show that capital gains tax revenues were far lower than in 2000, when the cap gain tax rate was higher (at 20%).

You can see the cap gain revenues reported by CBO here:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7047/02-23-CapitalGains.pdf

This is one area where I agree with Reagan and disagree with Obama and Clinton. Cap gains tax rates should be the same as the income tax rates, like Reagan had it.

There's little reason I can see that folks like Warren Buffet, trust fund babies, and fund managers should pay less than half the tax rate on their income than folks who work for it.

Unfair. You asked why I claimed that the President wanted a "plateau," all folks 'equal' in all ways.

Well, what do you take from the admission by the President that he would raise taxes even if it brought in less revenue, because it is "fair"?

What, in this context, does "fair" mean?

Your criticism is tortuous at best, since the point of the video was not about the correctness of the question he was asked, but his answer. You know that.

" I think it's fair to say Obama's fiscal policies have never been about economics — not even economics rigged to support his mind-boggling agenda. They are about his subjective (which is to say, radical) sense of fairness. As Deroy Murdock recounted, it was pointed out to Obama during the campaign that raising captial gains taxes, as he wanted to do, would actually depress revenue and thus leave less money available to redistrib— er, I mean, to fund his priorities. The candidate responded that he would raise the taxes anyway "for purposes of fairness." "
Re: Obviously Obama Hasn't Read Alexis de Tocqueville - Andy McCarthy - The Corner on National Review Online

 

[Iriemon]

What were Hoover (finally back to him, now I got the right guy) policies that attempted to support failing areas of the economy?

"Far from a free-market idealist, Hoover was an ardent believer in government intervention to support incomes and employment. This is critical to understanding the origins of the Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt didn't reverse course upon moving into the White House in 1933; he went further down the path that Hoover had blazed over the previous four years. That was the path to disaster."

" Hoover, not Roosevelt, who initiated the practice of piling up big deficits to support huge public-works projects."

"Public projects undertaken by Hoover included the San Francisco Bay Bridge, the Los Angeles Aqueduct, and Hoover Dam. The Republican president won plaudits from the American Federation of Labor for his industrial policy, which included jawboning business leaders to refrain from cutting wages as the economy fell."

1. The fact that there were some Govt projects does not support the contention that Hoover's policies were equivalent to FDR's in terms of fiscal spending. TheGovt has always sponsored projects, e.g. the Panama canal. The Hoover dam project, as another example, was approved in 1928, when Cooligde was president, and was not a depression sponsored project.

Hoover Dam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. The fact that there were deficits when Hoover was president is a function of falling revenues because gross income was plummeting during the recession.

"...for turning a panic into the worst depression of modern times. As late as 1938, after almost a decade of governmental "pump priming," almost one out of five workers remained unemployed. What the government gave with one hand, through increased spending, it took away with the other, through increased taxation. But that was not an even trade-off. As the root cause of a great deal of mismanagement and inefficiency, government was responsible for a lost decade of economic growth."
Five Myths About the Great Depression - WSJ.com

I'm not sure what the Murdoch organization article uses for the basis of its statements, but according to data published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which records GDP information, the economy did much better after FDR's programs were instituted. If by 1938 there was still a recession, it was because the economy had sank so deep before FDR took office.

Year - % chng real GDP

1930 -8.6%
1931 -6.4%
1932 -13.0%
1933 -1.3%
1934 10.8%
1935 8.9%
1936 13.0%
1937 5.1%
1938 -3.4%
1939 8.1%

http://bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

Contrary to the author's implication, temporaly the "New Deal" programs had an almost immediate and very positive effect on the economy.

 

[Iriemon]

Even if the government gets less revenue, he would raise taxes:
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/54jr3Ceu894&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/54jr3Ceu894&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

You seem like a bright and thoughtful person, and one who would know better than to rely on a "cut-n-paste" job for your views.

In fact, it was a loaded question. Gibson's assertion that "in each instance" when cap gains taxes were cut revenues went up was just dead wrong.

Capital gains taxes were cut 25% in 2003 to just 15%. Yet capital gains tax revenues in 2003, 2004 and 2005 (the lastest data I've found) show that capital gains tax revenues were far lower than in 2000, when the cap gain tax rate was higher (at 20%).

You can see the cap gain revenues reported by CBO here:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7047/02-23-CapitalGains.pdf

This is one area where I agree with Reagan and disagree with Obama and Clinton. Cap gains tax rates should be the same as the income tax rates, like Reagan had it.

There's little reason I can see that folks like Warren Buffet, trust fund babies, and fund managers should pay less than half the tax rate on their income than folks who work for it.

Unfair. You asked why I claimed that the President wanted a "plateau," all folks 'equal' in all ways.

Well, what do you take from the admission by the President that he would raise taxes even if it brought in less revenue, because it is "fair"?

What, in this context, does "fair" mean?

Your criticism is tortuous at best, since the point of the video was not about the correctness of the question he was asked, but his answer. You know that.

" I think it's fair to say Obama's fiscal policies have never been about economics &#8212; not even economics rigged to support his mind-boggling agenda. They are about his subjective (which is to say, radical) sense of fairness. As Deroy Murdock recounted, it was pointed out to Obama during the campaign that raising captial gains taxes, as he wanted to do, would actually depress revenue and thus leave less money available to redistrib&#8212; er, I mean, to fund his priorities. The candidate responded that he would raise the taxes anyway "for purposes of fairness." "
Re: Obviously Obama Hasn't Read Alexis de Tocqueville - Andy McCarthy - The Corner on National Review Online

I didn't see Obama say even if the government gets less revenue, he would raise taxes. He said he'd consider raising taxes because of fairness. The assertion that he'd raise cap gains taxes even if it made revenues lower is an unfounded inference based upon Gibson's statement, which I just showed was false, and which Obama later clarified in the debate:

GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

OBAMA: Well, that might happen, or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/democraticdebate/Story?id=4670271&page=3

Obama is absolutely correct. Gibson was wrong.

And IMO Obama is also correct on the fairness. IMO there is nothing fair about the Warrent Buffets, trust fund babies, and fund managers paying less than half the top rate working people pay.

 

[Paulie]

And IMO Obama is also correct on the fairness. IMO there is nothing fair about the Warrent Buffets, trust fund babies, and fund managers paying less than half the top rate working people pay.

This just a fancy way of saying I hate rich people.

And that tax rate you're talking about for fund managers is merely their capital gains tax, what about their income taxes? What about all the other taxes they pay for their property, their school system, their store purchases, their gas purchases? You're talking about one specific tax rate that those "working people" you mentioned ALSO have privilege to. Those working people are just as free to invest in something and attempt to make a profit. Many have. I'm one of them.

 

[Iriemon]

Why shouldn't investors be allowed to invest their own money though? ...

I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

A number of folks (and not you to my knowledge) have argued that the Fed caused things like the 1929 GD and the current one because its money policies made too much money available and that fueled the market speculation. I don't necessarily agree with that proposition, but for those who make it, it seems to me you'd have to also say that lower tax rates on those who are investors would also have this effect.

Yes, I am one of those folks, and no, lower tax rates certainly do NOT have to have the same effect as artificially low interest rates. Artificially low interest rates are already contributing to the problem from the beginning, by enticing too many people to leverage themselves more than they can sustain. This time around the malinvestment happened in housing, but it was a culumination of all the excess debt that caused the WHOLE problem. This is a credit crisis, right? The crisis is too much debt.

Let's start with a simple point -- Do you agree that a major tax cut on the wealthiest increases the amount they will invest?

Now, lower taxes can only contribute to a problem like that if you believe that every dollar given back to taxpayers is going right into some kind of malinvestment.

So when they have more money from lower taxes, they won't make malinvestments, but when they have more money because they borrowed it, they will make malinvestments?

That would be an absurd belief of course, because it's a foregone conclusion that a LOT of it is simply going to go into growing a business, investing wisely, or deleveraging. Obviously some of it will be misused as well, but it's impossible to compare whatever a small portion of malinvested tax relief would cause, to a huge amount of excess leverage.

Some will be used wisely and some foolishly regardless of the source. People didn't make a malinvestment in the stock market because they could borrow at favorable rates. They did it because they were greedy and expected to make a lot of money on increasing stock prices. And it wasn't the interest rate, but the fact that the rules let them margin up to 90% that created over leveraging.

At worst, tax savings would ADD to what was already a major problem to begin with.

Well, that's kind of what I'm saying.

If today's credit crisis is mainly a problem of unsustainable debt burdens, then the Bush tax cuts could really only have ultimately added to a problem that would have happened regardless. There's no way to know exactly how much of those tax cuts added to all of the malinvesting, but it's a fact that the debt problem has been fueled by artificially low interest rates.

I'd counter and argue it was caused by a new financing system in which mortgages are bundled and "securitized" which fooled folks into thinking they were less risky that was the real culprit, not interest rates.

It's not like that's a dirty little secret. It's been alluded to quite often in the mainstream at this point. The documentary "House of Cards" that CNBC airs every so often starts right off by making that claim, as a prime cause of the housing boom. I'm not sure how it could really be argued at this point, when rates are that low and money is flowing like wine, why NOT buy a house?

Because you have to come up with 20% to put down. Unless there are shoddy lending practices going on, which there were, and which had nothing to do with interest rate levels.

 

[Iriemon]

And IMO Obama is also correct on the fairness. IMO there is nothing fair about the Warrent Buffets, trust fund babies, and fund managers paying less than half the top rate working people pay.

This just a fancy way of saying I hate rich people.

Not at all. I just don't think they should get to pay lower tax rates.

And that tax rate you're talking about for fund managers is merely their capital gains tax, what about their income taxes? What about all the other taxes they pay for their property, their school system, their store purchases, their gas purchases? You're talking about one specific tax rate that those "working people" you mentioned ALSO have privilege to. Those working people are just as free to invest in something and attempt to make a profit. Many have. I'm one of them.

Which is just a fancy way of saying I hate poor people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You seem like a bright and thoughtful person, and one who would know better than to rely on a "cut-n-paste" job for your views.

In fact, it was a loaded question. Gibson's assertion that "in each instance" when cap gains taxes were cut revenues went up was just dead wrong.

Capital gains taxes were cut 25% in 2003 to just 15%. Yet capital gains tax revenues in 2003, 2004 and 2005 (the lastest data I've found) show that capital gains tax revenues were far lower than in 2000, when the cap gain tax rate was higher (at 20%).

You can see the cap gain revenues reported by CBO here:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7047/02-23-CapitalGains.pdf

This is one area where I agree with Reagan and disagree with Obama and Clinton. Cap gains tax rates should be the same as the income tax rates, like Reagan had it.

There's little reason I can see that folks like Warren Buffet, trust fund babies, and fund managers should pay less than half the tax rate on their income than folks who work for it.

Unfair. You asked why I claimed that the President wanted a "plateau," all folks 'equal' in all ways.

Well, what do you take from the admission by the President that he would raise taxes even if it brought in less revenue, because it is "fair"?

What, in this context, does "fair" mean?

Your criticism is tortuous at best, since the point of the video was not about the correctness of the question he was asked, but his answer. You know that.

" I think it's fair to say Obama's fiscal policies have never been about economics — not even economics rigged to support his mind-boggling agenda. They are about his subjective (which is to say, radical) sense of fairness. As Deroy Murdock recounted, it was pointed out to Obama during the campaign that raising captial gains taxes, as he wanted to do, would actually depress revenue and thus leave less money available to redistrib— er, I mean, to fund his priorities. The candidate responded that he would raise the taxes anyway "for purposes of fairness." "
Re: Obviously Obama Hasn't Read Alexis de Tocqueville - Andy McCarthy - The Corner on National Review Online

I didn't see Obama say even if the government gets less revenue, he would raise taxes. He said he'd consider raising taxes because of fairness. The assertion that he'd raise cap gains taxes even if it made revenues lower is an unfounded inference based upon Gibson's statement, which I just showed was false, and which Obama later clarified in the debate:

GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

OBAMA: Well, that might happen, or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

Transcript: Obama and Clinton Debate - ABC News

Obama is absolutely correct. Gibson was wrong.

And IMO Obama is also correct on the fairness. IMO there is nothing fair about the Warrent Buffets, trust fund babies, and fund managers paying less than half the top rate working people pay.

You are purposely obfuscating. This is the third time:
"Gibson: "In each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the
government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

Obama: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."

Gibson: "But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up."

Obama: "Well, that might happen, or it might not."

In other words, Obama is for a tax hike even if it expands the deficit -- because it's "fair." That's "love" of the market? "
Obama -- 'Free Market Guy?' - HUMAN EVENTS

You will not acknowledge my point: this President has an ideological, not fiduciary, perspective.

Increased revenue is to the advantage, especially in the light of his huge spending program. Yet he would raise taxes even if it was known that he would accrue less. This is an ideologue.

The Gibson question is peripheral to the point. The answer tells all.

You have not explained the meaning of "fair" in his response.

 

[Paulie]

And IMO Obama is also correct on the fairness. IMO there is nothing fair about the Warrent Buffets, trust fund babies, and fund managers paying less than half the top rate working people pay.

This just a fancy way of saying I hate rich people.

Not at all. I just don't think they should get to pay lower tax rates.

And that tax rate you're talking about for fund managers is merely their capital gains tax, what about their income taxes? What about all the other taxes they pay for their property, their school system, their store purchases, their gas purchases? You're talking about one specific tax rate that those "working people" you mentioned ALSO have privilege to. Those working people are just as free to invest in something and attempt to make a profit. Many have. I'm one of them.

Which is just a fancy way of saying I hate poor people.

What tax rate do fund managers pay, that's lower than a working person?

If I "hate poor people" because I'm content with the fact that working people have the same tax privileges on an investment as a rich person, then so be it. I'm certainly not rich, myself.

 

[Iriemon]

This just a fancy way of saying I hate rich people.

Not at all. I just don't think they should get to pay lower tax rates.

And that tax rate you're talking about for fund managers is merely their capital gains tax, what about their income taxes? What about all the other taxes they pay for their property, their school system, their store purchases, their gas purchases? You're talking about one specific tax rate that those "working people" you mentioned ALSO have privilege to. Those working people are just as free to invest in something and attempt to make a profit. Many have. I'm one of them.

Which is just a fancy way of saying I hate poor people.

What tax rate do fund managers pay, that's lower than a working person?

If I "hate poor people" because I'm content with the fact that working people have the same tax privileges on an investment as a rich person, then so be it. I'm certainly not rich, myself.

Poor people don't have money to invest. That's what make them poor.

 

[Paulie]

Nevermind, I understand the tax break you're talking about now. I thought you were arguing against the capital gains tax. I agree with you on the fund manager tax break, just so we're correct. Income is income, no one's income should be considered more important than anyone else's, at least by the government anyway. On that, we'll agree.

But we're still divided on the whole issue of tax cuts, though. I don't see any problem with them, as long as spending is being cut along with them.

 

[Iriemon]

Unfair. You asked why I claimed that the President wanted a "plateau," all folks 'equal' in all ways.

Well, what do you take from the admission by the President that he would raise taxes even if it brought in less revenue, because it is "fair"?

What, in this context, does "fair" mean?

Your criticism is tortuous at best, since the point of the video was not about the correctness of the question he was asked, but his answer. You know that.

" I think it's fair to say Obama's fiscal policies have never been about economics — not even economics rigged to support his mind-boggling agenda. They are about his subjective (which is to say, radical) sense of fairness. As Deroy Murdock recounted, it was pointed out to Obama during the campaign that raising captial gains taxes, as he wanted to do, would actually depress revenue and thus leave less money available to redistrib— er, I mean, to fund his priorities. The candidate responded that he would raise the taxes anyway "for purposes of fairness." "
Re: Obviously Obama Hasn't Read Alexis de Tocqueville - Andy McCarthy - The Corner on National Review Online

I didn't see Obama say even if the government gets less revenue, he would raise taxes. He said he'd consider raising taxes because of fairness. The assertion that he'd raise cap gains taxes even if it made revenues lower is an unfounded inference based upon Gibson's statement, which I just showed was false, and which Obama later clarified in the debate:

GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

OBAMA: Well, that might happen, or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

Transcript: Obama and Clinton Debate - ABC News

Obama is absolutely correct. Gibson was wrong.

And IMO Obama is also correct on the fairness. IMO there is nothing fair about the Warrent Buffets, trust fund babies, and fund managers paying less than half the top rate working people pay.

You are purposely obfuscating. This is the third time:
"Gibson: "In each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the
government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

Obama: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."

Gibson: "But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up."

Obama: "Well, that might happen, or it might not."

In other words, Obama is for a tax hike even if it expands the deficit -- because it's "fair." That's "love" of the market? "
Obama -- 'Free Market Guy?' - HUMAN EVENTS

You will not acknowledge my point: this President has an ideological, not fiduciary, perspective.

Increased revenue is to the advantage, especially in the light of his huge spending program. Yet he would raise taxes even if it was known that he would accrue less. This is an ideologue.

The Gibson question is peripheral to the point. The answer tells all.

You have not explained the meaning of "fair" in his response.

No, Obama did not acknowledge the error in Gibson's statement. He did not acknowledge the assertion that cap gains tax cuts raises revenues.

The colloquy you cited started off with Gibson making a false assertion.

Obama might have premised his statement by saying "You're not right, Charlie" which he did later on. But the assumption in your assertion is that Obama accepted the characterization that cap gains tax cuts raises revenues. Which as he later clarified, he rightly did not.

Obama understands that the cap gains revenues is a function of the market, not the rate, which is why revenues were far higher in 2000 though there was a higher cap gains rate, even tho by 2004-05 the stock market was overall higher.

You infer that when Obama talked about fairness he was accepting the proposition that cap gains tax cuts increase revenues, which I agree is not entirely illogical because Obama did not initially clarify that he was rejecting Gibson's false premise. But he clarified that later on.

And again, IMO Obama has a very sound basis for asserting that Warran Buffet paying a 15% tax rate when someone working pays a higher rate plus SS is "unfair", ideologue or not.

The whole thing is a moot point because cap gains tax cuts don't increase revenues, and an increase won't decrease them but raise them.

Reagan had it right.

 

[Iriemon]

Nevermind, I understand the tax break you're talking about now. I thought you were arguing against the capital gains tax. I agree with you on the fund manager tax break, just so we're correct. Income is income, no one's income should be considered more important than anyone else's, at least by the government anyway. On that, we'll agree.

But we're still divided on the whole issue of tax cuts, though. I don't see any problem with them, as long as spending is being cut along with them.

IMO investments should be taxed at the same rate as income, like Reagan did it.

I also don't have any real problem with tax cuts, as long as they are matched with spending cuts.

The converse is also true. If Govt won't cut spending it should not cut taxes.

 

[Toro]

IMO investments should be taxed at the same rate as income, like Reagan did it.

I also don't have any real problem with tax cuts, as long as they are matched with spending cuts.

The converse is also true. If Govt won't cut spending it should not cut taxes.

AMEN!

And that's the problem with the modern-day Republican Party. They cut taxes but don't cut spending as too many of the base believe in this nonsense that you can cut income taxes in America and generate higher revenues.

 

[mash107]

IMO investments should be taxed at the same rate as income, like Reagan did it.

I also don't have any real problem with tax cuts, as long as they are matched with spending cuts.

The converse is also true. If Govt won't cut spending it should not cut taxes.

AMEN!

And that's the problem with the modern-day Republican Party. They cut taxes but don't cut spending as too many of the base believe in this nonsense that you can cut income taxes in America and generate higher revenues.

I agree. Spending cuts must come first before tax cuts. You can't expect tax cuts to work when you're just taking the money out the economy through another means (borrowing). Spending, by both parties, is much too high and is the cause for our depreciating standard of living over the many administrations.

And yeah, that laffer curve is mostly baloney. Unless the tax rate is confiscatory, you won't see much revenue benefit from cutting taxes. This isn't at all to say tax cuts (coupled with spending cuts) wouldn't be tremendously beneficial to the economy. The more capital there is, the more that's saved, the less severe a credit crunch, no?

The goal has to be to limit government's size (both in defense and domestic industries), and then return the benefits of that reduction to the people.

 

[Iriemon]

IMO investments should be taxed at the same rate as income, like Reagan did it.

I also don't have any real problem with tax cuts, as long as they are matched with spending cuts.

The converse is also true. If Govt won't cut spending it should not cut taxes.

AMEN!

And that's the problem with the modern-day Republican Party. They cut taxes but don't cut spending as too many of the base believe in this nonsense that you can cut income taxes in America and generate higher revenues.

I agree. Spending cuts must come first before tax cuts. You can't expect tax cuts to work when you're just taking the money out the economy through another means (borrowing). Spending, by both parties, is much too high and is the cause for our depreciating standard of living over the many administrations.

And yeah, that laffer curve is mostly baloney. Unless the tax rate is confiscatory, you won't see much revenue benefit from cutting taxes. This isn't at all to say tax cuts (coupled with spending cuts) wouldn't be tremendously beneficial to the economy. The more capital there is, the more that's saved, the less severe a credit crunch, no?

The goal has to be to limit government's size (both in defense and domestic industries), and then return the benefits of that reduction to the people.

Or conversely, if the Govt wants to spend money on wars or health care it should raise taxes to pay for it.

 

[Toro]

AMEN!

And that's the problem with the modern-day Republican Party. They cut taxes but don't cut spending as too many of the base believe in this nonsense that you can cut income taxes in America and generate higher revenues.

I agree. Spending cuts must come first before tax cuts. You can't expect tax cuts to work when you're just taking the money out the economy through another means (borrowing). Spending, by both parties, is much too high and is the cause for our depreciating standard of living over the many administrations.

And yeah, that laffer curve is mostly baloney. Unless the tax rate is confiscatory, you won't see much revenue benefit from cutting taxes. This isn't at all to say tax cuts (coupled with spending cuts) wouldn't be tremendously beneficial to the economy. The more capital there is, the more that's saved, the less severe a credit crunch, no?

The goal has to be to limit government's size (both in defense and domestic industries), and then return the benefits of that reduction to the people.

Or conversely, if the Govt wants to spend money on wars or health care it should raise taxes to pay for it.

Over a cycle.

The government should be paying off the debt when the economy is expanding and adding to it when the economy is contracting.

 

[Iriemon]

I agree. Spending cuts must come first before tax cuts. You can't expect tax cuts to work when you're just taking the money out the economy through another means (borrowing). Spending, by both parties, is much too high and is the cause for our depreciating standard of living over the many administrations.

And yeah, that laffer curve is mostly baloney. Unless the tax rate is confiscatory, you won't see much revenue benefit from cutting taxes. This isn't at all to say tax cuts (coupled with spending cuts) wouldn't be tremendously beneficial to the economy. The more capital there is, the more that's saved, the less severe a credit crunch, no?

The goal has to be to limit government's size (both in defense and domestic industries), and then return the benefits of that reduction to the people.

Or conversely, if the Govt wants to spend money on wars or health care it should raise taxes to pay for it.

Over a cycle.

The government should be paying off the debt when the economy is expanding and adding to it when the economy is contracting.

Brother!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I can summarize it without even watching it.

The Free market is god and this all happened because they didnt allow corporations to do whatever they wanted without laws, rules or taxes.

This discussion is based on the video, if you refuse to watch it then what could you possibly contribute?

And I don't think you'll find the answer on Wikipedia.