Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
With a private sector job the workers pay taxes. Effect? A positive cash flow for the Government.
With a Government job the workers pay taxes. Effect? A negative cash flow for the Government. Government workers never pay enough taxes to pay their own salary.
Who do you think makes up the difference? Every Government job is a drag on the economy.
With a private sector job the workers pay taxes. Effect? A positive cash flow for the Government.
With a Government job the workers pay taxes. Effect? A negative cash flow for the Government. Government workers never pay enough taxes to pay their own salary.
Who do you think makes up the difference? Every Government job is a drag on the economy.
With a private sector job the workers pay taxes. Effect? A positive cash flow for the Government.
With a Government job the workers pay taxes. Effect? A negative cash flow for the Government. Government workers never pay enough taxes to pay their own salary.
Who do you think makes up the difference? Every Government job is a drag on the economy.
Suppose we need to build a road....That is what Government does
Who is going to decide where that road has to go? Who is going to decide its size and construction? Takes a Government employee
Who is going to write the Request for Proposal specifying what the job requirements are and what the bidder needs to demonstrate? takes a Government employee
Who is going to review the proposals and determine who is best qualified at the lowest cost to the taxpayer? Takes a Government employee
Who is going to monitor the job to ensure safety standards are complied with? Takes a Government employee
Who verifies the job is completed and meets all the requirements? Takes a Government employee
Drag on the economy? See how our economy functions without roads
With a private sector job the workers pay taxes. Effect? A positive cash flow for the Government.
With a Government job the workers pay taxes. Effect? A negative cash flow for the Government. Government workers never pay enough taxes to pay their own salary.
Who do you think makes up the difference? Every Government job is a drag on the economy.
Suppose we need to build a road....That is what Government does
Who is going to decide where that road has to go? Who is going to decide its size and construction? Takes a Government employee
Who is going to write the Request for Proposal specifying what the job requirements are and what the bidder needs to demonstrate? takes a Government employee
Who is going to review the proposals and determine who is best qualified at the lowest cost to the taxpayer? Takes a Government employee
Who is going to monitor the job to ensure safety standards are complied with? Takes a Government employee
Who verifies the job is completed and meets all the requirements? Takes a Government employee
Drag on the economy? See how our economy functions without roads
Roads should be the states responsibility financed through a gas tax. We need some federal workers but not the amount we have now and everyone of them will be a drag on the economy until they pay enough taxes to cover their own pay.
Good Morning to all
Who is it to say where we would be after 9-11 as well as the housing bubble busting with Clinton's tax rates?
I ask the simplest of questions in which No-one ever answers
I am allowed to keep about 5,000 more of my wealth per years when GWB tax rates took place
in 7 years thats 35k
does anyone think that would not create some wealth for someone else?
what if we multiply that by millions every year?
But Bush borrowed the money to let you not pay those taxes. The spending that those taxes would have paid for, not the least of which were 2 wars, was all borrowed.
Sure, anyone can look rich and spread it around if they've got good credit and a willingness to use it to borrow and borrow and spend and spend.
Thats a theory
do we know what the employment rate would have been post Nasdaq bubble/9-11?
A theory by the way I have no way of disputing
Revenues
read this
pay close attention to #5
10. Myth: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden. From 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of taxpayers dropped from 0% to -4%, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy. The share paid by the top 20% of households increased from 81% to 85%.
9. Myth: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts. The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains and dividend tax rates. These policies increased market incentives to work, save and invest, creating jobs and increasing economic growth.
8. Myth: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior. Government spending does not "pump new money into the economy," because government must first tax or borrow that money out of the economy. The right tax cuts help the economy by reducing government's influence on economic decisions and allowing people to respond more to market mechanisms.
7. Myth: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most. In 2007, the increased child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, 10% bracket and Alternative Minimum Tax fix will have a combined budgetary impact of minus $114 billion -- without strong supply-side effects to minimize that effect. But the more maligned capital gains, dividends and estate tax cuts are projected to reduce 2007 revenues by just $36 billion, even before the large supply-side effects are incorporated.
6. Myth: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92% to 35%, and tax revenues have grown in inflation-adjusted terms while remaining constant as a percent of GDP.
5. Myth: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases. Revenues are projected to increase from 18% of GDP to almost 23% by 2050, while spending is projected to increase from 20% of GDP to at least 38%.
4. Myth: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut. In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20% and 10% (depending on income) to 15% and 5%, respectively. Rather than expand from $50 billion in 2003 to $68 billion in 2006 as the CBO projected, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.
3. Myth: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues. Supply-side economics never contended that all tax cuts pay for themselves. Rather the Laffer Curve merely formalizes the common-sense observations that: Tax revenues depend on the tax base as well as the tax rate; raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains; and lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.
2. Myth: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline. Historic spending increases pushed federal spending up from 18.5% of GDP in 2001 to 20.2% in 2006.
1. Myth: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts. Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4%of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages.
Brian Riedl is a Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
With a private sector job the workers pay taxes. Effect? A positive cash flow for the Government.
With a Government job the workers pay taxes. Effect? A negative cash flow for the Government. Government workers never pay enough taxes to pay their own salary.
Who do you think makes up the difference? Every Government job is a drag on the economy.
Suppose we need to build a road....That is what Government does
Who is going to decide where that road has to go? Who is going to decide its size and construction? Takes a Government employee
Who is going to write the Request for Proposal specifying what the job requirements are and what the bidder needs to demonstrate? takes a Government employee
Who is going to review the proposals and determine who is best qualified at the lowest cost to the taxpayer? Takes a Government employee
Who is going to monitor the job to ensure safety standards are complied with? Takes a Government employee
Who verifies the job is completed and meets all the requirements? Takes a Government employee
Drag on the economy? See how our economy functions without roads
But Bush borrowed the money to let you not pay those taxes. The spending that those taxes would have paid for, not the least of which were 2 wars, was all borrowed.
Sure, anyone can look rich and spread it around if they've got good credit and a willingness to use it to borrow and borrow and spend and spend.
Thats a theory
do we know what the employment rate would have been post Nasdaq bubble/9-11?
A theory by the way I have no way of disputing
Revenues
read this
pay close attention to #5
10. Myth: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden. From 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of taxpayers dropped from 0% to -4%, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy. The share paid by the top 20% of households increased from 81% to 85%.
9. Myth: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts. The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains and dividend tax rates. These policies increased market incentives to work, save and invest, creating jobs and increasing economic growth.
8. Myth: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior. Government spending does not "pump new money into the economy," because government must first tax or borrow that money out of the economy. The right tax cuts help the economy by reducing government's influence on economic decisions and allowing people to respond more to market mechanisms.
7. Myth: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most. In 2007, the increased child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, 10% bracket and Alternative Minimum Tax fix will have a combined budgetary impact of minus $114 billion -- without strong supply-side effects to minimize that effect. But the more maligned capital gains, dividends and estate tax cuts are projected to reduce 2007 revenues by just $36 billion, even before the large supply-side effects are incorporated.
6. Myth: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92% to 35%, and tax revenues have grown in inflation-adjusted terms while remaining constant as a percent of GDP.
5. Myth: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases. Revenues are projected to increase from 18% of GDP to almost 23% by 2050, while spending is projected to increase from 20% of GDP to at least 38%.
4. Myth: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut. In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20% and 10% (depending on income) to 15% and 5%, respectively. Rather than expand from $50 billion in 2003 to $68 billion in 2006 as the CBO projected, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.
3. Myth: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues. Supply-side economics never contended that all tax cuts pay for themselves. Rather the Laffer Curve merely formalizes the common-sense observations that: Tax revenues depend on the tax base as well as the tax rate; raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains; and lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.
2. Myth: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline. Historic spending increases pushed federal spending up from 18.5% of GDP in 2001 to 20.2% in 2006.
1. Myth: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts. Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4%of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages.
Brian Riedl is a Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
All you have to point out is ONE SIMPLE THING to bust your whole load.
If you give 52% in trillions of tax cuts to only 1% of the nation and they move 2.4 million jobs to China and close tens of thousands of factories, then YES, the rich are paying a larger share. Why? Because no one else has jobs or money.
The China Job Drain | Alliance for American Manufacturing
Oops.
Suppose we need to build a road....That is what Government does
With a private sector job the workers pay taxes. Effect? A positive cash flow for the Government.
With a Government job the workers pay taxes. Effect? A negative cash flow for the Government. Government workers never pay enough taxes to pay their own salary.
Who do you think makes up the difference? Every Government job is a drag on the economy.
Every private sector job/business filling a government contract is what then?
btw, are you saying that policemen, for example, or people in the military, provide no service of value, therefore the taxpayer cost to pay them is a total loss?
With a private sector job the workers pay taxes. Effect? A positive cash flow for the Government.
With a Government job the workers pay taxes. Effect? A negative cash flow for the Government. Government workers never pay enough taxes to pay their own salary.
Who do you think makes up the difference? Every Government job is a drag on the economy.
Every private sector job/business filling a government contract is what then?
btw, are you saying that policemen, for example, or people in the military, provide no service of value, therefore the taxpayer cost to pay them is a total loss?
I guess cutter cut out.
Why is it the left thinks the gop promised jobs?
Why is it the left thinks the gop promised jobs?I believe the most-accurate example of Republican-terminology was....
It's ridiculous. They all ran on the fact that Obama didn't understand about Jobs...they were going to fix the job problem. Then they turn around and say "what? jobs? who us?"
I think it's amazing that you're trying to play a shell game with idiotic people in the conservative base. They're not all or even a majority idiots...but there's a group that is falling for the conservative shell game and it's pathetic.
Here's one.It's ridiculous. They all ran on the fact that Obama didn't understand about Jobs...they were going to fix the job problem. Then they turn around and say "what? jobs? who us?"
I think it's amazing that you're trying to play a shell game with idiotic people in the conservative base. They're not all or even a majority idiots...but there's a group that is falling for the conservative shell game and it's pathetic.
Its amazing none of you can come up with a link
Its also amazing the best month we have had for hiring was last month in a long time
you might think about that
With a private sector job the workers pay taxes. Effect? A positive cash flow for the Government.
With a Government job the workers pay taxes. Effect? A negative cash flow for the Government. Government workers never pay enough taxes to pay their own salary.
Who do you think makes up the difference? Every Government job is a drag on the economy.
Every private sector job/business filling a government contract is what then?
btw, are you saying that policemen, for example, or people in the military, provide no service of value, therefore the taxpayer cost to pay them is a total loss?
I guess cutter cut out.
EVERY DOLLAR spent by Government is a dollar that does not go into the economy.
EVERY DOLLAR spent by Government is a dollar that does not go into the economy.
I think the folks at Boeing and KBR would take exception to this claim. Do you think a dollar spent building an aircraft carrier or a road has zero impact on the economy?
Here's one.It's ridiculous. They all ran on the fact that Obama didn't understand about Jobs...they were going to fix the job problem. Then they turn around and say "what? jobs? who us?"
I think it's amazing that you're trying to play a shell game with idiotic people in the conservative base. They're not all or even a majority idiots...but there's a group that is falling for the conservative shell game and it's pathetic.
Its amazing none of you can come up with a link
Its also amazing the best month we have had for hiring was last month in a long time
you might think about that
