Why We Should Increase Taxes?

[Mr. Shaman]

Sorry Republicans, Higher Taxes Will NOT Kill The Economy

....As in Bill Clinton's 1993 Deficit Reduction, that gave us THE GREATEST ECONOMY THIS COUNTRY'S EVER EXPERIENCED!!!!​

Deficit reduction. Who allowed for that? Oh that's right, the republican revolution of 1994.....

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....how could I possibly argue the facts you'd provided!!


​

 

[boedicca]

DD - I admire your endurance, but Shaman is a moronic troll. There's no point engaging him in a discussion. He is disingenuous.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yep.... I know the asshole is a troll.. even searched around and found his trolling on another message board....

But I will continue to ***** slap any false information this idiot puts out there.... maybe the next time he copies and pastes the same bullshit, people will search and see how he is utterly debunked as easy as pie

**edit**... yep, his posting misinformation and my virtually ***** slapping him all over the place is easily google searched now... so the next time he posts he copy and paste shit about, medicare for example, (which he first posted on the Ed Shultz show message board), a couple posts down the searcher can see where this troll has been called to task and debunked thoroughly

 

[boedicca]

Indeed. That's why I admire your endurance - but I suspect he has Last Word Syndrome as well.

 

[DiamondDave]

Indeed. That's why I admire your endurance - but I suspect he has Last Word Syndrome as well.

Army mascot is a mule... and I'm a vet and stubborn as a mule.... I'll debunk every last little piece of misinformation this little twit tries.. did it will more trolls than him in my posting time

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Perhaps you should actually look into how an economy works, what a boom is, what a false boom is, what an economic bubble is, the hidden intergovernmental spending of Clinton, and so many other things

Yeah....all o' that prosperity was a major-burden!!

​

Again... do you know how an economy works??

I know what I saw/experienced.

TRY some......

"Under Clinton, by contrast, the economy was a rising tide that lifted all boats. The poor, finally, did quite well for themselves, their incomes appreciating at about 2.5 percent annually, but the rich did just about as well -- in fact, the rich did better under Clinton than they had under Reagan and Bush. The rich/poor gap, if measured as a ratio, did not increase appreciably under Clinton. The 10th percentile saw their incomes increase by about 17 percent during his tenure, and so did the 90th percentile."

 

[Big Fitz]

1) As told to you and PROVEN so many times, the debt has not decreased since 1957... your chart is disingenuous and obviously from a biased source.

Yeah....your's is soooooooooooooooooooooooooo much-more-accurate.


​

Yes... it is the actual government source...

epic fail

Submariner Jack Kirby goodness, bringin the smackdown.

Bod... I think you're right. So Okay rtard. Have the last word, then find some other board back on Nickelodeon to terrorize.

 

[boedicca]

Yeah....all o' that prosperity was a major-burden!!

​

Again... do you know how an economy works??

I know what I saw/experienced.

TRY some......

"Under Clinton, by contrast, the economy was a rising tide that lifted all boats. The poor, finally, did quite well for themselves, their incomes appreciating at about 2.5 percent annually, but the rich did just about as well -- in fact, the rich did better under Clinton than they had under Reagan and Bush. The rich/poor gap, if measured as a ratio, did not increase appreciably under Clinton. The 10th percentile saw their incomes increase by about 17 percent during his tenure, and so did the 90th percentile."

Thanks for proving our point. The Clinton era prosperity was a result of the tax cut and partial spending restraint enacted under Reagan and the 1994 GOP Congress.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

2. No, tax increases have never... EVER increased economic activity.

WRONG!!

​

Put up or shut up, moron.

I already did.....



Try to pay attention.....​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

sham-man

Give up while you are behind, newbie troll

Hey....I've smacked-around as many (of you) as I could, in such a short-period-of-time!!!

 

[DiamondDave]

Yeah....all o' that prosperity was a major-burden!!

​

Again... do you know how an economy works??

I know what I saw/experienced.

TRY some......

"Under Clinton, by contrast, the economy was a rising tide that lifted all boats. The poor, finally, did quite well for themselves, their incomes appreciating at about 2.5 percent annually, but the rich did just about as well -- in fact, the rich did better under Clinton than they had under Reagan and Bush. The rich/poor gap, if measured as a ratio, did not increase appreciably under Clinton. The 10th percentile saw their incomes increase by about 17 percent during his tenure, and so did the 90th percentile."

Did you miss the whole peanut butter scenario?

Do you also realize the alleged accurate data used in your graph is not supporting of the whole economy or economic picture... it is only on wages, which if you were actually in the tech boom, which exploded and the crashed after the bubble burst and the market corrected for raises on speculation and future deliverables that never really happened

The 'author' of this drivel also has the great economics background of writing for baseballprospectus

You've again tried to use a winger opinion and conclusion as some cited 'proof'

epic fail again

 

[DiamondDave]

sham-man

Give up while you are behind, newbie troll

Hey....I've smacked-around as many (of you) as I could, in such a short-period-of-time!!!

And as many as you could resulted in the number ZERO

 

[Immanuel]

Maybe he should just do like Bush Sr and bite the bullet and say something to the effect of, I didn't plan on increasing taxes, but that was before I got in office and figured out just how bad things really were...

Yeah...if nothing else....Daddy Bush was the picture of honesty.....



(Honesty was a Bush Family Tradition!!)​

I'm not defending Bush Sr but I don't think I'm going to bother reading that long link of yours seeing as how the first couple of paragraphs say quite clearly that the author is quite partisan to say the least.

I doubt there is much honest to goodness truth found in the link.

Immie

 

[boedicca]

Shaman has perfected the internet art of a boomerang ***** slap. His attempts to ***** slap others just end up smacking him on the back of his head.

 

[DiamondDave]

WRONG!!

​

Put up or shut up, moron.

I already did.....



Try to pay attention.....​

Hyper-partisan winger site.... a little research into the person behind the site shows how much of a hyper-partisan winger the guy is... that would be like me trying to cite Rush Limbaugh commentary as 'proof' of a stance.... try and use some actual credible sources, troll

 

[Flopper]

1. You grasp the fundamental problem. Government is spending money with little to no return. It's investing our tax dollars in deadbeats, union bailouts, corporate bail outs, unemployment benefits and other low value but very visible projects. We need a 4 to 1 spending cut for every dollar of taxes raised, IF we allow taxes TO be raised.

2. No, tax increases have never... EVER increased economic activity. The depression of 1920, yes, the Wilson caused depression was solved not with increasing taxes, but by cutting all government spending by 50% and then letting the market do it's job. The result? One of the biggest economic booms in history, till bad ethics and business models caused it to go bust again. Classic free market system in action. But thanks to Keynsian economic theory and socialist programs based on 'we gotta do SOMETHING', that stretched out the crash into the Great Depression, because the market wasn't allowed to function normally.

But, in the world of taxation, the economy IS a zero sum game, while the economy is not. For every dollar you take out of private hands, is money that cannot go towards paying wages or investing, or upgrading a business. The government then spends it on a project that may or may not have any reciprocal economic value, because they aren't held to the same 'profit or die' standard as the rest of the free market. That is why money in government hand is more wasteful AND harms the private sector. So, if you strip money out of the private sector, there can be no growth, or rather the growth if it occurs will be of lesser size and quality than if the private sector did it.

3. If we increase revenues, somehow, to the federal government, what are they going to do with it? since they've been living essentially consequence free for the last 50 years on this ever increasing taxation attitude congress seems to have marinated in, they'll keep doing the same damn things. What's that? Spend it on NEW social programs and votes, like they always do. This process will continue and grow until it has no choice BUT to collapse. That result will happen no matter what we do. It's only a question of how big it will be. And right now, it's astronomically big and bad.

So, although I can see why you'd think you'd want increased taxes, are you the one willing to pay them? You willing to pony up double, triple the dough when you have no idea how it's being spent or a very good idea it's being spent poorly or on things you are against?

Just things to consider while you tout higher taxes for irresponsible governance.

2. I don’t claim that additional taxes will increase economic activity. I believe tax rates have little effect. The belief that cutting taxes will stimulate the economy and lead to real growth is based on the belief that investors will use their tax savings to invest in American industry. In the past most all investments did go to build our industries. Today much of these investments flow oversea building industries in competing nations. Of course tax savings also make dollars available to increase consumption, but so does government spending.
3. The argument against spending money on social programs seem be that the nation draws no economic benefit from these programs. My belief is that these programs are inherently wasteful, but that does not mean there is no benefit.

2. well that's good, but increasing existing taxes is the same thing. What you are suggesting is a distinction without a meaning.

Trickle down economics aka Supply Side economics has worked every time it's tried. In the 20th century, we did so on 3 occasions to phenomenal success. 1920 with Harding/Coolidge, 1960 under Kennedy and the 1980's under Reagan. When you leave money in the hands of the individual, they don't sit there stuffing it into mattresses, for that only loses them money and they know it. So they invest it. Even the little hausfraus and working class schlubs who earned a little extra cash they want to hang on to for a rainy day.

How do they save this surplus cash? They buy stock, bonds, treasuries... something. The money benefits them in their interest and dividend rates as well as then being loaned out by the person they bought the financial product from. The effect is called an economic multiplier. For a small amount of interest, lenders get to invest in bigger projects that earn them more money and allow them to make a profit. This is the nature of banking and investment and it's open to everyone.

Now why does cutting taxes on the rich work best? Because they have the most to spread around. You don't get employed by poor people. The rich also consume the most, and if they decide to blow all that extra dough on toys and services, this stimulates the economy too.

For example, Carver Yachts for instance out of Sheboygan, WI. During the 1970's when Carter was busy punishing the rich almost went out of business. There were luxury taxes that made it too damn expensive to buy American built yachts, regardless of desire. Carver Yachts had betwee 250-400 full time employees on the verge of losing all their jobs. But not only would the loss of those good paying jobs hurt them and their families, it would hurt the community at large because all the services would lose consumer spending as people had no money. The grocery store, the hairdresser, the gas station, the fishing supplies store, the movie theaters. All the little shops and symbiotic businesses that require a productive manufacturer surviving on luxury purchases by the rich who have more money and no idea what to do with it support a community of 30,000 at that time. You end up helping tens of thousands... not just one rich guy or family.

3. Have you ever considered a cost effect analysis of say Welfare? Or unemployment insurance? Or Medicare? Or food stamps? Or school lunch? Or social security?

How exactly do these things help society? Now mind you, it is good to help those in need. But at what point does help become enabling? Yes, we should help those who lost their job. But for how long? When does help become better than working? How does this help society? Case in point. I have a friend who has stated flatly, they are not getting a job till their unemployment benefits are near running out because they make better money on unemployment than they do by getting some interim job that pays half as much. It's like a paid vacation!

I've been on unemployment, and maybe I'm the freak, but I was revolted by it. I hated it. I wanted a job. I've had to use assistance on a few occasions of my life, but realize that I do not belong there, but they make it sooooo tempting to just keep lining up for the benefits. Best example was when I got food help from a private charity. Every week, I was able to go get groceries donated from all over. You would not believe this, but I ate BETTER on this than I could on my own. I had food to give away to others because I couldn't eat my allotment fast enough! I comforted myself knowing that my local area was so abundantly blessed that people could give with such generosity, and I should not take advantage of it. But like I said, I think I'm the freak.

That is the ultimate crux of all social spending. Finding that sweet spot of helping without enabling. Right now, it has been foisted by a local radio host that MN social services could be slashed 40% and there would be little to no degradation in service to the community. Most of the savings would be culled from abuse and fraud and over staffing. The state of Florida is #1 in medicare payments. They receive over 1 BILLION dollars in aid, and almost all of that in the Miami/Dade area. This one area is sucking down over half of all payouts from Medicare, if the information I've see is correct. Do you think this nation could benefit from better policing of the charity for fraud and waste? I do.

You must not confuse kindness for weakness and charity for duty. We are called to help those in need, but we cannot be made slaves to the needy.

I don’t disagree with the theory that changes in tax rates have some effect on the economy. I just don’t believe that it’s the most important factor. Did the Bush tax cuts keep us out a recession? No. Did the tax increase in the early 90’s kill the expansion? No. Did the tax rate cuts that started in the 60's and continued into the 80's produce higher GNP growth rates? No. There are other factors that have a greater impact. As we have seen from the current recession, government regulations and oversight are a big factor. Money policy is another. Then there is the health of other world economies. Our trade policies have had a devastating effect on American workers and industry. Our economic survival in the 21st century is far more dependent on the education and training of the workforce, than our tax rates, yet it’s first thing we look to cut when money is tight.

 

[Rozman]

If the deficit continues to rise, the government will have to pay higher rates of interest which will add to the deficit problem and will bring on inflation. Since neither political party has been successful at controlling spending, we should increase taxes, however Conservative argue that:

1. Government Spending is out of control . Look at the following graph, which clearly shows that government spending as a percent of GDP peaked in the early 1990’s and has been trending downward ever since. Although spending in absolute dollars has risen, GDP has risen faster. Our deficits are not the result of wild government spending, but rather extraordinarily low taxes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Us_gov_spending_history_1902_2010.png

2. Raising Taxes will reduce economic growth. If this were true then we should see significantly higher GNP growth as a result of low tax rates and lower GNP growth as result of high taxes. Look at the following chart, which shows the effect of tax rates on GNP.
Sorry Republicans, Higher Taxes Will NOT Kill The Economy

So, why shouldn't we reduce the deficit by increasing taxes?

I really think you may be on to something here.I don't know why I haven't seen your brilliant idea before.The Libs are right when they say we should pay more in taxes...After all what makes us think that we have a right to decide how we spend our hard earned wages.Well at least those of us that are fortunate to have a job in this Obama economy.
The truth of the matter is who knows better then the government about how our money should be spent.I hope that the Obama administration goes for the Vat tax.I hope NY adds a tax on soda and fruit drinks.I hope there is a gas tax imposed this Summer.In fact the only thing that makes sense is if we give over at least at the minimum 60% of our earned income.Hopefully the Obama administration will be able to raise that to 75% next year and then when we are in the spirit of things have it raised to 80% in 2012.

 

[Big Fitz]

WRONG!!

​

Put up or shut up, moron.

I already did.....



Try to pay attention.....​

And your "evidence" is a political disinformation site by a fabian socialist.

Good job, rtard.

 

[Big Fitz]

I don’t disagree with the theory that changes in tax rates have some effect on the economy. I just don’t believe that it’s the most important factor. Did the Bush tax cuts keep us out a recession? No.

Correct, but at that point, nothing the government could have done would have stopped that slide. But W did the right thing and allowed for more investment quicker into an economy that could easily had slid into total catastrophe. Remember, we were not the only nation that suddenly took a nosedive because of 9/11 coming off the "dot bomb" bubble popping. He just got us out fast, like Harding/Coolidge did in 1920, thanks to reducing government spending by 50% across the board.

Did the tax increase in the early 90’s kill the expansion? No.

Not immediately. But it did slow expansion and had to be overcome by other factors, which both turned out to be a series of three bubbles: Tech, Oil and Housing. All three have now popped during the Bush administration and Housing was reinflated and is now ready to pop like a fuel air explosive thanks to Freddie and Fannie.

Did the tax rate cuts that started in the 60's and continued into the 80's produce higher GNP growth rates? No.

Do not casually ignore two other MASSIVE factors in the 1960's that put a damper on all the economic growth we did experience: The Vietnam War and The Great Society programs. Those two things ate up massive amounts of productivity and revenue that should have been spent elsewhere by individual citizens. Plus the Great Society has set us up for this crisis now with it's out of control budgets.

There are other factors that have a greater impact.

Yes, but most times they are acute and short lived. Higher tax rates often cause gentle to severe downward pressure on economic activity by taking money, unseen by most, from the hands of those who would have used it for better purposes. Individuals always make better decisions than government five year plans. Always. The entire history of the USSR is an excellent case study on that.

As we have seen from the current recession, government regulations and oversight are a big factor.

Actually, ineffectual government regulation, political games and pandering combined with what should be called outright racketeering on the part of congress are major factors of why we're in the mess we're in. Regulations were ignored, conflicts of interest were not only given short shrift, they were actively encouraged to the point of being outright bribery in many cases. But, since we have an executive branch that is up to their Adam's Apple in the same shit (look at the donor lists to P-BO's campaign and his advisers and cabinet members associations)... nothing will be done about it. If you won't enforce the regulations you have, because of payoffs or incompetence or politics, you are better off unregulated and caveat emptor. Not a great state to be in either.

Money policy is another.

Here we agree. Greenspan, Bernacke and Co. started a very dangerous game of brinkmanship when they started the loose money policy in the 1990's that mostly gave us the great bubbles of that decade that popped under Bush. They've turned the mint into a de facto counterfeiting operation printing money to stay one step ahead of the bill collector. Other nations know this won't end well and are bailing on our currency. But their problem is they've been playing the exact same games of unregulated profiteering for political gain. Greece is our future, to a factor of 100. Almost nothing is going to stop our economic collapse here. The question is, will they monatize the debt and pay everyone off rendering the dollar worthless in massive inflation? Or will they go into default, have our bonds reduced to junk status and then collapse all trade with foreign nations, banks and lenders for a century to come, causing HYPERinflation and creating a new Weimar Republic. There is only one road out now: Cut all government spending to the bone, and brace ourselves culturally for the big hit that WILL happen inside the next 24 months... tops. I will be shocked and relieved if it doesn't happen before then.

Then there is the health of other world economies. Our trade policies have had a devastating effect on American workers and industry.

Right. Free trade with nations not our economic peers should be ended immediately. Nations using unfair trade practices should be subjected to reciprocal tariffs. But American Unions must be either convinced to come around to the fact that the legacy costs they are causing will force all the jobs to leave if they do not renegotiate. Oh, and the outright banning of all public sector unions as criminal enterprises or a fundamental shift in how they are maintained must occur. We have been fools regarding economic warfare, pursuing short term gains for what are in essence, international level 'pay day loans'.

Our economic survival in the 21st century is far more dependent on the education and training of the workforce, than our tax rates, yet it’s first thing we look to cut when money is tight.

In state, county and municipal budgets, failing/failed education systems are the number one budget item. This must change. Education and training is not going to get us out of this mess right away. It's a laudable goal, but when the cost of higher education is rising at a speed many multiples that of inflation, this is a ludicrous thing to believe that the institutions of higher learning do not need to have their budgets gutted of waste, fraud and abuse. take for instance the waste in the DC schools. 24k per student, yet hardly 5000 of that makes it to the classroom. what's wrong with this picture? 20k of waste per student maybe? With their schools being some of the worst and most dangerous in the nation, we need to demand far far better from the education system and possible abolishment of the teacher's union unless they begin stepping up performance.

The purpose of an economy is to generate wealth. When looking at spending cuts, you must discover first off, what your money is doing and if it is worth the investment. Programs that soothe the conscience at night but decrease the general health of the nation do nothing for anyone but provide false hope.

We need and deserve better for what we pay in and those who don't, need to start ponying up their money too. Get some skin in the game If you want to raise taxes, how about doing it on the 60% who don't pay any.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I'm not defending Bush Sr......

Good idea.......

​