Tea Party 4-18-11 Topic

swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
When is someone going to explain to the Democrats that Tax increases are not the same as budget cuts!
4/14/2011 1:29 AM
The Taint
Posts: 13154 (1)
Hall of Famer
1054 3
Hall of Famer
You're never going to balance the budget through cuts alone, especially with military budget being off the table...just ain't gonna happen. 


**** in one hand and make wishes in the other and tell me which fills up first.
4/14/2011 11:02 AM (edited)
tedco
Posts: 861 (0)
Veteran
32
Prospect
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/14/2011 1:29:00 AM (view original):
When is someone going to explain to the Democrats that Tax increases are not the same as budget cuts!
When is someone going to explain to the Republicans that letting the Bush tax cuts expire is not the same as a tax increase.
4/14/2011 11:25 AM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Of course it's an increase. Taxes are at one level now, and they'll be at a higher level once the cuts expire.

Engaging in stupid sematic arguments is exactly what fucktards like swamp want the conversation to be about.
4/14/2011 11:43 AM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
OK lets go facts. The size of the government has increased over 3 fold since 1960. That is after taking inflation into account.

Everyone talks about the Bush tax cuts as revenue lost. Revenue didnt go down after the cuts. We all know this.

So what is the government doing over 3 of now that it was not doing in 1960. I am not going to original intent here, just back to Kennedy. The nation was the same place as it is now, but we need 3 times as much government.
4/14/2011 1:07 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by The Taint on 4/14/2011 11:02:00 AM (view original):
You're never going to balance the budget through cuts alone, especially with military budget being off the table...just ain't gonna happen. 


**** in one hand and make wishes in the other and tell me which fills up first.
And what we should be thinking is we cannot balance the budget through tax increases. It is impossible.
4/14/2011 1:08 PM
rcrusso
Posts: 3497 (0)
All Star
38 2
Veteran
Again it is simple math swamp, the operative word being simple. Why can you not understand it?
4/14/2011 1:24 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/14/2011 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 4/14/2011 11:02:00 AM (view original):
You're never going to balance the budget through cuts alone, especially with military budget being off the table...just ain't gonna happen. 


**** in one hand and make wishes in the other and tell me which fills up first.
And what we should be thinking is we cannot balance the budget through tax increases. It is impossible.
**** off, liar. No one is suggesting balancing the budget solely through tax increases.
4/14/2011 1:41 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
The reason revenues to the treasury go up or down is growth.  When tax rates are past the tipping point, revenues inversely follow rates.  Kennedy/Reagan/Bush tax cuts have all increased revenue and shifted the burden towards the rich in every case.  There is a point in the rate structure where revenues follow rates.  Once past that point, revenues decrease with increased rates.

In the simplest sense, a 0% tax rate = $0 revenue.  100% tax rate = $0 revenue.  At some point between, there is an optimal rate.  I believe that optimal rate varies depending on the dynamics of the time.  I have read several studies (I'm not going to go back to find them), that suggest the optimal overall equivalent rate for maximum revenue varies between 16-19%.  Taxing below or above that gives less revenue.

Unfortunately, the reason the house of cards will utlimately fall is because spending is way above that peak.  So ultimately, you can't tax enough to get the revenue you desire.  The only answer is to cut spending. 

If people want the rich to pay more, then revenue will decrease (because it's not a static situation).  I'm not sure what those who want higher taxes actually want to have happen.  If they want to maximize revenues, then the economy needs to grow.  If they want to soak the rich, they can't.  They'll just have that money go somewhere other than creating wealth and the growth needed to boost revenues won't happen.  They'll still pay a higher "rate".  But that's not going to give the effect Obama and those claim.  It never has.
4/14/2011 1:59 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
That's funny, taxation revenue as a percentage of GDP has been solidly in the 16-19% range for decades. I think you're cunfusing your numbers, padna.
4/14/2011 2:16 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
Maybe...it's been awhile since I read the studies.  But the point still remains.  There is a max value of revenue at some point where raising tax rates won't increase revenue.  If spending is above it, you'll never get the revenue you need.  Without substantial, probably painful spending cuts, discussions about tax rates for among the classes does nothing but obscure the real problem.
4/14/2011 2:56 PM
raucous
Posts: 8605 (0)
Hall of Famer
16 8 133 151 120
Prospect
Posted by genghisxcon on 4/13/2011 7:41:00 PM (view original):
At some point you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that some of the people who are trying to "hijack" the movement were funding it before you started preaching its' virtues.
When is the last time an elected official would fund a movement that would get them out of a job?
4/14/2011 3:28 PM
raucous
Posts: 8605 (0)
Hall of Famer
16 8 133 151 120
Prospect
If you increase taxes to 100% for people making 250k or more, it would not be able stop the deficit spending that we are currently at. 
4/14/2011 3:30 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by silentpadna on 4/14/2011 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Maybe...it's been awhile since I read the studies.  But the point still remains.  There is a max value of revenue at some point where raising tax rates won't increase revenue.  If spending is above it, you'll never get the revenue you need.  Without substantial, probably painful spending cuts, discussions about tax rates for among the classes does nothing but obscure the real problem.

The problem with the Laffer Curve theory in application is that economists offer wildly different interpretations on where the optimal revenue point is. And that optimal revenue point will differ depending on what form of specific taxation you're talking about. So it's a hard thing to base concrete tax policy on.

I can't say I've ever seen a study claiming that the optimal overall rate for the US was as low as 16-19% though.

4/14/2011 3:45 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by antonsirius on 4/14/2011 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/14/2011 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 4/14/2011 11:02:00 AM (view original):
You're never going to balance the budget through cuts alone, especially with military budget being off the table...just ain't gonna happen. 


**** in one hand and make wishes in the other and tell me which fills up first.
And what we should be thinking is we cannot balance the budget through tax increases. It is impossible.
**** off, liar. No one is suggesting balancing the budget solely through tax increases.
No one said you did say it.

Maybe you could just cut a "liar" and just paste it on all my posts. You dont seem to read them anymore. This was in no way a lie.

Couldnt you try to talk to people instead of just talking at them?
4/14/2011 3:54 PM
◂ Prev 1...118|119|120|121|122...133 Next ▸
Tea Party 4-18-11 Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.