|
|
On August 12 2012 06:44 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 06:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Tax exempt municipal bonds aren't really a boon to savings and investment - its a subsidy to the municipalities. Yes, because "boons to savings and investment" are mutually exclusive with subsidies to municipalities. Do you really believe what you're saying? If Federal Treasuries were suddenly exempt from taxation, would you claim that that isn't preferential tax policy for savings and investment because it subsidized the federal government?
The majority of the preference goes to municipalities. Most of the encouragement to save that the tax exempt status provides is nullified by lower rates.
|
On August 12 2012 06:32 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 06:29 Savio wrote:
So basically they said, "Romney hasn't given specifics on his plan so we assumed of his 2 promises (cut taxes and be revenue neutral) that he would break the tax cut promise and then we thought up a reasonable way he might do it, then we announced that his plan raises taxes on the middle class" They did not think up a reasonable way to do it. They took the most extreme way possible to maintain progressivity and the plan was still regressive. They even assumed growth effects per ROMNEY'S economics advisor. Romney hasn't given specifics on which loopholes that he's close. Therefore, the TPC chose the loopholes that would make his plan the most progressive. Any other loophole combination, given his pledges, makes the analysis that much more regressive. Why is this so hard to understand? If Romney wants the TPC to choose different assumptions, he just has to break pledges for deficit neutrality or tax preference for savings and investment.
Per http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443792604577574910276629448.html:
"The class warriors at the Tax Policy Center add all of this up and issue the headline-grabbing opinion that it is "mathematically impossible" to reduce tax rates and close loopholes in a way that raises the same amount of revenue. They do so in part by arbitrarily claiming that Mr. Romney would never eliminate certain loopholes (such as for municipal bond interest), though the candidate has said no such thing.
Based on this invention, they then postulate that Mr. Romney would have to do something he also doesn't propose—which is raise taxes on those earning less than $200,000. In the Obama campaign's political alchemy, this becomes "Romney Hood" and a $2,000 tax increase.
The Tax Policy Center also ignores the history of tax cutting. Every major marginal rate income tax cut of the last 50 years—1964, 1981, 1986 and 2003—was followed by an unexpectedly large increase in tax revenues, a surge in taxes paid by the rich, and a more progressive tax code—i.e., the share of taxes paid by the richest 1% rose.
For example, from 1980 to 2007, three tax rate cuts brought the highest marginal tax rate to 35% from 70%. Congressional Budget Office data show that when the tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid 18% of all federal income taxes. With the rate down to 35% in 2008, the share of taxes paid by the rich doubled to 40%.
The Tax Reform Act of 1986, which chopped the top income tax rate to 28% from 50%, was probably most similar to the Romney tax proposal because both were designed to lower rates and broaden the tax base. CBO and Martin Feldstein of the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the 1986 tax reform increased the share of taxes paid by the rich (to about 25% from 21% before the reform), in part because their reported taxable income rose as they lost tax shelters. Many businesses also changed their tax status from corporations to Subchapter S companies, thus paying taxes at the individual rate. This also increased the reported share of income declared, and tax paid, by the rich.
So on four separate occasions what TPC says is "mathematically impossible"—cutting tax rates and making the tax system more progressive—actually happened. Hats off to the scholars at TPC: Their study manages to claim that what happens in real life can't happen in theory. "
Also:
You can argue that Mr. Romney's expectation of 4% GDP growth is too rosy, but the recent White House mid-session budget review predicts 4% growth in both 2014 and 2015 despite a huge tax increase next year. The Romney plan is far more realistic than that wish in the dark.
The Tax Policy Center's claim that it's impossible to make the numbers add up is also refuted by President Obama's own Simpson-Bowles deficit commission report. The Romney plan of cutting the top tax rate to 28% and closing loopholes to pay for it is conceptually very close to what Simpson-Bowles recommended.
And here's the kicker: Simpson-Bowles assumed that the top rate could be cut to 28%, loopholes could be closed, revenues as a share of GDP would rise to 20% and the deficit could be cut by close to $1.5 trillion. The difference is that the Romney plan caps tax revenues at about 18% of GDP so that taxes don't have to rise on the middle class. If Mr. Romney's numbers don't add up, then neither do those in the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles plan that the media treat as the Holy Grail of deficit reduction.
|
Ok...
On August 12 2012 06:56 Savio wrote:Per http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443792604577574910276629448.html:The Tax Policy Center also ignores the history of tax cutting. Every major marginal rate income tax cut of the last 50 years—1964, 1981, 1986 and 2003—was followed by an unexpectedly large increase in tax revenues, a surge in taxes paid by the rich, and a more progressive tax code—i.e., the share of taxes paid by the richest 1% rose.
I don't think I need to state why this is a really stupid way to use statistics, but I'll do it anyways. The measure is conflating the very real effects of being on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, and it's also introducing effects from growing income inequality from 1970 onwards.
On August 12 2012 06:56 Savio wrote:
For example, from 1980 to 2007, three tax rate cuts brought the highest marginal tax rate to 35% from 70%. Congressional Budget Office data show that when the tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid 18% of all federal income taxes. With the rate down to 35% in 2008, the share of taxes paid by the rich doubled to 40%.
Same here.
On August 12 2012 06:56 Savio wrote:
The Tax Reform Act of 1986, which chopped the top income tax rate to 28% from 50%, was probably most similar to the Romney tax proposal because both were designed to lower rates and broaden the tax base. CBO and Martin Feldstein of the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the 1986 tax reform increased the share of taxes paid by the rich (to about 25% from 21% before the reform), in part because their reported taxable income rose as they lost tax shelters. Many businesses also changed their tax status from corporations to Subchapter S companies, thus paying taxes at the individual rate. This also increased the reported share of income declared, and tax paid, by the rich.
Let's assume that the above paragraph is correct and suffers from none of the...errors...evident in the previous two paragraphs.
Now tell me, what's the difference between reducing the top income tax rate from 50% to 28%, and reducing the top income tax rate from 35% to 28% while also reducing long term capital gains rates from 15% to 0%?
On August 12 2012 06:56 Savio wrote:
You can argue that Mr. Romney's expectation of 4% GDP growth is too rosy, but the recent White House mid-session budget review predicts 4% growth in both 2014 and 2015 despite a huge tax increase next year. The Romney plan is far more realistic than that wish in the dark.
The long run growth rate of the economy is 4%, off the top of my head. There's a huge difference between saying the economy will recover to 4% growth rate in two years because of a recovery...and saying GDP growth will recover to 4%/year because of your tax policy.
On August 12 2012 06:56 Savio wrote:
The Tax Policy Center's claim that it's impossible to make the numbers add up is also refuted by President Obama's own Simpson-Bowles deficit commission report. The Romney plan of cutting the top tax rate to 28% and closing loopholes to pay for it is conceptually very close to what Simpson-Bowles recommended.
And here's the kicker: Simpson-Bowles assumed that the top rate could be cut to 28%, loopholes could be closed, revenues as a share of GDP would rise to 20% and the deficit could be cut by close to $1.5 trillion. The difference is that the Romney plan caps tax revenues at about 18% of GDP so that taxes don't have to rise on the middle class. If Mr. Romney's numbers don't add up, then neither do those in the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles plan that the media treat as the Holy Grail of deficit reduction.
Oh god.
These retards didn't read the Simpson-Bowles report. Simpson and Bowles did NOT do the above through closing tax loopholes alone.
The deficit commission report, incidentally, was the work of two people--Simpson and Bowles. The report as made by the entire comission failed in comission.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 12 2012 06:56 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 06:32 acker wrote:On August 12 2012 06:29 Savio wrote:
So basically they said, "Romney hasn't given specifics on his plan so we assumed of his 2 promises (cut taxes and be revenue neutral) that he would break the tax cut promise and then we thought up a reasonable way he might do it, then we announced that his plan raises taxes on the middle class" They did not think up a reasonable way to do it. They took the most extreme way possible to maintain progressivity and the plan was still regressive. They even assumed growth effects per ROMNEY'S economics advisor. Romney hasn't given specifics on which loopholes that he's close. Therefore, the TPC chose the loopholes that would make his plan the most progressive. Any other loophole combination, given his pledges, makes the analysis that much more regressive. Why is this so hard to understand? If Romney wants the TPC to choose different assumptions, he just has to break pledges for deficit neutrality or tax preference for savings and investment. Per http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443792604577574910276629448.html:"The class warriors at the Tax Policy Center add all of this up and issue the headline-grabbing opinion that it is "mathematically impossible" to reduce tax rates and close loopholes in a way that raises the same amount of revenue. They do so in part by arbitrarily claiming that Mr. Romney would never eliminate certain loopholes (such as for municipal bond interest), though the candidate has said no such thing. Based on this invention, they then postulate that Mr. Romney would have to do something he also doesn't propose—which is raise taxes on those earning less than $200,000. In the Obama campaign's political alchemy, this becomes "Romney Hood" and a $2,000 tax increase. The Tax Policy Center also ignores the history of tax cutting. Every major marginal rate income tax cut of the last 50 years—1964, 1981, 1986 and 2003—was followed by an unexpectedly large increase in tax revenues, a surge in taxes paid by the rich, and a more progressive tax code—i.e., the share of taxes paid by the richest 1% rose.
Actually they're wrong. With the introduction of the Bush Tax Cuts we experienced a DECREASE in tax revenue as a percentage of GDP than the thirty-year average preceding it. So while maybe in the past that was the case, it is not the case today. It's one of the reasons our deficit grew and why we want to raise the taxes again.
Legit question: Can someone tell me what's wrong with keeping the tax rates as they are right now but closing the loopholes for the wealthy?
|
On August 12 2012 07:10 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 06:56 Savio wrote:On August 12 2012 06:32 acker wrote:On August 12 2012 06:29 Savio wrote:
So basically they said, "Romney hasn't given specifics on his plan so we assumed of his 2 promises (cut taxes and be revenue neutral) that he would break the tax cut promise and then we thought up a reasonable way he might do it, then we announced that his plan raises taxes on the middle class" They did not think up a reasonable way to do it. They took the most extreme way possible to maintain progressivity and the plan was still regressive. They even assumed growth effects per ROMNEY'S economics advisor. Romney hasn't given specifics on which loopholes that he's close. Therefore, the TPC chose the loopholes that would make his plan the most progressive. Any other loophole combination, given his pledges, makes the analysis that much more regressive. Why is this so hard to understand? If Romney wants the TPC to choose different assumptions, he just has to break pledges for deficit neutrality or tax preference for savings and investment. Per http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443792604577574910276629448.html:"The class warriors at the Tax Policy Center add all of this up and issue the headline-grabbing opinion that it is "mathematically impossible" to reduce tax rates and close loopholes in a way that raises the same amount of revenue. They do so in part by arbitrarily claiming that Mr. Romney would never eliminate certain loopholes (such as for municipal bond interest), though the candidate has said no such thing. Based on this invention, they then postulate that Mr. Romney would have to do something he also doesn't propose—which is raise taxes on those earning less than $200,000. In the Obama campaign's political alchemy, this becomes "Romney Hood" and a $2,000 tax increase. The Tax Policy Center also ignores the history of tax cutting. Every major marginal rate income tax cut of the last 50 years—1964, 1981, 1986 and 2003—was followed by an unexpectedly large increase in tax revenues, a surge in taxes paid by the rich, and a more progressive tax code—i.e., the share of taxes paid by the richest 1% rose.
Actually they're wrong. With the introduction of the Bush Tax Cuts we experienced a DECREASE in tax revenue as a percentage of GDP than the thirty-year average preceding it. So while maybe in the past that was the case, it is not the case today. It's one of the reasons our deficit grew and why we want to raise the taxes again. Legit question: Can someone tell me what's wrong with keeping the tax rates as they are right now but closing the loopholes for the wealthy?
Because at least one of the two candidates and his wealthy friends are benefiting massively from these loopholes.
|
|
|
On August 12 2012 07:09 acker wrote:Ok... I don't think I need to state why this is a really stupid way to use statistics. Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 06:56 Savio wrote:
For example, from 1980 to 2007, three tax rate cuts brought the highest marginal tax rate to 35% from 70%. Congressional Budget Office data show that when the tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid 18% of all federal income taxes. With the rate down to 35% in 2008, the share of taxes paid by the rich doubled to 40%. Same here.
Are you saying its an error to talk about federal income taxes when we are discussing federal income taxes? Not sure where you are going with with.
Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 06:56 Savio wrote:
The Tax Reform Act of 1986, which chopped the top income tax rate to 28% from 50%, was probably most similar to the Romney tax proposal because both were designed to lower rates and broaden the tax base. CBO and Martin Feldstein of the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the 1986 tax reform increased the share of taxes paid by the rich (to about 25% from 21% before the reform), in part because their reported taxable income rose as they lost tax shelters. Many businesses also changed their tax status from corporations to Subchapter S companies, thus paying taxes at the individual rate. This also increased the reported share of income declared, and tax paid, by the rich. Let's assume that the above paragraph is correct and suffers from none of the...errors...evident in the previous two paragraphs. Now tell me, what's the difference between reducing the top income tax rate from 50% to 28%, and reducing the top income tax rate from 35% to 28% while also reducing long term capital gains rates from 15% to 0%?
I'm actually struggling to see what your question has to do with the above paragraph. Anyone care to interpret for me?
|
On August 12 2012 07:10 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 06:56 Savio wrote:On August 12 2012 06:32 acker wrote:On August 12 2012 06:29 Savio wrote:
So basically they said, "Romney hasn't given specifics on his plan so we assumed of his 2 promises (cut taxes and be revenue neutral) that he would break the tax cut promise and then we thought up a reasonable way he might do it, then we announced that his plan raises taxes on the middle class" They did not think up a reasonable way to do it. They took the most extreme way possible to maintain progressivity and the plan was still regressive. They even assumed growth effects per ROMNEY'S economics advisor. Romney hasn't given specifics on which loopholes that he's close. Therefore, the TPC chose the loopholes that would make his plan the most progressive. Any other loophole combination, given his pledges, makes the analysis that much more regressive. Why is this so hard to understand? If Romney wants the TPC to choose different assumptions, he just has to break pledges for deficit neutrality or tax preference for savings and investment. Per http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443792604577574910276629448.html:"The class warriors at the Tax Policy Center add all of this up and issue the headline-grabbing opinion that it is "mathematically impossible" to reduce tax rates and close loopholes in a way that raises the same amount of revenue. They do so in part by arbitrarily claiming that Mr. Romney would never eliminate certain loopholes (such as for municipal bond interest), though the candidate has said no such thing. Based on this invention, they then postulate that Mr. Romney would have to do something he also doesn't propose—which is raise taxes on those earning less than $200,000. In the Obama campaign's political alchemy, this becomes "Romney Hood" and a $2,000 tax increase. The Tax Policy Center also ignores the history of tax cutting. Every major marginal rate income tax cut of the last 50 years—1964, 1981, 1986 and 2003—was followed by an unexpectedly large increase in tax revenues, a surge in taxes paid by the rich, and a more progressive tax code—i.e., the share of taxes paid by the richest 1% rose.
Actually they're wrong. With the introduction of the Bush Tax Cuts we experienced a DECREASE in tax revenue as a percentage of GDP than the thirty-year average preceding it. So while maybe in the past that was the case, it is not the case today. It's one of the reasons our deficit grew and why we want to raise the taxes again. Legit question: Can someone tell me what's wrong with keeping the tax rates as they are right now but closing the loopholes for the wealthy?
ummm...thats the whole point they are making. Tax cuts lead to growth of GDP. So you can see an increase in "Tax Revenues" as THEY said even if you see a decrease in "tax revenue as a percentage of GDP" as YOU said.
Both of which are good things BTW.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Uhm, dude, we experienced average higher growth of GDP during the Clinton era where tax rates were higher, and even with that growth we still maintained to receive higher tax revenue as a percentage than we do today.
So yeah, lots of factors go into driving up GDP, but it's a problem when revenue as a % is not keeping up.
|
On August 12 2012 07:21 Savio wrote:
Are you saying its an error to talk about federal income taxes when we are discussing federal income taxes? Not sure where you are going with with.
There are three major components to federal taxes; payroll, income, capital gains. All of these have had their tax rates changed by policy over the last thirty years. All of which have effects on one another, in terms of share of taxes paid.
The WSJ is making the error of using income only. It is then conflating the error by only comparing the share of income taxes, rather than the absolute value.
This makes the...analysis...impossible to distinguish from external effects.
For example, from 1980 to 2007, three tax rate cuts brought the highest marginal tax rate to 35% from 70%. Congressional Budget Office data show that when the tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid 18% of all federal income taxes. With the rate down to 35% in 2008, the share of taxes paid by the rich doubled to 40%.
For example, this part could have multiple different problems associated with it. But let's just focus on the biggest one.
The median laborer has had their real wages increase by something like 20% over the last 30 years. The average 1% laborer has had their income increased by something on the order of 300%. This would automatically shift share of income taxes paid regardless of tax policy.
|
On August 12 2012 07:31 Souma wrote:
Uhm, dude, we experienced average higher growth of GDP during the Clinton era where tax rates were higher, and even with that growth we still maintained to receive higher tax revenue as a percentage than we do today.
So yeah, lots of factors go into driving up GDP, but it's a problem when revenue as a % is not keeping up.
Point is that "tax as a percentage of GPD" doesn't matter in the argument they made. I'm not even sure why you brought it up. Their original argument was that after all recent major tax cuts, there was a subsequent jump in total government tax revenue. Then you started talking about tax as % of GDP out of left field.
I'm sure there is a debate to be had about taxes revenue as % of GDP, but it doesn't have to do with what they were saying.
|
On August 12 2012 07:09 acker wrote:I don't think I need to state why this is a really stupid way to use statistics, but I'll do it anyways. The measure is conflating the very real effects of being on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, and it's also introducing effects from growing income inequality from 1970 onwards.
I won't disagree with those two points (Laffer and inequality). I think you are missing part of their argument however. When tax rates are high there's a larger incentive to delay the realization of income since doing so will trigger a taxable event, along with other tax avoidance strategies.
I'm not sure if this also has an impact on inequality statistics since I do not know the specifics on how the accounting works for those numbers.
|
On August 12 2012 07:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I won't disagree with those two points (Laffer and inequality). I think you are missing part of their argument however. When tax rates are high there's a larger incentive to delay the realization of income since doing so will trigger a taxable event, along with other tax avoidance strategies.
This is certainly true. But "delaying the realization of income" is most often associated with capital gains, not income.
On the other hand, if you keep hosting tax decreases to return that income, the overally ability to collect taxes is negatively affected, as people become used to expecting tax holidays, and keep their money held in expectation of even lower tax rates.
In short, lowering tax rates just to get people to turn unrealized income (capital gains) is a short-term boost with long-term drag. It's not at all what tax policy should be written for.
|
Choosing Paul Ryan was monumentally stupid. He doesn't broaden his base, although he will probably experience more fervent GOP base support... at least until his next gaffe.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 12 2012 07:39 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 07:31 Souma wrote:
Uhm, dude, we experienced average higher growth of GDP during the Clinton era where tax rates were higher, and even with that growth we still maintained to receive higher tax revenue as a percentage than we do today.
So yeah, lots of factors go into driving up GDP, but it's a problem when revenue as a % is not keeping up. Point is that "tax as a percentage of GPD" doesn't matter in the argument they made. I'm not even sure why you brought it up. Their original argument was that after all recent major tax cuts, there was a subsequent jump in total government tax revenue. Then you started talking about tax as % of GDP out of left field. I'm sure there is a debate to be had about taxes revenue as % of GDP, but it doesn't have to do with what they were saying.
Sorry, I should have elaborated. The reason why I brought it up is because talking about tax revenue in absolute terms is meaningless. Of course over time tax revenues will increase as GDP increases - the important thing is how that revenue compares to actual GDP.
|
On August 12 2012 07:44 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 07:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I won't disagree with those two points (Laffer and inequality). I think you are missing part of their argument however. When tax rates are high there's a larger incentive to delay the realization of income since doing so will trigger a taxable event, along with other tax avoidance strategies. This is certainly true. But "delaying the realization of income" is most often associated with capital gains, not income. On the other hand, if you keep hosting tax decreases to return that income, the overally ability to collect taxes is negatively affected, as people become used to expecting tax holidays, and keep their money held in expectation of even lower tax rates. In short, lowering tax rates just to get people to turn unrealized income (capital gains) is a short-term boost with long-term drag. It's not at all what tax policy should be written for.
Yes deferrals are primarily for capital gains but the affect income that can be restructured as well (namely dividends). Lowering the tax rates does provide a short-term boost but not much of a long-term drag since future unearned income will be more willingly converted into realized income. There's also an efficiency argument here since it is not in the economy's best interest for poor investments to persist in order to avoid taxes.
High rates also make tax-exempt income and tax-equity more attractive and redirects investment into those areas (subsidy).
Certain forms of equity are also double-taxed which encourages the use of debt - which isn't in the public's interest either.
BTW I'm not arguing that tax cuts always pay for themselves, just that these factors exist and that they aren't always explicitly stated in the financial press (WSJ article) simply because of the audience.
|
On August 12 2012 03:18 Savio wrote:
About Paul Ryan...
Romney picking Paul Ryan is the biggest development of the campaign by far and may end up being the single biggest determinant of the shape of the election:
1. Now that Paul Ryan is on the ticket, that implies that Romney has signed on completely to the plan , not just passively but such that you could now consider it the Romney/Ryan plan
2. The Ryan plan is the first serious budget put out by either party to address the long term problem of entitlements in our country. It cannot be easily set aside and must be debated on its merits against Obama's plan (which has no permament fix to the entitlement plan)
3. This ensures that this campaign is NOT going to be about petty issues as Obama has tried to make it out to be. Nobody cares how much taxes Romney paid when there is a real debate to be had. How much taxes he paid or the closing of 1 steel plant are NOT big issues. They are sideshow issues that have been good to Obama. But I think from now on, this is going to be a debate about priciples and plans rather than character assassinations.
4. Its been shown throughout this campaign that when the discussion is about the economy, Romney fairs better. When it is about anything else, Obama fairs better. This choice puts the economy and the deficit front and center. Obama's 2 biggest failures will be what this election are gonna be about.
<3, finally someone else who gets it.
|
On August 12 2012 07:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 07:09 acker wrote:On August 12 2012 06:56 Savio wrote:Per http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443792604577574910276629448.html:The Tax Policy Center also ignores the history of tax cutting. Every major marginal rate income tax cut of the last 50 years—1964, 1981, 1986 and 2003—was followed by an unexpectedly large increase in tax revenues, a surge in taxes paid by the rich, and a more progressive tax code—i.e., the share of taxes paid by the richest 1% rose. I don't think I need to state why this is a really stupid way to use statistics, but I'll do it anyways. The measure is conflating the very real effects of being on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, and it's also introducing effects from growing income inequality from 1970 onwards. I won't disagree with those two points (Laffer and inequality). I think you are missing part of their argument however. When tax rates are high there's a larger incentive to delay the realization of income since doing so will trigger a taxable event, along with other tax avoidance strategies. I'm not sure if this also has an impact on inequality statistics since I do not know the specifics on how the accounting works for those numbers.
The idea behind the Laffer Curve and similar theories is the reduction in the cost-benefit ratio for investments of time and capital. The assumption is that a tax rate beyond some point reduces the will to increase personal output. "Why should I work 5 more hours a week on this project if the government is just going to take half of my paycheck?!"
|
On August 12 2012 06:56 Savio wrote:
The Tax Policy Center also ignores the history of tax cutting. Every major marginal rate income tax cut of the last 50 years—1964, 1981, 1986 and 2003—was followed by an unexpectedly large increase in tax revenues, a surge in taxes paid by the rich, and a more progressive tax code—i.e., the share of taxes paid by the richest 1% rose.
That is the unsubstantiated bullshit that lets Republicans ignore reality. "Cutting taxes increases government revenue, everytime! It says so at the Heritage Foundation!" What kind of voodoo is that, anyways? Cutting taxes might spur economic growth in situations, but the amount of growth required to turn those tax cuts into more revenue for our government is voodoo economics. It almost never works that way.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
Look at the graphs and numbers. Reagan's tax cuts gave our government less revenue and was the biggest kick-starter to our national debt in our nation's history. But I guess if you could acknowledge that fact, you wouldn't be a Republican.
|
On August 12 2012 03:18 Savio wrote:
3. This ensures that this campaign is NOT going to be about petty issues as Obama has tried to make it out to be. Nobody cares how much taxes Romney paid when there is a real debate to be had. How much taxes he paid or the closing of 1 steel plant are NOT big issues. They are sideshow issues that have been good to Obama. But I think from now on, this is going to be a debate about priciples and plans rather than character assassinations.
Please, Obama has been campaigning on the "two different visions for America" theme for months, and it hardly gets more about issues than that. In fact, the main response of the Romney campaign to Obama's "collectivity and government matter" speech was taking one sentence out of context and doing a dishonest character assassination based on that. Don't try to paint the Obama campaign as more petty than Romney's, because it's just not true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
