Here's a way to understand tax cuts

[Lucky... 0]

This is a site I ran across, I'm not asking anyone to buy it just because it's Alternet, whatever the hell they are, who they are; I don't know or care. I'm not pushing these guys as an authority, just try to refute the logic.

They say what I've been saying for a while, the ideas I came to by myself with simple observation.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/106979/

Quote

The real-world effects of tax policy are counterintuitive.

They run exactly opposite the conventional wisdom. They defy what the Heritage Foundation calls common sense and what the American Enterprise Institute calls logic.

Yep, the ideas of trickle-down seem so sound, yet they have been proven wrong time and again. Now it's just an ideolgues dream/fantasy. Counterintuitive is a great way to state tax increases being positive.

Quote

Tax rate increases are followed by real economic growth.

Examples include Hoover in 1932, Roosevelt in 1936 and 1940, Bush the Elder in 1991 and Clinton in1993.

Well, just a coincidence or will we use the sliding neo-con scale to move around credit for growth? Kinda obvious guys, live in denial, I'm ok withit.

Quote

Large tax cuts are followed by a boom, a bubble and a crash.

1929, 1987 and 2008 are examples.

Well? Who to blame? Are you gonna blame the GD on Wilson? Even your own original neo-con, Hoover had to raise taxes 260% in one fell swoop as he realized tax cuts my friends were idiotic.

Quote

Why do high taxes create a stronger economy?

I used to run a small business -- a commercial film production company.

Every time we took a dollar out as personal income, it instantly turned into 50 cents.

If we didn't really need the money, that was an incentive to keep it in the company and to find ways to spend it that took it out of the taxable profit column but increased the value of the company.

High taxes create an incentive to reinvest profits into long-term growth.

And this is the theme of my point: High taxes create an incentive to reinvest profits into long-term growth.

When fascist garbage like Reagan cuts taxes, all the corporate crooks see this as a way to pull profits w/o actually having to cheat and lie on your taxes. This is tax cheating legitimized and legalized. Hell, even when one of his cronies was caught cheating, he pardoned his criminal conviction. COULD IT BE ANY MORE FUCKING CLEAR: FASCIST PIG RONNIE WANTED TO MAKE LEGAL CORPORATE TAX EVASION. And he did. It just makes sense, if I had gobs of money and I had to reinvest it due to high taxes, once the tax rate dropped the window was open and I better pull it before some Democrat with a conscience came in and raised taxes again, closing the window. Then, if I decided to venture into business, I better pull my profits quick before they get trapped and I'm forced to reinvest.

With high taxes, the only way to retain the bulk of the wealth created by a business is by reinvesting it in the business -- in plants, equipment, staff, research and development, new products and all the rest.

I've been saying just this for some time. Of course, with higher taxes now you have to build that warehouse and man it 24/7 or just turn over your money to the gov, so you build it. You knew it was teh right thing to do, you were just too busy pulling profits to do the right thing. The movie, Pretty Woman illustrates this as a corporate raider who put people out of work.

Quote

Low taxes create an incentive for profit taking.

It is easy to confuse profitability with wealth creation.

They are not the same.

This is what I was saying. Profit taking benefits a couple people, long-term wealth creation benefits the entire country.

Quote

The theory is that if the rich can keep their money, they will invest in businesses that create jobs, more businesses, more tax revenue and greater "wealth" for the nation.

That sounds like logic and common sense. But is it, in practice, what happened?

Once tax cutting began, the culture of business changed.

This is part of trickle down logic. It would work if teh very rich played their part, but at the last minute they pull out and decide not to reinvest, this stagnates the system, drives down labor prices and trashes the system.

Now, hopefully Rushesque comments stay out, but there will be several one-liners meaning nothing, hopefully we can get some good discourse here.

Again, I'm not posting the author as an authority or no specific credibility being assigned to them, just the writing's content.

EDITED TO ADD: This is obviously a leftist publication. For the 3rd time, I'm stating that I'm not assigning crerdibility to the publication either way, I just like the article, so take it for it's words not that I'm saying this author is right because......

Now see if the brainless drones can actually address the substance w/o attacking the author. If you need to, assign the article to me, it's what I've been saying for a long time, virtually verbatim.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

You have found someone who agrees with you.
Congratulations.
Further proof that even a blind pig can, indeed, find some corn.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You have found someone who agrees with you.
Congratulations.
Further proof that even a blind pig can, indeed, find some corn.

Leave your family out of this.

See, I knew no one could actually address the issue, rather attack the author. I'm giving them no credibility, just address the words. Oh, I see, you can't.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Oh, I see, you can't.

We have, over and over and over again.

We're tired of trying to teach you a lesson you clearly can't grasp.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Oh, I see, you can't.

We have, over and over and over again.

We're tired of trying to teach you a lesson you clearly can't grasp.

"can't grasp"? Or simply ignoring so as not to disrupt his agenda?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,147]

Apparently you can't refute the article so you insult Lucky instead.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Apparently you can't refute the article so you insult Lucky instead.

That and attacking the source are all tactics taught by you perfesser

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Apparently you can't refute the article so you insult Lucky instead.

That and attacking the source are all tactics taught by you perfesser

Lucky's source is not one I would choose, but it's every bit as legitimate for discussion as hwt's source on Grover Cleveland, or someone else's frequent use of Strategy Page, and a rather better source than the right wing blogosphere sources that are often used..

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Apparently you can't refute the article so you insult Lucky instead.

That and attacking the source are all tactics taught by you perfesser

Lucky's source is every bit as legitimate for discussion as hwt's source on Grover Cleveland, or someone else's frequent use of Strategy Page, and a rather better source than the right wing blogosphere sources that are often used..

But it is all about you, him and your sources

You teach us that here daily my good teacher.

Or is this opinion related and a do as I say not as I do type topic?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Apparently you can't refute the article so you insult Lucky instead.

That and attacking the source are all tactics taught by you perfesser

Lucky's source is every bit as legitimate for discussion as hwt's source on Grover Cleveland, or someone else's frequent use of Strategy Page, and a rather better source than the right wing blogosphere sources that are often used..

But it is all about you, him and your sources

You teach us that here daily my good teacher.

Or is this opinion related and a do as I say not as I do type topic?

Interpretation: you have no coherent argument with the content of his post and you can't compromise the legitimacy of the source.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

poor lucky - his thread has already been hijacked by a seminar on Kallend's debate avoidance techniques.

------

The base premise is the false one. High taxes are not an incentive to keep your money in the business to risk it with the hope to make more money that would be taxed ever more highly. What's the reward in that?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Apparently you can't refute the article so you insult Lucky instead.

That and attacking the source are all tactics taught by you perfesser

Lucky's source is every bit as legitimate for discussion as hwt's source on Grover Cleveland, or someone else's frequent use of Strategy Page, and a rather better source than the right wing blogosphere sources that are often used..

But it is all about you, him and your sources

You teach us that here daily my good teacher.

Or is this opinion related and a do as I say not as I do type topic?

Interpretation: you have no coherent argument with the content of his post and you can't compromise the legitimacy of the source.

Avoid and redirect 101, lesson 2

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Apparently you can't refute the article so you insult Lucky instead.

That and attacking the source are all tactics taught by you perfesser

Lucky's source is not one I would choose, but it's every bit as legitimate for discussion as hwt's source on Grover Cleveland, or someone else's frequent use of Strategy Page, and a rather better source than the right wing blogosphere sources that are often used..

Againj, I don't care about thesiurce, I'm not putting any merits to teh source, I've said this 3 or 4 times now. I'm asking people to refute the merits of the message, the same one I've extended several times. They can't, sothey insult. Or in Mike's case, he claims he has refuted it, obviously he has not or he would.

Neo-cons hide behind the concept, the dream of trickle down but are unable to demonstrate/illustrate any historical success in the midst of the last 80+ years of failure.

They live on this ideal, which is why they are legitimately ideologues. If they could come up with any evidence they would. They can't so they turn it on me or the source which I am not promoting, just the historically factual renderings in the article.

Fuck the author, fuck teh website; actually disporve the writings/evidence.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

poor lucky - his thread has already been hijacked by a seminar on Kallend's debate avoidance techniques.

------

The base premise is the false one. High taxes are not an incentive to keep your money in the business to risk it with the hope to make more money that would be taxed ever more highly. What's the reward in that?

Sucks to be you guys, I can't believe you guys don't look in the mirror and and acknowledge this data/evidence trumps the shit out of your nonexistent evidence.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

poor lucky - his thread has already been hijacked by a seminar on Kallend's debate avoidance techniques.

------

The base premise is the false one. High taxes are not an incentive to keep your money in the business to risk it with the hope to make more money that would be taxed ever more highly. What's the reward in that?

Sucks to be you guys, I can't believe you guys don't look in the mirror and and acknowledge this data/evidence trumps the shit out of your nonexistent evidence.

So it would follow that a reduction in government spending would have much the same affect as a tax increase?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Sucks to be you guys, I can't believe you guys don't look in the mirror and and acknowledge this data/evidence trumps the shit out of your nonexistent evidence.

says the guy whose theory (wildly changing) was that we need a 70% tax rate to be well off, despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

poor lucky - his thread has already been hijacked by a seminar on Kallend's debate avoidance techniques.

------

The base premise is the false one. High taxes are not an incentive to keep your money in the business to risk it with the hope to make more money that would be taxed ever more highly. What's the reward in that?

Sucks to be you guys, I can't believe you guys don't look in the mirror and and acknowledge this data/evidence trumps the shit out of your nonexistent evidence.

So it would follow that a reduction in government spending would have much the same affect as a tax increase?

No, because a reduction is spending, usually affects the lower classes, stagnates the economy. Again, it depends where the spending cuts are, so that is a vague question.

But tax cuts help virtually only the upper class since they pay most of the taxes and possess most of teh money.

So distribution of wealth continues to spread under your proposed plan.

If we look at the Clintin years, he and congress sent up plans in his forst year to rause taxes 9% and cut spending, esp military spending and that combination worked well. Of coirse the dot.com boom didn't hirt either, but he would have seen some gains w/o it. Just think if he had been able to raise taxes even more and perhaps cut spending even more, he undountedly would have seen the debt shrink. Of course it would be academic as the genius in waiting would have cut taxes and increased spending, so that would have undone any good.

So far you are the only opposing poster to be constructive, why not take anything from that site I posted or my writings and refute it? I would welcome it. If your theory is that tax cuts help, please show me where they historically have, since any person's theories are best supported by historical evidence.

I think it seems clear that massive tax cuts only do harm. Now if teh rich do their part and reinvest then I could see it working. But they don't and I can't blame them; it makes sense to pull your money to safety if you can do so w/o penalty. I don't want to rip the rich, but I do want to force reinvestment, after all, they became rich under this system in most cases, why not keep it going and even build your wealth while creating jobs for others less successful?

This is how I see it:

- The rich make millions

- Taxes are high, they must reinvest in order to keep it so they do

- Many times the rich have virtually all of their capital tied up in investments, so they are only rich on paper and not in their account. So they reinvest, build new ventures, employ more people, etc. SInce their money is tied up in assets, they must borrow to purchase, so they do and keep the banks solvent. They keep people employed via their investments.

- Lower taxes and now the rich decide to pull their cash, pay what little they have to if anything that they can't writeoff. Now they buy everything with cash, but are often very cheap. They don't borrow money and the banks go insolvent and contract. The GDP falls as does unemployment rise. Wages fall and the rich do well, masses do like shit.

- Now, keep taxes high and the rich must reinvest a lot of their gross earnings in order to keep them, they borrow money, employ people and actually become more rich but on paper thru investments. They actually care about the state of the nation since they are so vested into it. This worls well for everyone and historically is upheld via all kinds of evidence.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Sucks to be you guys, I can't believe you guys don't look in the mirror and and acknowledge this data/evidence trumps the shit out of your nonexistent evidence.

says the guy whose theory (wildly changing) was that we need a 70% tax rate to be well off, despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

You talk all this evidence, so show us how great it was when taxes were the lowest.

- Debt standard: Since FDR, the start of the new economy with social welfare, military, etc we haven't done well and the debt has soared once we come off 70%. Here's a graph describing such: http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx141/Br549x123/TopMargTaxBrktanddetails.jpg

Look at 1969, that's the last time the debt has fallen, right during that brief tax increase. Then look at fascist ronnies years; the debt goes nuts. More inconspicuously, look at the 1970's where taxes were dropped to 70%, you can proportionately see the debt rise during those years, capped off by FR's massive cut to 28%.

Here: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hemptopia.org/images/debt1.gif&imgrefurl=http://hemptopia.org/Greatest_Gen_s_longest_War.php&h=431&w=456&sz=5&tbnid=-hKLrycBd3UgyM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnational%2Bdebt%2Bgraph&zoom=1&hl=en&usg=__sngzqhl9MTNUhMw40j49CxtAcTQ=&sa=X&ei=0UBvTMr1BJGesQPFrMG5Cw&ved=0CDAQ9QEwBA You can see the debt starts its ascent in the late 60's, by mid 50's it's picking up steam then capped off in the 80's. Now look at my tax chart; there is an inverse effect as taxes fall, the debt rises. Hard to deny, I'm sure you'll find a way. Txes are cut to 70% in the mid 60's, right before the debt charts creeps up. In 1969 in fell with that brief tax increase.

If you guys don't want to refer to teh data, I don't blame you, it really doesn't support your tax cuts helps claim.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Sucks to be you guys, I can't believe you guys don't look in the mirror and and acknowledge this data/evidence trumps the shit out of your nonexistent evidence.

says the guy whose theory (wildly changing) was that we need a 70% tax rate to be well off, despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

We wouldn't have seen the gains under Clinton had the dot.com boom not happened. We would have seen some gain, just not the massive gain we did. Taxes need to go to 50% tomorrow and 60-70% in a couple years or we're just fucked, regardless of who's in office. The American public is so uneducated that they are in love with tax cuts and actually think they help; the data shows the exact opposite.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Apparently you can't refute the article so you insult Lucky instead.

I have no desire to attempt to refute the article. There are pros and cons to tax cuts and if the answer were easy then there would be no argument as to whether we need them or not. I believe a government should run lean and within it's means, not overindulgent and needing to take 30%, 40%, 50%, etc. of what a person works for and earns.
I was merely pointing out that lucky has managed to finally find somebody who shares his beliefs. The chances of that happening I compared to a blind pig finding corn, something they can do if they sniff around long enough.
It could not have been an insult since insults are not allowed here in SC.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Apparently you can't refute the article so you insult Lucky instead.

Quote

I have no ABILITY to attempt to refute the article.

Fixed it. See, I really feel bad for all the ideologues here, it's not a blow that you are unable to defend your cult-like ideology, as there isn't proof to be had. It's not that you're not articulate enough or that you're unable to locate the data, IT'S THAT YOU CAN'T FIND DATA THAT ISN'T THERE. So you find yourself in a spot where you must say that you just don't want to find the data cause you're just not interested to find it, or Mike claiming he's already done it, etc.

Quote

There are pros and cons to tax cuts and if the answer were easy then there would be no argument as to whether we need them or not.

OK, list the pros and cons seperately and defend each. This is you trying to find a medium and walk or run away. I'm looking for the pros. Hell, show me the cons as a start, and not as an ideology but as an example; they cut taxes here and all tehse bad things HAPPENED, not when they cut taxes these bad things CAN HAPPEN. I won't wait up.

Quote

I believe a government should run lean and within it's means, not overindulgent and needing to take 30%, 40%, 50%, etc. of what a person works for and earns.

Or steals, yea we get it. BTW, much of the time the gov doesn't actually take that money, it's just a deterrent to force the very rich to reinvest it and write it off. That creates growth, stablilty and long-term success rather than short-term profit-taking, the lovechild of the RW; they call it worlking hard and earning. When will the party who claims to be the ones who loves America actually show they do instead of yanking their money out and crippling it?

Quote

I was merely pointing out that lucky has managed to finally find somebody who shares his beliefs.

No, as I've said 4 times here so far, I'm not relying on the source but the concept. I realize you look for people, me, the article's author, etc to fend off when the data is too strong to refute, I think we all see that. Come on, show historical data where this article's or my message is wrong once, then show a constant errant pattern rather than the obvious historically constantly, reapeatedly correct patern it and I have shown. What you're trying to say is that it isn't fair to raise taxes, not that it doesn't work best. If so, hang on that, but quit trying to pretend that tax cuts work.

Quote

The chances of that happening I compared to a blind pig finding corn, something they can do if they sniff around long enough.

The truly pathetic thing is that you I post data, I even found and enhanced that historical tax chart, scanned and posted it on photobucket, yet all you have are lame PA's and you do some kind of retarded victory dance. Come on, show us HOW you're right, not that you feel you are right, but, "have no desire to attempt to refute the article" or me. Come correct or look continue to look silly.

Quote

It could not have been an insult since insults are not allowed here in SC.

Yea, w/e. Who gives a shit what it was, quit running and make admissions or drop us some evidence, not fragments, not blueprints, but historical events that are not microcosmic or abstact.

I get it, we get it, you're trying to keep a dead ideology inflated that has fist-sized holes all thru it.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Fixed it. See, I really feel bad for all the ideologues here, it's not a blow that you are unable to defend your cult-like ideology, as there isn't proof to be had. It's not that you're not articulate enough or that you're unable to locate the data, IT'S THAT YOU CAN'T FIND DATA THAT ISN'T THERE.

Kennedy tax cuts
Reagan tax cuts
Clinton tax cuts

None of which you allow in your little cult-world because it refutes what you're trying to prove.

Quote

I get it, we get it, you're I'm trying to keep a dead ideology inflated that has fist-sized holes all thru it.

Why, yes...yes you are.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Belgian_Draft 0]

"Come on, show us HOW you're right, not that you feel you are right,"

Right about what, lucky? What claims did I make?
You are still assuming everybody is out to get you.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Fixed it. See, I really feel bad for all the ideologues here, it's not a blow that you are unable to defend your cult-like ideology, as there isn't proof to be had. It's not that you're not articulate enough or that you're unable to locate the data, IT'S THAT YOU CAN'T FIND DATA THAT ISN'T THERE.

Quote

Kennedy tax cuts

From 91% to what, 80%ish? OK, nothign wrong with that, I don't advocate a 90% tax rate unless there is need like a needless war. The debt was fairly stable so he was ok to shave taxes from 90 to 80%. You have made my point to say that 80% top brkt is fine; I agree.

Quote

Reagan tax cuts

Ok and what about them? You call them successful when receipts never met outlays and deficit spending was EXTREMELY GROTESQUE. Again, you have made my point that tax cuts to below 50%, 40% etc are bad. Show me, w/o using a microcosmic argument, how deep tax cuts are beneficial. Merely naming 3 periods of cuts w/o explanation means nothing.

Quote

Clinton tax cuts

Oh, I see, he jacked taxes up, the deficit turned to a surplus and then he made 1 small concession to teh R's by shaving the cap gains tax 8% and you call that a massive tax cut? What a joke, his 9% increase in addition to GHWB's 3% 4 years earlier to the INCOME TAX RATE dwarfs capital gains taxes. What % of teh total tax receipts comes from income taxes vs cap gains taxes? I bet cap gains taxes don't account for 1/4th of what income taxes do. How do you explain the massive gains made pre from 1993 to 1997 with Clinton's tax increases before his puny cap gains cuts? Or do you ignore those? How do you account for teh dip in revs as the cap gains tax was cut 8%? Or do you ignore?

Quote

None of which you allow in your little cult-world because it refutes what you're trying to prove.

Oh and you going to borrow me calling Libertarians cult-like?

As for these 3 examples, Kennedy from 91 to 80%, Reagan who left used deficit spending to replace revs from taxation tripling or doubling the debt depending upon how you spin it, and Clinton who raised taxes emensely until his puny cap gains cut after the repair had been well-established, this doesn't address things like:

- Harding / Coolidge cutting taxes from 73% to 25% leading us into the GD via profit taking and withdrawing investment in America.

- Hoover having to raise taxes all teh way back up to 63% to start recovery as things were sliding into the garbage under, "let it fix itself" policy.

- FDR having to raise taxes more and open social programs to end the sufferring.

- Eisenhower leaving the top brkt at 91% to pay down the debt for 3 of his 8 years.

- Tell me why our best years are under high taxes, worst years under low taxes http://i750.photobucket.com/...axBrktanddetails.jpg

- When taxes are raised, real economic growth raises too, when taxes cut, growth shrinks, debt grows.

- Large tax cuts are followed by a boom, a bubble and a crash.

1929, 1987 and 2008 are examples.

- Tell us how tax cuts lead to long-term investment, unless you've changed your postion on that. Both the idea and the application are supported by common logic that if you raise taxes the rich will shield their profits by reinvesting, show me how that is flase.


So tell us all these things, Mikeee. A quick hit-n-run does nothing. SO you post 3 presidents, 2 of whom cut taxes, 1 mostly raised them and cut them a slight bit after the + benefits of his increases were realized. You should show some data if you care to defend or if you can at all.

• Quote

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

"Come on, show us HOW you're right, not that you feel you are right,"

Quote

Right about what, lucky? What claims did I make?

Other than very carefully skirting the issue and writing a few PA's, your position is that the gov:

I believe a government should run lean and within it's means, not overindulgent and needing to take 30%, 40%, 50%, etc. of what a person works for and earns.


So you advocate low spending and low taxing, unless we're talking about all social programs and the military, you believe taxes are too high and s/b next to nothing with no benefits to the needy, limited military, etc. Or you can keep playing hide-the-sausage and not completely stating how you feel while dropping big inuendos about tax cuts my friends.

Maybe grow a set and actually place your position or just keep running; hell I don't care.

Quote

You are still assuming everybody is out to get you.

Probably one of the more moronic things I've read. No one is out to get me, the morons of America aren't intelligent enough to read about taxation history to realize that low taxes are the cause of this mess.

• Quote