tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post5998624008991705729..comments2023-11-02T03:10:39.674-07:00Comments on GeeeeeZ!: BUSINESS in America...does it have a future?Zhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-68914930858014205472010-12-07T11:32:21.209-08:002010-12-07T11:32:21.209-08:00BTW you're forgetting the taxes the man is alr...BTW you're forgetting the taxes the man is already paying on the 250k if it were reduced just another 9% (+3%) tax increase he could most definitely hire someoneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-16747620684608740622010-12-06T22:45:16.959-08:002010-12-06T22:45:16.959-08:00It's enough for me that you see the folly of g...<b>It's enough for me that you see the folly of government attempting to tax us into prosperity.</b><br /><br /><i>Apples and oranges</i><br /><br />Actually it's social security taxes and corporate taxes. Raise one, lower the other or vice vers or raise both, as high as you want them to be, the federal government will never break collecting more than 20% or so of the GDP in revenue.<br /><br />Your rebuttal is a confirmation, not a rebuttal.<br /><br />I'm sure there's a box of Rice A Roni available for your playing today. <br /><br />Remember to boil it first.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-50144950563540787542010-12-06T13:04:56.249-08:002010-12-06T13:04:56.249-08:00cont
Incidentally, the claim that unrealistic su...cont<br /><br /> Incidentally, the claim that unrealistic supply side Reagan Administration revenue projections caused large budget deficits during the 1980s is false. Nonetheless, this false allegation is often used against current tax reform proposals. The official Reagan revenue projections immediately following<br /> enactment of ERTA did not assume huge revenue increases, and were actually quite close to the CBO revenue projections. Even the Democrat-controlled CBO projected that deficits would fall after the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts. The real problem was a recession that neither CBO nor OMB could foresee. Even so, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989.Tickerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13500388925461726862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-41843870754362903682010-12-06T13:02:52.647-08:002010-12-06T13:02:52.647-08:00The share of the income tax burden borne by the to...The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.<br /><br /> A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the<br /> increase borne by the top one percent.<br /><br /> First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income.<br /><br /> The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the<br /> Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases.Tickerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13500388925461726862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-64606955377693920282010-12-06T13:02:10.841-08:002010-12-06T13:02:10.841-08:00From the JEC Report 1996:
The criticism...From the JEC Report 1996:<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /> The criticism that the tax payments of the rich would fall under ERTA was based on a static conception of human behavior. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.<br /> Given the current interest in tax reform and tax relief, a review of the effects of the Reagan tax cuts on taxpayer behavior and tax burden provides useful information. During the 1980s ERTA had reduced personal tax rates by about 25<br /> percent, while the Tax Reform Act of 1986 chopped them yet again.<br /><br /><br />High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion. A reduction in high marginal tax rates would boost long term economic growth, and reduce the attractiveness of tax shelters and other forms of tax avoidance. The economic benefits of ERTA were summarized by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth." <br /><br /> Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by<br /> the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. The graph below illustrates changes in the tax burden during this period.Tickerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13500388925461726862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-55684365343273853352010-12-06T12:58:28.948-08:002010-12-06T12:58:28.948-08:00Craig it is you who are impervious to anything of ...Craig it is you who are impervious to anything of fact. Facts show over and over that reduction in taxation does increase revenue, unfortunately they don't reduce spending by leftist who want to keep em dum and down on the plantation. These same facts have been disputed by the leftis by every means possible but NEVER PROVEN WRONG. The same was with Bush's tax cuts and JFK's tax cuts in the 60's. <br /><br />I said the 2007 budget was the demonkkkrats and it was. They controlled Congress and they passed it and Obama voted for it. That makes it as much and more his and the dems as it was Bush's. Remember The congress passes the budget, not the President. So far Odumbo hasn't had the balls to submit one that the dems will vote on. Submitted but never voted on is the case in fact. Why, because it would<br /> have killed them even more in the past elections. NO GUTS! Now read the report and come back and try to piss on my leg again. You've lost this one Craig just like all the damn libtards before you have. You can't dispute the facts and the numbers.The IRS, the Treasury, The Congressional reports all verify these facts but you fools on the left continue to try to dispute them as well as label them Tax Cuts For the Rich. Read the facts! IT AINT SO. <br /><br />Report follows in next post. I suggest you read it before making more ignorant comments.Tickerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13500388925461726862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-32498439774508124172010-12-06T07:24:55.789-08:002010-12-06T07:24:55.789-08:00Social Security is in the black and will be for th...<i>Social Security is in the black and will be for the next 20 years.</i><br /><br />I'm glad you're not running things b/c 20 years is nothing with the way the economy moves. I can already tell you the current state of the economy, with the Bush years, and, I believe, a systemic 10% unemployment, the SS numbers won't look the same in 10 years. B/c projected numbers, especially coming from SS, will never assume for the worse.<br /><br />So it's not because it's in the black (I don't even know the numbers) we can just take it lightly, especially when gov manages the money.<br /><br />It's irresponsible to think that way.FrogBurgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-37075886661243316402010-12-06T07:13:38.309-08:002010-12-06T07:13:38.309-08:00I don't like paying taxes any more than you. W...<i>I don't like paying taxes any more than you. What we are talking about is returning to Clinton era taxes on the top 2%. The 90's were the only time in the last 30 years that wages for the middle class rose. And yes, cut spending. Social Security is in the black and will be for the next 20 years. Medicare costs need to be addressed and defense spending. Those are the 3 biggies.</i><br /><br />See. That's your hypocrisy. You have a moralist attitude. That's my point. Your whole point is not based on anything but class envy.FrogBurgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-73003003829724378982010-12-06T07:03:56.873-08:002010-12-06T07:03:56.873-08:00The wealthy took their Bush tax cuts and sheltered...<i>The wealthy took their Bush tax cuts and sheltered it in off shore accounts and invested overseas. We can look at what happened. They didn't invest in new business. They didn't create new jobs. That's a fact. Zero net private sector jobs created in the 8 years of Bush. <br /></i><br /><br />Yeah and does that mean it's because of tax cuts?<br />Nope.<br /><br />The economy started to sink. I too became cautious and stop spending, and saved my money away.<br /><br />When you don't know what the economy will look like, that's what you do. That's what I keep doing.<br /><br />So myself am not creating jobs b/c of something called uncertainty and risk.FrogBurgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-25951517515815541782010-12-06T07:03:02.136-08:002010-12-06T07:03:02.136-08:00Try Kurt Hauser
It's enough for me that you s...<i>Try Kurt Hauser<br /><br />It's enough for me that you see the folly of government attempting to tax us into prosperity.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/odd-numbers/2008/05/20/lying-with-charts-wsj-edition/" rel="nofollow">Apples and oranges</a>Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06124629994153584904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-29245185682959983002010-12-06T07:01:00.050-08:002010-12-06T07:01:00.050-08:00Hey Craig, you never addressed my question.
If yo...<i>Hey Craig, you never addressed my question.<br /><br />If you like paying taxes so much, do you add more to your tax return every year? You know you still have the opportunity to do that, do you?</i><br /><br />I don't like paying taxes any more than you. What we are talking about is returning to Clinton era taxes on the top 2%. The 90's were the only time in the last 30 years that wages for the middle class rose. And yes, cut spending. Social Security is in the black and will be for the next 20 years. Medicare costs need to be addressed and defense spending. Those are the 3 biggies.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06124629994153584904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-40641905287144903402010-12-06T06:53:02.229-08:002010-12-06T06:53:02.229-08:00So far Craig you haven't proved crap much less...<i>So far Craig you haven't proved crap much less proved what I said to be wrong.</i><br /><br />Not to you, your impervious to evidence.<br /><br /><i>The fact is when people KEEP more of their money, they have a tendency to spend and invest more. When they are taxed, they find shelters and don't spend thus lowing the amount of revenue the government takes in.</i><br /><br />This is just the opposite of what actually happened. The wealthy took their Bush tax cuts and sheltered it in off shore accounts and invested overseas. We can look at what happened. They didn't invest in new business. They didn't create new jobs. That's a fact. Zero net private sector jobs created in the 8 years of Bush. <br /><br /><i>The last budget deficit that Demonkkkrats "inherited" was FY 2007, the last of the Republican congressional budgets.</i><br /><br />You really don't understand the budget process. When Bush proposes a $3.5T budget and Congress passed a $3.5T budget, it's Bush's budget. <br /><br />Even if what you say were true, explain the $3T added to the debt from 2001-2006. Repubs controlled everything. This is after being handed a budget in surplus.<br /><br /><i>The reason the economy is where it is is because "investors", the small business owner and even big business does not trust the fool dictating policy from the WH , when he's there, nor do they trust his socialist agenda in ObamaNOCARE, his "crap and tax" plan or anything else coming out of his administration.</i><br /><br />Okay. Now what explain the dismal economy of 2001-2008? I guess you can point to the housing bubble in the mid aughts. Built entirely on debt.<br /><br /><i>And craig, JFYI, I included Clinton's years. Can't you read? It says the last FIVE administrations have resulted in tax revenue increases to the fed's coffers. </i><br /><br />Clinton raised taxes on the top 2%. Revenues increased from income tax and corporate taxes. The economy grew at roughly the same rate as the Reagan years and the budget ended up being balanced. Bush cut taxes and revenues from income tax (which ALWAYS grow), grew at a much lower rate. <br /><br />Rev. from ITax 2001-$1.245T<br />Rev. from ITax 2008-$$1.150TCraighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06124629994153584904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-23866997165509604852010-12-05T20:56:14.446-08:002010-12-05T20:56:14.446-08:00no popcorn for you<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkz9AQhQFNY" rel="nofollow">no popcorn for you</a>(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-20944177123765337622010-12-05T19:42:21.391-08:002010-12-05T19:42:21.391-08:00There probably is a tax rate of diminishing return...<i>There probably is a tax rate of diminishing returns, but no one, not even Arthur Laffer, knows what it is.</i><br /><br />Try <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/254034/hausers-law-reality-isnt-negotiable-veronique-de-rugy" rel="nofollow">Kurt Hauser</a><br /><br />It's enough for me that you see the folly of government attempting to tax us into prosperity.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-31775862555684005352010-12-05T17:11:23.546-08:002010-12-05T17:11:23.546-08:00Hey ticker I agree 150%. Cut spending including so...Hey ticker I agree 150%. Cut spending including some military ones in regions where they don't need the US presence. Tired supporting Europe b/c they can't afford a military themselves b/c their welfare state takes all the budget.FrogBurgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-18703108700499891252010-12-05T17:08:14.719-08:002010-12-05T17:08:14.719-08:00Now for my two cents worth and I'm leaving the...Now for my two cents worth and I'm leaving the tax thing to the rest of you to argue until the cows come home.<br /><br />It ain't about TAXES! It's about SPENDING! <br /><br />They can cut taxes, raise taxes what ever but until the SPENDING CEASES all the taxes, cuts or raises won't be worth a tinkers dam. That my friends is the only way we will ever see daylight in this country again. As long as spending buys votes it ain't gonna end. Keep em stupid and keep em on the plantation. That's the fools in DC plan. <br /><br />The fools on the Deficit Commission are saying cuts are necessary While within the report it makes many necessary cuts, it doesn't go nearly far enough (and Congress is likely to avoid going even as far as the report does), and it calls for massive tax increases totaling $1.13 trillion. For every $1 in cuts there are $2 in tax increases.<br /><br /> "Sorry we spent too much, but now we're going to need you to pay up" probably won't be a winning message with voters. <br /><br />Again STOP SPENDING, it really is that simple. If it won't pass constitutional muster for spending, CUT IT .Tickerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13500388925461726862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-62053394553126564902010-12-05T17:03:33.396-08:002010-12-05T17:03:33.396-08:00Hey Craig, you never addressed my question.
If yo...Hey Craig, you never addressed my question.<br /><br />If you like paying taxes so much, do you add more to your tax return every year? You know you still have the opportunity to do that, do you?FrogBurgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-69642718739461838262010-12-05T16:53:20.467-08:002010-12-05T16:53:20.467-08:00And by the way Montesquieu before Laffer talked ab...And by the way Montesquieu before Laffer talked about the diminishing return of taxation. <br />The guy was brilliant because he had a keen sense for observing humanity, religion and economics. I'll always remember his take on political system and religions. Looking at what's going on now, the guy was right on target.FrogBurgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-46730769036085820882010-12-05T16:50:49.123-08:002010-12-05T16:50:49.123-08:00And craig, JFYI, I included Clinton's years. C...And craig, JFYI, I included Clinton's years. Can't you read? It says the last FIVE administrations have resulted in tax revenue increases to the fed's coffers. <br /><br />But again typical of leftist. When they have no argument try to confuse the situation by repeating the factual statement and then trying to twist it to suit their agenda.<br /><br />Nice try but most folks here can read and comprehend. Have you ever taken a reading and comprehension course? Perhaps you should. That way you won't seem as ignorant.Tickerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13500388925461726862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-83180930033923331142010-12-05T16:49:49.985-08:002010-12-05T16:49:49.985-08:00They always think we're on the right side of t...<i>They always think we're on the right side of the parabolic curve. There probably is a tax rate of diminishing returns, but no one, not even Arthur Laffer, knows what it is.</i><br /><br />See that's your problem. You have no power of observation?<br /><br />What's your day job? Are you in a cave? Or behind a desk working for government?<br /><br />Observe, listen but your problem is that people who will state facts that don't go your way will be dismissed.<br /><br />I'm telling you. Personally I will work less if I keep getting hammered and as a self employed, I will start taking cash if I can.<br /><br />My own Laffer curve. Or is it more like behaving like an illegal immigrant? I'll let you pick.FrogBurgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-57668046568707641922010-12-05T16:45:23.458-08:002010-12-05T16:45:23.458-08:00So far Craig you haven't proved crap much less...So far Craig you haven't proved crap much less proved what I said to be wrong. No inflation does not play the effect that you idiots on the left would like to pretend it does. The fact is when people KEEP more of their money, they have a tendency to spend and invest more. When they are taxed, they find shelters and don't spend thus lowing the amount of revenue the government takes in. But of course you lefties always are in denial about such because the only way you see to fund your socialist "entitlement" welfare programs is through taxation of the wealth who in turn will find shelters and then guess who gets to pay? The very one that the so called "friends of the little man" claim to protect. That's BS and everyone knows it.<br /><br /> <br />Why do you think the economy is in a hole now? Hell no it ain't Bush's fault. The Dems didn't inherit anyhing but their own mess which they made from 2007 on.<br /><br />The last budget deficit that Demonkkkrats "inherited" was FY 2007, the last of the Republican congressional budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and it was the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. Thus, the only deficit Obama has inherited is that which he and his Democrat majorities generated. Hey and guess who voted for all those budgets ? Why Mr. "I inherited it from Bush", the "idiot in chief" currently occupying the WH of course but then it's always easier to blame someone else . That is so typical of a narcissist which of course Obama is. Then the leftist chime in because they don't have a clue but only follow the voice of "dear leader". <br /><br />The reason the economy is where it is is because "investors", the small business owner and even big business does not trust the fool dictating policy from the WH , when he's there, nor do they trust his socialist agenda in ObamaNOCARE, his "crap and tax" plan or anything else coming out of his administration.<br /> <br />Once again Craig you're trying to piss on my leg and trying to convince me it's raining. Won't work, been around too long and understand how the leftist mind muddles along. Again, prove me wrong instead of trying to peeg on my leg.Tickerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13500388925461726862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-2532000077935566002010-12-05T16:10:09.390-08:002010-12-05T16:10:09.390-08:00Indeed, tax reductions in each of the last five ad...<i>Indeed, tax reductions in each of the last five administrations have resulted in tax revenue increases to the fed's coffers. Prove me wrong!</i><br /><br />Revenue always increases due to inflation, raises and growing population. So revenue did rise but it rose less than if nothing had been done with taxes.<br /><br /><b>The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts.<br />- Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695</b><br /><br />Here's a handy <a href="http://modeledbehavior.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/image9.png" rel="nofollow">chart</a> comparing revenue from Clinton years to Bush years.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06124629994153584904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-40419418672382858352010-12-05T16:03:59.227-08:002010-12-05T16:03:59.227-08:00Craig, use the web. I learned that in highschool.
...<i>Craig, use the web. I learned that in highschool.</i><br /><br />I know what it is. I just like to see righties explain it. They always think we're on the right side of the parabolic curve. There probably is a tax rate of diminishing returns, but no one, not even Arthur Laffer, knows what it is.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06124629994153584904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-25948594436941009512010-12-05T15:30:20.687-08:002010-12-05T15:30:20.687-08:00Craig, use the web. I learned that in highschool.
...Craig, use the web. I learned that in highschool.<br /><br />Make an effort to go understand the information yourself. Why would you listen to me anyway?FrogBurgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-20322596617973790362010-12-05T15:13:40.088-08:002010-12-05T15:13:40.088-08:00And we're not even touching the topic of how m...And we're not even touching the topic of how much Social Security taxes took from him...(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.com