Taxation

[Doudder]

Ok if a presidential candidate wanted to raise taxes because a small percentage of people made a large amount of money (so he/she could tax THEM and you more), even knowing that lowering taxes creates MORE revenue for the government, and the opposite for raising taxes, would you vote for them?

[Der-Lowe]

I don't accept the answer, because it misguides.
It's basically asking if you would vote for a stupid person, but you replaced your idea of stupid when you formulated the question.

[Doudder]

well, the answer is whatever you want it to be but if you don't accept it whatever. also there is a candidate right now who would do that to our taxes but then again you don't hear much about that.

[oligarch]

If your asking "Would I vote for a candidate who would raise taxes?" then the answer is yes.

[Doudder]

why it has been a proven fact that lowering taxes increases government revenues and raising taxes decreases it. granted I am not wanting to have taxes at zero but a reasonable number it good. I would say dropping taxes below 15% would probably be bad. reffering to the dederal tax so there is no condusion.

[BeFell]

At 5/4/08 02:55 AM, Doudder wrote: why it has been a proven fact that lowering taxes increases government revenues and raising taxes decreases it. granted I am not wanting to have taxes at zero but a reasonable number it good. I would say dropping taxes below 15% would probably be bad. reffering to the dederal tax so there is no condusion.

Bush lowered the taxes significantly and now the government is sitting on the largest deficit in history. I agree that lowering taxes is good for the overall economy Washington can control spending however, when you lower taxes and increase spending, as Bush and Regan, did you are going to hurt the economy in the long term. Then someone is going to have to come along and raise taxes to fix the crippling deficit and I'm going to have to vote for the asshole.

If you want to vote for someone who will be good for the overall economy pick a candidate who won't raise taxes and can control spending. To my knowledge this candidate has never existed.

[Doudder]

well icreased spending created the defecit so yeah if you are only making 50 cents don't spend dollars. but that doesn't change the fact that a lower tax rate brings in more revenues. A higher one will make the government spend less because they are getting less from people spending money on goods. If we want to change how our government spends then we must put people in office to do what we want not what their constituents or lobyists want.

[mariomaster123]

Well inversely, lowering taxes on the rich helps the poor. The rich (the financial bosses) will have more money and shall hire more people. So increasing taxes works the other way. I agree with McCain. =P

[SmilezRoyale]

the term RICH in itself is misleading. People who are rich sometimes don't live rich lifestyles because of the communities they live in, but their incomes are such that they are considered part of the upper class. For example, my parents make enough money to be considered part of the top 10% of the wage earners of the country, but they don't LIVE rich.

I'm not conservative enough to say that raising taxes is inherently evil, but you need to be careful about who you are raising taxes on, raising taxes excessively on the middle and upper class decreases revenues for buisnesses not only through investment being weak, but it also weakens consumption.

I honestly do not beleive that there are enough people in this country who need government aid to make it worth while. [Need means that they ACTUALLY need it]

I'm turned off from someone if they plan to raise taxes, but if they are better spenders, there is a chance that they'll be ok.

[mariomaster123]

At 5/4/08 03:26 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: the term RICH in itself is misleading. People who are rich sometimes don't live rich lifestyles because of the communities they live in, but their incomes are such that they are considered part of the upper class. For example, my parents make enough money to be considered part of the top 10% of the wage earners of the country, but they don't LIVE rich.

I'm not conservative enough to say that raising taxes is inherently evil, but you need to be careful about who you are raising taxes on, raising taxes excessively on the middle and upper class decreases revenues for buisnesses not only through investment being weak, but it also weakens consumption.

I honestly do not beleive that there are enough people in this country who need government aid to make it worth while. [Need means that they ACTUALLY need it]

I'm turned off from someone if they plan to raise taxes, but if they are better spenders, there is a chance that they'll be ok.

True, I didn't MEAN the rich :P, I just meant the excutives that run the company... But yeah I totally agree. Taxation didn't help anyone. If anything, we outta use the ol' toll road method. If you use it, you pay the taxes.

[BeFell]

At 5/5/08 07:43 AM, mariomaster123 wrote: If anything, we outta use the ol' toll road method. If you use it, you pay the taxes.

That is just about as regressive as a tax system can be.

[mariomaster123]

At 5/5/08 10:11 AM, BeFell wrote:

At 5/5/08 07:43 AM, mariomaster123 wrote: If anything, we outta use the ol' toll road method. If you use it, you pay the taxes.

That is just about as regressive as a tax system can be.

True, true, but probably the best to pull us out of this housing market crash. :(

[BeFell]

At 5/5/08 12:37 PM, mariomaster123 wrote:

At 5/5/08 10:11 AM, BeFell wrote:

At 5/5/08 07:43 AM, mariomaster123 wrote: If anything, we outta use the ol' toll road method. If you use it, you pay the taxes.

That is just about as regressive as a tax system can be.

True, true, but probably the best to pull us out of this housing market crash. :(

How in the hell do you figure?

[MattZone]

At 5/4/08 12:40 PM, BeFell wrote: Bush lowered the taxes significantly and now the government is sitting on the largest deficit in history. I agree that lowering taxes is good for the overall economy Washington can control spending however, when you lower taxes and increase spending, as Bush and Regan, did you are going to hurt the economy in the long term. Then someone is going to have to come along and raise taxes to fix the crippling deficit and I'm going to have to vote for the asshole.

If you want to vote for someone who will be good for the overall economy pick a candidate who won't raise taxes and can control spending. To my knowledge this candidate has never existed.

Seconded. Although Reagan's spending had a purpose: the Soviets tried to copycat us, and wound up wrecking their own economy. Also, Reagan's cutting tax rates actually increased tax revenues, as the rates at the time were so high (up to 70%) that cutting them caused a huge Laffer Curve effect. Bush, on the other hand, cut taxes a little and increased spending a lot, with no significant Laffer Curve effect (maybe 50-70 billion dollars) and not much to show for the increased spending.

This presidential election does not look like it's going to be a very good one for the economy. Both Obama and Hillary have proposed plans that, when all the costs are added up, would increase the budget from the current $3.1 Trillion to around $4.5 trillion, while significantly increasiing taxes. McCain would be a better choice in that spending would probably only increase to about $3.6 Trillion or so, but considering that it's doubtful that he would raise taxes, there is no telling if he would reduce the budget deficit as much as either Obama or Hillary would with their tax hikes. Either way, with the prospect of an actual reduction in spending being very slim, the only question is whether the budget deficit is going to be allowed to increase, or whether taxes are going to be raised so high that they start to suffocate the economy.

[Memorize]

But what's really funny about Obama and Hillary 'raising taxes' is that they're wanting to do it in what they claim is a recession, which is the exact opposite time of when to do it.

Even though we're not in a recession...

[BeFell]

At 5/5/08 02:47 PM, MattZone wrote: Seconded. Although Reagan's spending had a purpose: the Soviets tried to copycat us, and wound up wrecking their own economy. Also, Reagan's cutting tax rates actually increased tax revenues, as the rates at the time were so high (up to 70%) that cutting them caused a huge Laffer Curve effect. Bush, on the other hand, cut taxes a little and increased spending a lot, with no significant Laffer Curve effect (maybe 50-70 billion dollars) and not much to show for the increased spending.

An interesting fact is that Reagan didn't actually want as big of a tax cut as he got. His people told him that historically a president could expect to get half of what he wanted out a tax bill so Reagen just doubled what he wanted and went to congress. Much to his surprise he got what he asked for which meant the taxes brought in were too low despite the laffer curve effect. This meant that Reagan wasn't able to go through with his intention of killing the estate tax because he needed even the piddly revenue its reduced form was providing. This leads one to wonder that if Congress hadn't been drinking that day then perhaps they would have approved a practical tax bill and Reagan could have hit the equilibrium he was going for, imagine how much different tax laws would look today.

This presidential election does not look like it's going to be a very good one for the economy. Both Obama and Hillary have proposed plans that, when all the costs are added up, would increase the budget from the current $3.1 Trillion to around $4.5 trillion, while significantly increasiing taxes. McCain would be a better choice in that spending would probably only increase to about $3.6 Trillion or so, but considering that it's doubtful that he would raise taxes, there is no telling if he would reduce the budget deficit as much as either Obama or Hillary would with their tax hikes. Either way, with the prospect of an actual reduction in spending being very slim, the only question is whether the budget deficit is going to be allowed to increase, or whether taxes are going to be raised so high that they start to suffocate the economy.

Well obviously all three of all three of the liberal candidates are hoping to initiate an economic collapse that will make us envious of the economies of most South American nations. Then they'll be able to blame Bush and build us up again into a Marxist utopia. Of course that will fail too but maybe they will become really bad ass mummies on display in front of the Washington Monument.

[MattZone]

At 5/5/08 03:27 PM, BeFell wrote: Well obviously all three of all three of the liberal candidates are hoping to initiate an economic collapse that will make us envious of the economies of most South American nations. Then they'll be able to blame Bush and build us up again into a Marxist utopia. Of course that will fail too but maybe they will become really bad ass mummies on display in front of the Washington Monument.

Wow. I hope you brought your own shovel, because I'm not going anywhere near that...

[Der-Lowe]

At 5/4/08 03:26 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I'm not conservative enough to say that raising taxes is inherently evil, but you need to be careful about who you are raising taxes on, raising taxes excessively on the middle and upper class decreases revenues for buisnesses not only through investment being weak, but it also weakens consumption.

And spending directly and indirectly strengthens consumption, whereas a part of a task that is reduced goes to saving, and then, to invest; the mps of those with higher income being larger that the one of the poor.

At 5/4/08 02:55 AM, Doudder wrote: why it has been a proven fact that lowering taxes increases government revenues and raising taxes decreases it.

Erm, no. Otherwise, nobody would ever propose raising taxes.

At 5/5/08 03:08 PM, Memorize wrote: But what's really funny about Obama and Hillary 'raising taxes' is that they're wanting to do it in what they claim is a recession, which is the exact opposite time of when to do it.

Not if you raise spending as well. And if you distribute it more evenly, you will increase consumption, and let the multiplier do its job.
Although your consumption share of the GDP is already very high. Nice trap you're in.

Even though we're not in a recession...

What was your unemployment rate now? 5.2?

[cellardoor6]

At 5/5/08 07:09 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 5/4/08 02:55 AM, Doudder wrote: why it has been a proven fact that lowering taxes increases government revenues and raising taxes decreases it.

Erm, no. Otherwise, nobody would ever propose raising taxes.

There are people who naturally want a higher proportion of the wealth of the country in the hands of the government than in the hands of taxpayers. Even if higher tax revenues come from lower taxes, as they often do, there are people who still look at the GDP of the country and think that at least certain amount of it should be spent by the government.

There are people that recognize lower taxes makes higher growth and higher subsequent tax revenue, but they disagree with the premise that the government should be getting such a small chunk of the GDP as a whole on any given year.

Even though we're not in a recession...

What was your unemployment rate now? 5.2?

I'm really surprised that you actually think you know anything about economics.

- A recession by modern definition is two or more consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. People who say otherwise are throwing a term around incorrectly.

- The US is not in a recession, because in 4th quarter 2007, our GDP growth was .6% (slow, but well above negative). That rate of growth remained at .6% for the 1st quarter of 2008.

- Even if by chance the 2nd quarter of 2008 results in negative growth, it wouldn't be a recession if we resumed growth in the 3rd quarter. Our economy slowed down, but it didn't recede, henceforth- wasn't in a recession, and isn't currently. That means people who have been saying for several months that we're in a recession are technically, and literally incorrect. It's possible we'll dip down into a recession, but we certainly haven't yet.

- Current US unemployment is 5%, that's within full employment. It did increase compared to last year, it went up to 5.1% in March, but April showed a lower than expected loss of jobs.

Unemployment does not automatically mean recession, it's only one of the several indicators people use to analyze. It is one of dozens of things that may be the cause of, or an indicator of a decrease in GDP growth. But unless GDP growth is negative, job loss doesn't mean recession.

[Radam]

At 5/4/08 02:38 AM, Doudder wrote: well, the answer is whatever you want it to be but if you don't accept it whatever. also there is a candidate right now who would do that to our taxes but then again you don't hear much about that.

Correction: I think we're down to about three.

[mariomaster123]

Eh, tax breaks would help the market of the economy in the fact that the want of the product would increase and the supply would too. More of the executive producers would have to employ more people, and thats good :D