Raise the rate, collect less. Pretend that's not the case :1orglaugh

We've had way higher taxes before and they collected a much higher percentage of the money. And they didn't collect less with the "higher" rates under Clinton - which is what we are returning to.

I think you may want to read up on some history.

Sorry clown. My dog knows more about economics than you do.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reag***t.htm

Oh look, the governments own website calls you a liar.

Now run along kid, once again you type about that which you know nothing

I'm always amazed at some people's ability to feed themselves with such limited intelligence.


""" 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 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."""

Maybe so, however you know nothing.



That displays a totally different point, direction and view point of what I said. If you're going to call someone a liar at least attempt to get the argument right before you make yourself look stupid.

No run along and pretend that you have any type of clue about anything as usual.

Shut the fuck up and go away, silly liar.
Hahahaha

It must piss you of when you betters shut you down..




p.s. Regan's stupid as tax policy spiked our deficits larger than it had ever been in history... But hey, cutting taxes makes the rich spend so much more the deficits doesn't go up - no wait...

Listen idiot... spending may go up (for the top 1%), but if they don't collect enough money to pay the bills, it makes no difference.

Now get back to high school and learn some basic math.

"""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"""


There, that should help you're incredibly small mind.:1orglaugh

As a share of GDP, sure... first 4 years, sure and previous increases too? Maybe, of course that many years probably like 50 things factor in..... anyway what happened the 4 years after that? Well now, we know that story.

Speaking of small minds... you haven't made a valid argument yet.

I'm not sure who this idiot is arguing with now, himself or the truth.

It doesn't really matter:1orglaugh

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=200

Odd, looks like we took in less money through the 80's (and most tax cuts)... but hey, if the 1% spend more - shit is right on track with the tea baggers!

Well it isn't you... you're unable to argue anything. :1orglaugh

And I bump you one, :1orglaugh

"""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"""

"""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." Unfortunately, the Council could not bring itself to acknowledge the counterproductive effects high marginal tax rates can have upon taxpayer behavior and tax avoidance activities."""

Or we could look at that and say, it took TWO tax increases to reverse the damage or 8 years before they could balance out things and give us a surplus.

Why do they/you ignore the other 4 years? AFTER the increases, when we know the results?

However they ignored the record deficit it created. So in a way, the Gov spending money to cover its ass 'one way or another' seems to pave the way for economic recovery by those standards.

lets go back in history a little

June 6th, Revenue Act of 1932 passed, the largest peacetime tax increase in the nation's history to that date
raised top tax rates from 25% to 63%
reduced personal exemptions from $1,500 to $1,000 for single persons
reduced personal exemptions from $3,500 to $2,500 for married couples

August 30th,1935 Revenue Act (Wealth Tax Act ) passed.
Increased the surtax rate on individual incomes over $50,000, the estate tax on individual estates over $40,000 and graduated steeply taxes on individual incomes over $1 million until the rate was 75% in excess of $5 million.
Decreased the small corporation tax rate to 12% while increasing the corporate tax, on incomes above $15,000 to 15%.
Some excess profits over 10% were taxed at a 6% rate and in excess of 15% at a 12% rate.





It was years after this that the Great Depression ended, lets learn from history, raising taxes doesn't work

Are you trying to say that raising taxes created the Great Depression or that lowering it got us out? Because neither is true.

What about all the other times tax rates were way higher? Easily half of the last decades taxes were higher than the peak they hit and we didn't drop into a depression, economy didn't fail, business didn't stop doing business and the world didn't end.

If you want the facts..
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=200

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

All taxes are regressive but some are necessary to provide legitimate public services.

Any tax which punishes entrepreneurship or abusively takes away the product of work should be repealed.

No, raising the taxes didn't help get us out of it

they don't get that, With the recent change in power, business will be more likely to consider it safe to expand, invest and more importantly hire. I figure the new congress gets into office in January and by April there will be a lowering of the unemployment rate by at least 2 full points

Raising taxes at the worst point in our Countries history to that extreme of a rate from what it was, was stupid along with many other things they tried.... which is not what is happening today.

We aren't talking about Corporate taxes, which aren't being adjusted and in some cases have been reduced already and plans to reduce them more.

Reversing the bush tax cuts is personal taxes.

The plan is to lower unemployment, which is slowly happening already with the addition of new jobs and the economy showing signs of growth all over the place. The rep's being in power, with no power - isn't going to spark anything that isn't already happening.

when the country is adding jobs, I'll believe it's getting better, but they get excited when we lose less jobs and I just don't have that enthusiasmi

Yeah let's do away with ALL taxes and things will be sooo much better. I mean we won't have a military or decent roads or bridges or police or fire dept or lots of other things but we'll have all this fucking money to spend.

Great news then since in Oct we added the most jobs since April. In fact we've added a half million jobs since then.

We were on a gold standard until 1971 so printing money was not an option like it is now. If money was needed taxes went up. We were also a creditor nation. We were lending money to other countries and not borrowing like now. Also, our actual tax rate is not entirely accurate because we are taxed through inflation now more so than ever. $1 in 2010 was worth $0.18 in 1970. There was also WWI and WWII to pay for and the US largely funded the rebuilding of Europe after WWII.

The bottom line is the problems we face now were not in any way caused by tax cuts nor was Great Depression 1.0 and anyone saying so is misinformed.

Oh sweet then, you'll be happy to know they added about 150k jobs in October. Which is sweet when Jobs are normally the very last thing to return after a large economic downturn.

...and yet the unemployment rate remains 9.6%.

Don't forget the fed reserve and all the jazz that goes with that.

Knowing what the tax rates were pre 71 almost makes the gold standard sound scary. Yeah more real wealth, lower inflation but damn if they let anyone keep it.

True, none of the problems we have today or then were due to tax cuts... however, todays tax cuts are adding to problems with the way things currently operate.

Last I heard the rate in July was 9.7 and had hit 9.2% in Sept and held it in Oct, even though we added 150k jobs. 150k added is a net gain, but in the ratio of millions of jobs lost overall, it's a tiny gain. But that doesn't mean it isn't good. %'s really make no difference (most of those jobs will never return) we've dropped this year either way and increased jobs... not bad at all.


edit: went and looked, it is 9.6 - either way, point was it has dropped and net jobs have gone up. It's not huge, but anyone expecting it to be at this point, when some jobs are gone forever, would be crazy.

Tax cuts or not we are fucked.

Seems that way.

Even if the fed, state, local stops spending all money and all taxes stay the same and went to pay that off our debts, we're looking at 5 years. With a total shut down Country for 5 years...which probably isn't a good thing.

So yeah, pretty fucked..

It's crazy government math is what it is. They announce positive sounding numbers to get headlines and then revise them down later when no one is paying attention to the old numbers and only focused on the new numbers. It's also not an accident that unemployment has not hit 10% yet. It's not palatable to have double digit unemployment so they fudge the numbers down. Shadow Stats puts real unemployment well over 20%: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate...loyment-charts

I really don't keep up with the %'s much... I'm sure the numbers are much higher than the gov projects though.

For me, jobs going up or down, really don't tell me how good things are doing. Jobs really are the last thing to return in big economic downturns, so even looking at this year or from our peak to now - is truly too short of a period of time.

For me, the day we can say the average wage across the Country has increased is the day we can celebrate a true positive change for the Countries economy.

yes, there was gains, but we are still losing jobs

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 419,351 in the week ending Oct. 30, an increase of 10,881 from the previous week. There were 482,612 initial claims in the comparable week in 2009

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/e...ta20101516.htm

Just a slower pace, so forgive me if I dont get all excited

If it wasnt for taxes that paid for the gov funds given for the creation of the net. Most here wouldnt have worry about being in a higher bracket .

when you learn what the un-employment rate actually means let me know. You do realize that umeployment rate could actually go up to 10% but we could add 250,000 jobs in the same month. We could lose jobs and the unemployment rate could actually go down in the same month also.

Some dude working at MCdonald's lsoes his job but he for whatever reason doesn't file for unemployment, guess what, he doesn't get counted as unemployed. An unemployed guy that wasn't getting unemplyment gets a job has ZERO efect on the unemployment figure. WHY? Because he wasn't counted as being unempoyed in the first place.

I suspect you're the kind of person that when you see a 7 point spread on a football game actually thinks that is what the odds makers think that one team will beat the other by.

Jobs don't have to be growing at all for the Economy to be improving.... normally when jobs can grow, even a little, it means the Economy is doing much better.

When it grows a little, I'll be happy, right now, we are losing less

I'd still be working on high rise buildings, which were government funds from Reagon when I did that

Don't strain your little brain trying to spin the unemplyment rate as being good