Tax and Spend Politics

[Wheresmycoffee]

Take it for what it's worth, this is DIRECTLY from the House of Representatives records, not the GOP and not the DNC. If you care to read the entire report, the link is at the bottom. I can tell you the "Tax cuts don't work and are only for the rich" crowd will not like what it has to say, but it is straight up calculation by the CBO.

Conclusion

The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is di sproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago.

Christopher Frenze
Chief Economist to the Vice-Chairman


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

[jillsthoughts]

The key word for me, Coffee, is excessive. I agree that paying 50% of your income is excessive. However, raising the top 1% of America's wealthy just 3% (I think it brings it back to 36 or 39%) can be the difference between having health care for all or not. Plus a lot more services that are being cut right now.

As for the top 1% having to pay 39%, well, I am pretty sure it won't destroy them.

[Pauligan]

Originally Posted by jillsthoughts

The key word for me, Coffee, is excessive. I agree that paying 50% of your income is excessive. However, raising the top 1% of America's wealthy just 3% (I think it brings it back to 36 or 39%) can be the difference between having health care for all or not. Plus a lot more services that are being cut right now.

As for the top 1% having to pay 39%, well, I am pretty sure it won't destroy them.

There is a time and a place for tax cuts and tax raises. The 20s are a good example. America's rich enjoyed many years at low tax rates and where did we end up...a depression. How can we go into a depression if the wealthy are doing all this growing and investing in America?

[Wheresmycoffee]

Originally Posted by jillsthoughts

The key word for me, Coffee, is excessive. I agree that paying 50% of your income is excessive. However, raising the top 1% of America's wealthy just 3% (I think it brings it back to 36 or 39%) can be the difference between having health care for all or not. Plus a lot more services that are being cut right now.

As for the top 1% having to pay 39%, well, I am pretty sure it won't destroy them.

I can't disagree with that premise on the face of it, but it's also proven that increased tax burdens increase the activity of insulating taxable income, and result in a net REDUCTION in revenue, so what do we gain?

It would make more sense to me to reduce the tax across the board by x%, then set aside a specific percentage of taxation for ONLY this "health care fix". The problem there is that this is what was done with social security. That fund was not to be touched for anything but social security. Guess what? It's broke.

[Pauligan]

Originally Posted by Wheresmycoffee

I can't disagree with that premise on the face of it, but it's also proven that increased tax burdens increase the activity of insulating taxable income, and result in a net REDUCTION in revenue, so what do we gain?

It would make more sense to me to reduce the tax across the board by x%, then set aside a specific percentage of taxation for ONLY this "health care fix". The problem there is that this is what was done with social security. That fund was not to be touched for anything but social security. Guess what? It's broke.

I guess greed is just one of those temptations that man can't seem to pass up.

[Wheresmycoffee]

Originally Posted by Pauligan

I guess greed is just one of those temptations that man can't seem to pass up.

Human nature. "You try to take what is mine and I'm going to fight you for it". When the Government steps in and says "You don't know how to spend your money, so we're going to take it and spend it for you", it tends to make people defensive, and they start taking steps to avoid that taxation.

I guess I still don't understand, when the CBO, the Government's own accounting office, says reducing taxes INCREASES revenue flow into the Government coffers, and revenue flow is what is needed for these programs, that people jump up and down and say NO.

[dixon76710]

Originally Posted by Wheresmycoffee

I guess I still don't understand, when the CBO, the Government's own accounting office, says reducing taxes INCREASES revenue flow into the Government coffers, and revenue flow is what is needed for these programs, that people jump up and down and say NO.

They are more concerned with stopping the rich from being so damned rich, than they are with increasing revenue. Equality is more important than prosperity.

[Ericthered]

What is Texas?

[MrJohn]

Originally Posted by dixon76710

They are more concerned with stopping the rich from being so damned rich, than they are with increasing revenue. Equality is more important than prosperity.

That's like saying "love" is more important than "money"

[dixon76710]

Originally Posted by MrJohn

That's like saying "love" is more important than "money"

Well, I see how you can equate "prosperity" with "money". I dont see that "equality" can be equated with "love"