bullcan

Who do you think will eventually wind up paying for all these tax cuts when we have to feed the beast that we have been starving for years? The costs will fall on the backs of the poor and middle class.

__________________

bullcan

How would you go about doing that?

__________________

IAMallardchaser

We're not starving the beast. You just can't seem to get it through your skull that the beast is grossly obese and needs to go on a very strict diet. They need to cut spending and live within their means just as you and I do.

And again, there is NO SUCH THING as an unfunded tax cut. Tax cuts generate more government revenue. Read this another time and let it sink in this time. I will keep reposting this info until it finally soaks through your skull.

JFK's own words, "Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

And here is then Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon in the 1920's, "The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people."

High tax rates reduce government revenue for the reasons explained above. Not only do they reduce government revenue but they hurt the economy. Low tax rates increase government revenue while allowing the economy to grow unabated by government.

Any sane person should be able to figure out such an easy equation.

bullcan

That doesn't even make sense. It's like wiping before you poop. Fewer taxes doesn't equal morerevenue for the government. That's the most assanine thing I have ever heard. If you believe that you'll believe anything they tell you.

After taking office, Clinton immediately seized the mantle of fiscal discipline from Republicans. Rather than simply trimming the federal deficit, as his GOP predecessors had done, he set out to balance the budget and begin paying down the national debt. To do so, he hiked the top tax bracket to nearly 40 percent and boosted the corporate tax rate to 35 percent. It cost him both houses of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections. But taming the deficit led to the best economy America's ever had. Following the tax hikes of 1993, the economy grew at a brisk clip of 3.2 percent, creating more than 11 million jobs. Average wages ticked up, and stocks soared by 78 percent. By the spring of 1997, the federal budget was headed into the black.

__________________

IAMallardchaser

You are a complete lost cause. Did you even read what I re-posted for the third time. It makes perfect sense. When tax rates become too high the rich tuck their earnings away in tax shelters and avoid paying taxes. This reduces revenue for the government. It also hurts the economy because they are not reinvesting that money, they are holding on to it.

Under the Clinton tax code if you made $60,000 your tax rate would have been 28%. Your standard deduction was $7,100 and your personal exemption was $2,700. Top bracket earners would have paid 39.6% with the same deductions and exemptions. Under Bush your tax rate would have been 15% with a standard deduction of $10,900 and a personal exemption of $3,500. Top bracket earners had a rate of 35%. So where is your "Bush tax cuts for the rich" in that? The rich got a 4.6% cut while the middle class got a 13% tax cut. Sounds more like Bush tax cuts for the middle class to me.

This is the game Democrats always play. They claim they are going to raise taxes on the rich but in reality they raise taxes on the middle class. Why? Because their goal is to destroy the middle class. When Obama claims the rich need to pay their fair share that is really code talk for we're going to tax the shit out of the middle class.

And your cut and paste is full of shit. The budget was balanced by a Republican controlled congress, not by Clinton. Clinton was forced to go along or he would have never served a second term and he knew it. Clinton even fought against welfare reform until he realized the huge majority of support that was behind those reforms. Yes he did raise corporate taxes and he signed onto NAFTA and ever since then our jobs have been going overseas. When corporate taxes are too high, as they have been since Clinton, companies that have the ability to move to a cheaper country will do so and it will reduce government revenues. If they would drop those rates down to 15% you would see a hell of a lot of jobs coming back to this country and a huge influx in corporate taxes being paid. Those jobs would then lead to more government revenue as more people would be working and paying taxes.

It makes perfect sense if you are sane and refuse to drink the kool-aid.