If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
According to your figures revenue as a percent of gdp was 20. 6% in
2000 and 17.6% in 2008. OK, they should have pegged taxes to 20%. Bret Cahill |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
On Dec 12, 8:50*pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
higher taxes = more freedom = high tax economic boom . Even though the highest marginal rates were higher in those years a myriad of deductions from gross income were allowable which are now disallowed creating a lower taxable income and effective rate of tax paid. .. Tax Principles Monday, 03 December 2012 06:05 The Washington Post .. is right wing. Really? Then the Washington Times must be Left Wing. LOL There is little money in eliminating tax deductions because most were eliminated years ago. In a trade off for lower rates which is exactly my point. : |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
On Dec 12, 8:50*pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
On Dec 12, 9:18*pm, mg wrote:
According to your figures revenue as a percent of gdp was 20. 6% in 2000 and 17.6% in 2008. , gdp was 9.8 tril in 2000 and 13.1 tril in 2008. .. this means revenue was 2.0 tril in 2000 and 2.3 tril in 2008. .. Since the exchecquer pays for stuff in dollars and not in % of gdp was he better off with the 2.0 tri under Clinton *or the 2.3 tril under Bush? .. Was the private sector better off with its after tax residue of 7.8 tril under Clinton or 10.8 tril under Bush? .. You just might need a course in remedial arithmetic .. Those are not my figures. Those figures are from the Tax Policy Center. You broadcast that you desperately need a course in remedial artihmetic based on your interpretation of those figures |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
On Dec 13, 12:20*am, Bret Cahill wrote:
According to your figures revenue as a percent of gdp was 20. 6% in 2000 and 17.6% in 2008. OK, they should have pegged taxes to 20%. Clinton benefited greatly from the dot.com bubble peaking in 2000 which resulted in large numbers of investors liquidating their investments to realize taxable capital gains. If revenue was pegged and coerced at 20% of gdp as you suggest tax increases would have to come from the middle class to cover it since the dot.com bubble collapsed later. There would be no other sources of revenue to cover the gap. Is that what you are suggesting? A massive tax increase on the middle class where all of the revenue really was and is no matter how one spins the numbers? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
On Dec 13, 2:16*am, "simon calder"
wrote: .... any system remotel approaching socialism is doomed to failure. History has already established that fact without equivocation |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
On Dec 13, 2:08Â*am, ПеаБраин wrote:
On Dec 12, 9:18Â*pm, mg wrote: According to your figures revenue as a percent of gdp was 20. 6% in 2000 and 17.6% in 2008. , gdp was 9.8 tril in 2000 and 13.1 tril in 2008. . this means revenue was 2.0 tril in 2000 and 2.3 tril in 2008. . Since the exchecquer pays for stuff in dollars and not in % of gdp was he better off with the 2.0 tri under Clinton Â*or the 2.3 tril under Bush? . Was the private sector better off with its after tax residue of 7.8 tril under Clinton or 10.8 tril under Bush? . You just might need a course in remedial arithmetic . Those are not my figures. Those figures are from the Tax Policy Center. You broadcast that you desperately need a course in remedial artihmetic based on your interpretation of those figures First you said my figures were wrong, when they're not my figures. Then you said my math was wrong, when I did no math. Now you're saying that population growth and inflation don't matter, and you don't care about expert opinion or common sense. That's laughable. I just can't wait to see what you say on your next post, assuming I bother to read it. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
On Dec 13, 9:59*am, mg wrote:
First you said my figures were wrong I never said your figures were wrong, I implied your interpretation of the figures was convoluted. I even quoted your figures as follows According to your figures revenue as a percent of gdp was 20. 6% in 2000 and 17.6% in 2008. .. But you still did not repond to the following relative to the figures you provided: gdp was 9.8 tril in 2000 and 13.1 tril in 2008. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
If you still *can't comprehend,
The GOP house is having trouble comprehending the reality that Americans are a free people and do _not_ want to suffer any longer in a low tax despotism. http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-lo...9--sector.html Bret Cahill |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy
On Dec 13, 8:48Â*am, ПеаБраин wrote:
On Dec 13, 9:59Â*am, mg wrote: First you said my figures were wrong I never said your figures were wrong, I implied your interpretation of the figures was convoluted. I even quoted your figures as follows According to your figures revenue as a percent of gdp was 20. 6% in 2000 and 17.6% in 2008. . But you still did not repond to the following relative to the figures you provided: gdp was 9.8 tril in 2000 and 13.1 tril in 2008. Â*. this means revenue was 2.0 tril in 2000 and 2.3 tril in 2008. Â*. Since the exchecquer pays for stuff in dollars and not in % of gdp was he better off with the 2.0 tri under Clinton Â*or the 2.3 tril under Bush? Â*. Was the private sector better off with its after tax residue of 7.8 tril under Clinton or 10.8 tril under Bush? Are you able to comprehend a arithmetical situation where a base is growing at a faster rate then the declines in a rate applied to it and there fore the result of a smaller rate applied to a larger base can yield greater results? GDP increased by 34 % comparing 2000 to 2008 (13.1/9,8) while revenue as a percent of gdp decreased 8% (17.6/20.6) but revenue to government increased by 300 billion in 2008 Â*(2.3 tril -2.0tril) comparing 2000 to 2008 If you still Â*can't comprehend, you continue to broadcast that you need that course in remedial aithmetic Very well. I will assume, then, that you now agree that inflation and population growth, for instance, are an important part of the equation when considering whether or not tax cuts pay for themselves. Is that correct? If you don't, there's no sense leaving that subject and simply jumping around and hopping around to other subjects. Now, in looking at your arithmetic, I can see that you have done some, but I haven't taken the time to see what you have done or why you did it. I do, however, see that after doing your arithmetic, you asked the following question: Was the private sector better off with its after tax residue of 7.8 tril under Clinton or 10.8 tril under Bush? With that question, you are changing the subject. The current subject is whether or not tax cuts pay for themselves. Or, put another way, whether or not tax cuts, without spending cuts, cause government deficits. The new question that you are asking is whether or not economic stimulus is a good idea. Volumes have been written about that subject and there have been a lot of posts on the newsgroups about that subject. So, if you want to now change the conversation and talk about economic stimulus, I suggest you start a new thread. Incidentally, in looking at some of your numbers, your GDP figure of $13.1 trillion for 2008 doesn't look right. I'm not sure if it really matters, though. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CNBC 10/16/12: "Merkel Urges Tax Cuts to Boost German Economy" Wiesagt Mann 'trickle down' auf Deutsch? | PJ O'D | Europe | 3 | October 18th, 2012 05:40 PM |
Drug pusher myths | Jonnog | Europe | 3 | November 20th, 2006 11:25 PM |