A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Europe
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 13th, 2012, 06:20 AM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.economics,rec.travel.europe
Bret Cahill[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default 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  
Old December 13th, 2012, 08:51 AM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,rec.travel.europe,alt.politics.economics
ПеаБраин[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default 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  
Old December 13th, 2012, 09:57 AM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,rec.travel.europe,alt.politics.economics
ПеаБраин[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy

On Dec 12, 8:50*pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
  #14  
Old December 13th, 2012, 10:08 AM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.economics,rec.travel.europe
ПеаБраин[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default 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  
Old December 13th, 2012, 10:20 AM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.economics,rec.travel.europe
ПеаБраин[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default 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  
Old December 13th, 2012, 10:24 AM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.economics,rec.travel.europe
ПеаБраин[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default 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  
Old December 13th, 2012, 03:59 PM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.economics,rec.travel.europe
mg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default 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  
Old December 13th, 2012, 04:48 PM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.economics,rec.travel.europe
ПеаБраин[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default 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  
Old December 13th, 2012, 05:12 PM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.economics,rec.travel.europe
Bret Cahill[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default 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  
Old December 13th, 2012, 07:49 PM posted to alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.retirement,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.economics,rec.travel.europe
mg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.