Tax cuts = more Treasury $$$...Why would Obama raise taxes?

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by JBond, Oct 22, 2008.

  1. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,740 Messages
    39 Likes Received
    It has been proven many times. Tax cuts and lower taxes stimulate the economy resulting in higher revenue for the Treasury.

    Why in the world would Obama want to increase taxes resulting in a slowdown of the economy and less revenue for the Treasury?

    Maybe I am wrong, but I truly believe the worst thing we could do right now is increase taxes during a struggling economy.

    I am going to pull an Ice and ask people to stay on topic if possible.;)

    Liberal or conservative, I want to hear both sides.
  2. DaBoys4Life

    DaBoys4Life Benched

    15,621 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    share the wealth!!!!!!!!!!!!

    next question !!!!!!
  3. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,740 Messages
    39 Likes Received
    I know, I know. You do not need to remind me. You personally want to take my money. I get that. That is old news.

    How is Obama going to pay for his 1.5 trillion in new handouts with less money in the Treasury?

    Can you stay on topic for more than a split second?
  4. Cajuncowboy

    Cajuncowboy Preacher From The Black Lagoon

    27,476 Messages
    3 Likes Received
    I've explained this principle four or five times and the left never gets it.

    Why? Because they don't care. They see McCain as a Bush surrogate and therefore they must defeat him, even if they couldn't defeat Bush himself.

    This is all about Bush and their insane hatred of the guy.

    They don't care that Business' will be forced to layoff people. They don't care that when that happens, they will look for foreign avenues of labor. They don't care, that the American workforce will be systematically dismantled due to this.

    They care that they beat Bush, even though Bush isn't running, and they get their extra 500.00 for the "Big Business" and they will be able to buy groceries for one more month. After that, they are starving again with no prospects in sight.

    They don't care about increasing the tax rolls because if they do, that means more people are working, less people are on welfare and then they start ot lose their voting blocks.

    The left has promised poor people everything under the sun for 50 years and they only serve to keep them crippled with substandard living.
  5. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,740 Messages
    39 Likes Received
    It seems as if they want to keep people down in order to control them through hand outs. Welfare, medical, tax rebates etc. It seems less and less like they actually care about individuals well being and more and more like they are all about controlling the masses to retain and grow their power.

    There is no better way to control the masses then by making them
    completely dependent on government handouts for their existence.

    DaBoy4Life is a perfect example how effective brain washing can be.

    I want someone to explain to me how Obama is going to pay for all his giveaways with less money in the Treasury? Is China going to finance Obama's giveaways to non taxpayers? How exactly is this going to work?
  6. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,740 Messages
    39 Likes Received
    The silence from the libs on this board is deafening. Why are you laddies and gentlemen avoiding this topic?

    This is a simple topic. Higher taxes = less revenue. Lower taxes = more revenue.

    Can someone show me where this thinking is incorrect?
  7. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Hunka Hunka Burning BP Staff Member

    66,161 Messages
    11,456 Likes Received
  8. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg That gum you like.

    10,327 Messages
    1,923 Likes Received
  9. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg That gum you like.

    10,327 Messages
    1,923 Likes Received
  10. jimnabby

    jimnabby Well-Known Member Zone Supporter

    5,134 Messages
    1,868 Likes Received
    Can you show where this thinking is correct?

    The data is not hard to look up. Tax revenues decreased drastically after the Bush tax cut. They increased after Clinton's tax hike. They decreased after Reagan's tax cut. Reagan's and Bush's own economists agreed that the tax cuts didn't pay for themselves (of course, they argued they weren't meant to).
  11. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg That gum you like.

    10,327 Messages
    1,923 Likes Received

    That's a quote from Edward P. Lazear, who was at that point chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.
  12. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg That gum you like.

    10,327 Messages
    1,923 Likes Received,9171,1692027,00.html

    Thursday, Dec. 06, 2007
    Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues
    By Justin Fox

    If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

    If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.

    The yawning chasm between Republican rhetoric on taxes and even informed conservative opinion is maddening to those of wonkish bent. Pointing it out has become an opinion-column staple. But none of these screeds seem to have altered the political debate. So rather than write yet another, I decided to find out what Arthur Laffer thought.

    Laffer is a bona fide economist with a doctorate from Stanford. He's also largely responsible for the Republican belief that tax cuts pay for themselves. Now 67, Laffer runs economic-consulting and money-management firms in Nashville. About the best I could get out of him on the question of whether the Bush tax cuts have paid for themselves was "I don't know." But that's only part of the story.

    It's a saga that began in a bar near the White House on a December afternoon in 1974. Huddled at a meeting arranged by Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jude Wanniski were Cheney, then the deputy chief of staff to Republican President Gerald Ford, and Laffer, who was teaching at the University of Chicago's business school after a stint in the Nixon White House. In trying to explain to Cheney why a tax hike mooted by the President might not be such a great idea, Laffer drew a chart on a napkin that showed government revenues increasing as the tax rate moved up from 0% but then turning around and heading back toward zero as it neared 100%.

    The idea that high tax rates brought diminishing returns was not controversial or even new--Laffer traces it to 14th century Muslim philosopher Ibn Khaldun. But few economists in the 1970s even considered that real-world tax rates could be on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve. Laffer thought they might be, and Wanniski argued on the Journal's editorial page and elsewhere that they almost certainly were. The claim became a key plank of Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign for President.

    And how did things work out? Laffer is convinced that the reduction of the top tax rate from 70% to 28% during the Reagan years paid for itself--in part by encouraging the rich to stop finagling--and the evidence mostly backs him up. "You find these enormous responses in the upper brackets," Laffer says. "These guys fire their lawyers and accountants and actually pay their taxes. Yay! Isn't that what we want them to do?"

    But Reagan's tax cuts for the nonrich were big money losers, and it took the fiscal discipline of Bill Clinton to mop up the resulting red ink. Laffer gushes with praise for Clinton, but he's also a fan of Clinton's successor. "What Clinton did was, he gave Bush the fiscal flexibility to do what was right," Laffer says. In the face of the recession and terrorist attacks of 2001, Bush "needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense, and Clinton gave him the ability to do that."

    In other words, the Bush tax cuts were meant to create big deficits. But Laffer's O.K. with that. "The Laffer Curve should not be the reason you raise or lower taxes," he says. Perhaps not, but it does make for great campaign promises.
  13. joseephuss

    joseephuss Well-Known Member

    23,804 Messages
    2,525 Likes Received
    You say it as if Obama is raising taxes across the board. He plans on lowering taxes as well.
  14. joseephuss

    joseephuss Well-Known Member

    23,804 Messages
    2,525 Likes Received
    It is only deafening to you. The topic has been discussed before in several different threads. Are you expecting different answers now?

    If Obama is cutting taxes for more people then there is more revenue. The few people he will raise taxes on will see less revenue. The vast majority will see lower taxes. That is 95% of Americans(that is 95% of tax paying Americans) that will see their taxes cut.

    Taxes should never have been cut in the first place under Bush. You don't cut taxes during a war. Everyone has to suck it up during a war.

    Cut taxes, raise taxes or whatever at this point. It is going to be a tough road for whichever side wins this election.

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    40,123 Messages
    4,913 Likes Received
    Tax cuts do work when spending is also cut. If Taxes are cut and spending continues to grow, then obviously, your only creating more of a problem.

    The question should be, how can all of this be paid for? The Wall Street Journal just release a report in which Mr. Obama's Tax Plan is discussed. In that article, one of the conclussions reached on Mr. Obama's Tax plan explains the fact that if a Tax Payer is entitled to a check of, lets say 1,000 dollars and would owe 200 dollars in Taxes, under Mr. Obama's plan, that tax payer would receive 800 dollars. However, a person who paid nothing in taxes would receive that same 1,000 dollars with no taxes implied or restrictions envoked.

    Think about that for just a second.

    I don't know if the WSJ is viewed as a Republican rag or not but I'll let you voters decide that point.

    Here is the link to the article from the WSJ on Obama's Tax Plan.
  16. joseephuss

    joseephuss Well-Known Member

    23,804 Messages
    2,525 Likes Received
    Definitely you have to cut spending. Even if you raise taxes across the board, we need to cut spending. No administration has successfully cut spending. Most have increased spending. That is why the deficit is out of control.
  17. trickblue

    trickblue Not Old School...Old Testament...

    30,144 Messages
    1,188 Likes Received
    That's the problem... Obama has no intentions on cutting spending... book it...

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    40,123 Messages
    4,913 Likes Received

    One of the other little know facts about Mr. Obama's intentions, with respects to Taxation is that 250 is the figure typcially bandied about as the cut off point. In fact, it's 250 for a joint filing. For a single filing, it's 200. I have not seen that get much attention.
  19. cowboys#1

    cowboys#1 Finish!

    2,425 Messages
    41 Likes Received
    the taxes are low right you think it is helping stimulate the economy right now? :lmao2: no i didnt think so.
  20. Rogah

    Rogah Benched

    6,473 Messages
    793 Likes Received
    I think the issue of spending is infinitely more important than the issue of taxes. Taxes get raised and lowered. Revenue goes up, revenue goes down. But it is spending that is spiralling out of control.

    The political paradox is this: If we took a poll asking "Should the federal government cut spending?" we would see about 99% of Americans saying "Yes." But it is when a politician starts making specific proposals, that gets him into trouble. It is a landmine to give specifics like "we should cut spending on the military" (or education or social programs or health care or infrastructure, etc, etc).

    The sad fact we are all left with is that neither candidate will really cut spending. :(
    EDIT: I swear I made my above post before reading yours quoted here. We share similar sentiments, and I wasn't intending to plagiarize :D :D

Share This Page