***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[blco02]

Bush and Reagan both increased tax revenue by lowering taxes. I know that's hard for the liberal brain to understand but job growth equals higher tax revenue even when the tax rate is lowered.

 

[dathbgboy]

Businesses don't pay their fair share of taxes now w/ all the loopholes they jump through. On top of that, all these non-profit entities that don't pay taxes and ways cats make a killing is ridiculous. NFL shouldn't be non-profit, colleges and universities should pay taxes.

which loopholes are you talking about?! They are taxing business more then ever! This money could be adding to growth and salaries especially small businesses! Now they are forced to lay off and cut costs because of over regulation

The loopholes of buying businesses in countries where corporate taxes aren't as high and making them the home business as to cut taxes in the U.S. They're taxing em more but they still aint paying as much as they're being taxed.

They need to create a better corporate tax rate, close the loopholes, and start taxing these organizations that hide behind the non-profit cloak. Here in Pittsburgh, other than some of the larger property owners, the colleges,universities, and hospitals own a lot of property.

 

[gwap]

Bush and Reagan both increased tax revenue by lowering taxes. I know that's hard for the liberal brain to understand but job growth equals higher tax revenue even when the tax rate is lowered.

Bush senior raised tax rates because it was necessary and the nation flourished because of it...

you can't point to the 80's and say the entire economic policy of the US must follow the same recipe forever...

the economic balance of the nation must be adjusted based on the current situation...

why can't republicans understand that?? (conservatives already know this)

going by this one minded logic.... we must raise the tax rates above 55% because the nation flourished after WW2 at that rate...

 

[Betonblck]

Bush and Reagan both increased tax revenue by lowering taxes. I know that's hard for the liberal brain to understand but job growth equals higher tax revenue even when the tax rate is lowered.

False. Reagan raised taxes and Bush lost more jobs and was a disaster, the bum didn't even get Bin Laden.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Bush and Reagan both increased tax revenue by lowering taxes. I know that's hard for the liberal brain to understand but job growth equals higher tax revenue even when the tax rate is lowered.

The increase in revenue is from the job growth, ok. But I know it hard to for the far right conservative brain to understand that the tax cuts are not what is strictly causing the job growth

So you can't connect the dots in a straight line and say tax cuts and what increase revenue. It that was the case, Kansas won't be a mess right now

You can twerk that Laffer Curve for all it is worth, still doesn't change facts. Supply side economics don't work.

Bush exploded the deficit, and the national debt

 

[cl-1b]

Bush and Reagan both increased tax revenue by lowering taxes. I know that's hard for the liberal brain to understand but job growth equals higher tax revenue even when the tax rate is lowered.

this is truth. 

 

[gwap]

Hill gotta do better

you're months late

 

[gwap]

 

Bush and Reagan both increased tax revenue by lowering taxes. I know that's hard for the liberal brain to understand but job growth equals higher tax revenue even when the tax rate is lowered.

this is truth. 

cutting taxes doesn't directly correlate to job growth... 

as is seen by the current historic lows in tax rates

 

[sundoobie]

I wonder why Obama called his ONLY tax cut in his Presidency the "Making it work tax credit" if it wasn't meant to spur the economy then?

 

[dathbgboy]

Tax rates were cut and businesses are hoarding because the recession taught them that they don't need to hire or pay high wages to get compete or produce. Add that w/ the influx of H1B Visas and illegal immigrants who are willing to take lower wage gigs, it's a perfect storm.

On top of that, the instability of the economy has businesses weary of spending money

 

[RustyShackleford]

I wonder why Obama called his ONLY tax cut in his Presidency the "Making it work tax credit" if it wasn't meant to spur the economy then?

Tio, who was the tax credit for?

 

[gwap]

Tax rates were cut and businesses are hoarding because the recession taught them that they don't need to hire or pay high wages to get compete or produce. Add that w/ the influx of H1B Visas and illegal immigrants who are willing to take lower wage gigs, it's a perfect storm.

On top of that, the instability of the economy has businesses weary of spending money

the real reason is business is not about helping the economy and workforce...

it's about making money for the owners/shareholders....

tax cuts don't mean ****

 

[sundoobie]

Tio, who was the tax credit for?

The Making Work Pay tax credit was introduced as a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act designed to spur economic growth and fight the effects of recession. According to the IRS, the tax credit applies to 2009 and 2010 and amounts to $400 a year for single tax filers and $800 a year for married couples filing joint returns. The IRS states that most taxpayers who qualify for the credit will have received the credit over the course of the year through changes in their employer's tax withholding.

 

[gwap]

 

Tio, who was the tax credit for?

The Making Work Pay tax credit was introduced as a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act designed to spur economic growth and fight the effects of recession. According to the IRS, the tax credit applies to 2009 and 2010 and amounts to $400 a year for single tax filers and $800 a year for married couples filing joint returns. The IRS states that most taxpayers who qualify for the credit will have received the credit over the course of the year through changes in their employer's tax withholding.

you do realize that a 400-800 tax credit for a working class person means that 400-800 is going directly back into the economy when they use it to pay bills/ make purchases..

is not like millions in tax cuts for a corporation that will just post higher yearly profits and the shareholders will take their dividends and put it into an account that will only accumulate interest.

 

[blco02]

False. Reagan raised taxes and Bush lost more jobs and was a disaster, the bum didn't even get Bin Laden.

You literally know nothing about history if you think Reagan raised taxes. False democrat talking points that you've bought hook, line, and sinker. Look up his 1981 and 1986 tax cuts. Revenue increased under Reagan and Kennedys tax cuts (and Bush 43). Kennedy wouldn't be allowed in today's democrat party, kinda like how Jim Webb was run out of the presidential race.

 

[cl-1b]

 

 
you do realize that a 400-800 tax credit for a working class person means that 400-800 is going directly back into the economy when they use it to pay bills/ make purchases..

is not like millions in tax cuts for a corporation that will just post higher yearly profits and the shareholders will take their dividends and put it into an account that will only accumulate interest.

those dividends are taxed as well

 

[RustyShackleford]

Tio, who was the tax credit for?

The Making Work Pay tax credit was introduced as a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act designed to spur economic growth and fight the effects of recession. According to the IRS, the tax credit applies to 2009 and 2010 and amounts to $400 a year for single tax filers and $800 a year for married couples filing joint returns. The IRS states that most taxpayers who qualify for the credit will have received the credit over the course of the year through changes in their employer's tax withholding.

-Your underline didn't answer my question.

-A tax credit is an expenditure, it was only effect for two years. And the law you cited was part of the stimulus

It is about increasing the demand on the consumer side (Obama's policy) v. cutting taxes in the longer term for the wealthy (like Bush)

If Bush just handed out checks to lower income folk, I wouldn't be shading him like this

 

[sundoobie]

Yes so more money to that taxpayer by way of tax cuts means more money they spend on goods/services. More money received from consumers, means businesses will hire more people and spend more. Yes I realize that cycle.

Tax cuts to businesses not just Corporations would do just about the same. Why? Because not every business in America are public entities. Meaning that mom and pop store down the block filing as a C Corp is paying the same tax rates as Nike. So is that fair?

 

[gwap]

 

 

 
you do realize that a 400-800 tax credit for a working class person means that 400-800 is going directly back into the economy when they use it to pay bills/ make purchases..

is not like millions in tax cuts for a corporation that will just post higher yearly profits and the shareholders will take their dividends and put it into an account that will only accumulate interest.

those dividends are taxed as well

so you give a tax break... that allows the company to pay larger dividends...

then the dividends (which are now larger because of the tax break) get taxed lower than they usually would (because of the tax breaks)...

....

...

what is your point again?

we have to lower taxes so we can tax the larger dividends at a lower tax rate and get less of the extra money we gave away?

 

[RustyShackleford]

False. Reagan raised taxes and Bush lost more jobs and was a disaster, the bum didn't even get Bin Laden.

You literally know nothing about history if you think Reagan raised taxes. False democrat talking points that you've bought hook, line, and sinker. Look up his 1981 and 1986 tax cuts. Revenue increased under Reagan and Kennedys tax cuts (and Bush 43). Kennedy wouldn't be allowed in today's democrat party, kinda like how Jim Webb was run out of the presidential race.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...n-colbert-brings-ronald-reagans-tax-raising-/

Conservatism is a hellva drug

 

[gwap]

Yes so more money to that taxpayer by way of tax cuts means more money they spend on goods/services. More money received from consumers, means businesses will hire more people and spend more. Yes I realize that cycle.

Tax cuts to businesses not just Corporations would do just about the same. Why? Because not every business in America are public entities. Meaning that mom and pop store down the block filing as a C Corp is paying the same tax rates as Nike. So is that fair?

a tax break to the consumer is going to have a guaranteed larger effect on business "income"

a tax break to business is going to only have a guaranteed n effect on "profit"

realistically..... you want companies to hire... you should give their customers more money to spend...

 

[RustyShackleford]

Yes so more money to that taxpayer by way of tax cuts means more money they spend on goods/services. More money received from consumers, means businesses will hire more people and spend more. Yes I realize that cycle.

Tax cuts to businesses not just Corporations would do just about the same. Why? Because not every business in America are public entities. Meaning that mom and pop store down the block filing as a C Corp is paying the same tax rates as Nike. So is that fair?

That has proven to be false though.

Consumer run back and put the money into the economy, corporations pocket the money mostly.

Repeating supply side economics works, doesn't make it true

 

[blco02]

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...n-colbert-brings-ronald-reagans-tax-raising-/

Conservatism is a hellva drug

Politifact and Stephen Colbert as a retort to my facts . Both liberal and left leaning to say the least.

Miss me with that.

 

[gwap]

 

 

False. Reagan raised taxes and Bush lost more jobs and was a disaster, the bum didn't even get Bin Laden.

You literally know nothing about history if you think Reagan raised taxes. False democrat talking points that you've bought hook, line, and sinker. Look up his 1981 and 1986 tax cuts. Revenue increased under Reagan and Kennedys tax cuts (and Bush 43). Kennedy wouldn't be allowed in today's democrat party, kinda like how Jim Webb was run out of the presidential race.

 
As Colbert said, Reagan raised taxes, too. Two laws, one in 1982 and another in 1984, were especially dramatic.

These laws generally raised taxes by removing tax loopholes, not by raising the tax rate, said Dean Baker, a liberal economist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Still, Baker said, "the loopholes were big ones."

Reagan’s tax increases

1982: The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP.

The 1982 tax increase was "probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history," said economist Bruce Bartlett, who advised Reagan on domestic policy and then worked as Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the George H.W. Bush administration. (An analysis by Jerry Tempalski, an analyst in the Office of Tax Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, agrees.)

This law was driven by pressure to attack the federal budget deficit, as well as the impression that Reagan’s tax-cutting was partially responsible for lower-than-expected tax revenues.

Bartlett, who reviewed Reagan’s tax record for Tax Notes in 2011, cited a Treasury estimate  that the 1982 law raised taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP, or about $150 billion in modern dollars.

Specifically, it rolled back some but not all of the 1981 tax cut for writing off equipment, and it repealed 1981 "safe harbor" leasing provisions, said Stephen J. Entin, senior fellow at the Tax Foundation and former deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the Reagan administration.

1983: A law Reagan signed in 1983 aimed to keep Social Security afloat by increasing payroll taxes and taxing Social Security benefits for some high-earners. This cost $24.6 billion, or almost $50 billion in 2015 dollars, through 1988, according to an administration estimate.

1984:  The Deficit Reduction Act that Reagan signed rolled back part of the 1981 cut on buildings, Entin said, with the idea that Congress would enact spending cuts. "But many of those cuts were either never enacted or were later restored," Entin said. This led to $25 billion in tax receipts.

Reagan also signed tax increases in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 (as well as a couple other laws with revenue reductions).

So where does that leave Reagan’s tax record on the whole? It’s mixed.

On one hand, revenues were lower as a share of GDP  in his last year in office (17.6 percent of GDP in 198 compared to the year before he took office (18.5 percent of GDP in 1980), according to the White House Office of Management and Budget.

However, the thrust of the 1981 tax cut that Cruz touted on Colbert’s show didn’t prove to have lasting effects on the whole.

A 2006 Treasury Department analysis  offers another view of the plunge after the 1981 law and the subsequent changes that wound it back.

Reagan’s staff tallied up the effect of major legislation on tax receipts over his tenure for his final budget proposal (page 4-4). The 1981 tax cuts comprised most of the total $275 billion in tax relief, but the other side of the ledger listed $133 billion in cumulative tax increases.  

"Thus, Reagan took back about half the 1981 tax cut with subsequent tax increases," Bartlett wrote.

 

[RustyShackleford]

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...n-colbert-brings-ronald-reagans-tax-raising-/

Conservatism is a hellva drug

Politifact and Stephen Colbert as a retort to my facts . Both liberal and left leaning to say the least.

This dude is serious debating that Reagan didn't raise taxes :x

Even when I provide a source, and quotes another source

I can't