Tax cut idiocy explained!

It's sort of sad that all you and BR can ever find to post in terms of influences on your thinking are comedy skits, snarky pictures and cartoons.

Comedy is the only way to put your ideas in the hearts of others without much offense.

here is an old saying in life "Laugh and the whole world will laugh with you and cry you will cry alone". This is true in life.

Let me understand this: Arguing for tax cuts is the same as arguing for NO taxes? And on the topic of tax cuts, let me ask: If we had no taxes for 6 months, what would happen to the US economy?

If the economy is stimulated and the cuts to the government are not causing issues, why would you raise them at all? Just playing the same assumption game you are...

We don't, unless you're talking about a tax holiday scenario like I laid out. The kind of tax cuts I'm talking about are not temporary.

The problem, tonton, is that you honestly believe taxes now are the "lowest they've ever been." From that, you conclude that the previous tax cuts over the past 30 years have been ineffective. Of course, taxes are not the lowest they have ever been. In fact, Americans are saddled with more taxes than ever in terms of total burden. The problem is that that government takes too much, and spends even more. The only way to have steady growth is with real tax reform...a simpler, flatter system in which everyone or nearly everyone contributes.

I've argued you ought to raise them during periods of excessive growth or when growth clearly hits a bubble or speculative phase.

First thing's first: the income tax should be abolished, along with the death tax and capital gains tax.

A Flat Tax or Fair Tax would both be preferable to the current system, but we need to make sure the 16th amendment is repealed before trying to implement another system. Otherwise, it's just adding another layer of taxation over the existing failed system.

That said, tax reform will not matter if federal spending is not drastically reduced and restrained.

Government should not give any preferential treatment to one group of people over another.

That is not what I said at all. Read my post and be honest about it.

A constitutionally limited government that does not have the power to seize your money/property under threat of violence and give it to large corporations would be a good start.

That still gives preferential treatment to one group of people over another and I am against that.

Because anyone making above $50,000 would be taxed to pay for the services that everyone making under $50,000 would get to enjoy without having to pay for them.

How many people have to starve to death or go without proper medical care before you regain your humanity?

What problems are there? Government problems or economy problems? WHy is raising taxes going to solve the problems. What are we trying to solve? There is not one answer that fits all circumstances. I know you know this.

This presumes an economy that never recovers and never grows. Why would that happen?


The amount taken vs gdp is low not because the rates have changed but because so many people are unemployed or basically are not doing taxable activities. The rich are still paying a larger percentage than ever. Also everyone should have skin in the game. No one should be exempt from taxation. I've criticized Bush about that repeatedly. If it is a social contract, a community obligation, then everyone must contribute.


Rights don't drive up the costs, it is declarations that we must be safe from life. We must be safe from terrorists, from toxins, from any boogieman we can conjure. Real life requires real risk.


Yes because he didn't raise taxes at the beginning of his first term (yes he did) and he sure got away scott free later (when he got impeached.)


A deduction is different than a credit. Most tax credits like the child tax credit, earned income tax credit and others are awarded regardless if any taxes are paid. If you are a low income single mother with three kids, you basically get $7000 or so back in taxes without having worked an hour or having paid a cent of taxes. That is straight up income transfer and buying of votes via dependence. Many Republican plans have included a floor in the first X number of dollars earned. The difference is they don't award taxes back that haven't actually been paid. I assure you that if you research in this area it is huge.

Do you honestly believe that is what I am saying?

Let's rephrase...is there any situation in which you would be in favor of raising taxes? If so, when?

Wow, you two share a brain lately.

If the government cannot fulfill its basic duties to the public due to lack of funding then it is time to raise taxes. Are we there yet? No, the government is trying to do everything for everyone and has hundreds if not thousands of side projects that it is trying to fund while at the same time making huge cuts to the basic services it is supposed to provide. It is an age old trick, cut the critical services and claim there is not enough money so that people will have to vote to raise taxes while funding things that the government has no business doing. I have my list of them, and I am sure you have yours. Cut them all, and get back to the basic core services that is required to run the country. After that, if there is still a shortfall, we can talk about raising taxes. It is basic budgeting 101. Cut unnecessary expenses to balance your budget. If you do that and there is still not enough, increase your income or start cutting things that hurt more.

It's like a reading a fictional novel. That's not what's happened...ever. We wouldn't need to cut taxes bit by bit if we had a fair, simple system. But we don't. We have a system where Congress picks the winners and losers, and gives out breaks to various segments of the populations in exchange for political support. That's got to end.


Only for federal income taxes. I'm talking about all taxes. Also, I'm not sure that stat actually matters in reality.


Actually, the rich pay more of the total tax burden than they did ten years ago, if we're talking federal income taxes. As for the loopholes, that's why we need a simpler system that doesn't punish success, or the poor.



I think you mean "as more rights are invented." Once we get to the point of the internet being a civil right, costs tend to go up.


It's more successful by a lot of means, actually. We have the largest middle class in the world, and the largest economy in the world despite having 1/3 the population of our nearest competitor. As for other first world economies, how is Europe doing these days?

How many times must you deliberately distort what people are saying?

The economy would not stumble if we had a fair taxation system with limited government.


This is why we need a fairer, flatter, simpler corporate system as well. Buffett pays much more than a "little" bit in taxes.


The rich pay a greater share of the total tax burden (income) than they did a decade ago. Look it up.


You're delusional. The rich and middle class (particularly the latter) are taxed to the hilt.


No, everyone does not. Like 47% of people. And GE. And Exxon...like you said.


We should strive...but not through taxing and redistributing money. We've been trying that for 70 years or more, and it continues to fail.


The economy recovered in spite of Clinton's increase, mostly because of the tech boom.