The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I guess you think that the million dollar proposal floated by Schumer wasn't just a PR move right?

The idea that this would toss a huge chunk of our deficit out is laughable.

You have very unique financial ideas, not shared by most economists. Not shared by any economist I've seen, but I'm sure there are some out there. Can you quote any?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You have very unique financial ideas, not shared by most economists. Not shared by any economist I've seen, but I'm sure there are some out there. Can you quote any?

As I have said before, the economy doesn't operate in a vaccum. let's say that we did eliminate the cuts and raise taxes. Lets say that causes our economy to stagnate as the mega rich move more money offshore or to tax shelters or they stop investing in their businesses, ect. The slowing down of economic growth would most certainly cause the extra money supposed to be raised by the cuts to be lower than suggested. Add in tax reciepts overall decreasing as the economy gets worse. Not a good picture.

One underlying reason the Democratic leadership is supporting rasing taxes outside of the liberal agenda of taking from the rich is that they know they need a whole lot more money to support the Obamacare debacle. That money that they would take from the "rich" wouldnt be used to reduce the deficit. Anyone who believes that is beyond naive.

[Riot]

As I have said before, the economy doesn't operate in a vaccum. let's say that we did eliminate the cuts and raise taxes. Lets say that causes our economy to stagnate as the mega rich move more money offshore or to tax shelters or they stop investing in their businesses, ect.

Why would you guess that outcome? I don't see much support for that supposition.

The tax rate on the mega-rich is going from 36% back to 39.6%, and is the tax rate they had during the boom years of the Clinton administration. The practical rate of the mega-rich is more like 17% average due to their massive deductions.

The reversion back to the normal tax rates equals about 100,000 per one million dollars, BEFORE deductions and adjusted gross income determination.

Surveys have shown the mega rich already do not infuse any extra money into consumerism or capitalism, it's extra = thus they save it, invest it.

Why would you think that small shift would cause the mega-rich to totally alter their historical behaviours, thus cause our economy to stagnate, let alone move money offshore, tax shelters, stop investing?

The only thing that increased when the tax rates dropped in 2001 and 2003 was the mega-rich saving more of the extra money they got.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

The tax rate on the mega-rich is going from 36% back to 39.6%, and is the tax rate they had during the boom years of the Clinton administration.

Are you suggesting that the tax rate was responsible for the "boom years"?

And if you arent, why would raising tax rates be a good idea in decidedly not boom years?

And what exactly qualifies one as "mega-rich"? Certainly a person who makes $251000 a year isnt "mega-rich" right?

[Riot]

Are you suggesting that the tax rate was responsible for the "boom years"?

Nope. Just noting those were the rates present when a budget deficit was converted to a budget surplus, and yeah, having income helps to do that.

And what exactly qualifies one as "mega-rich"?

You were the one to first use the term here. What did you mean by it?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nope. Just noting those were the rates present when a budget deficit was converted to a budget surplus, and yeah, having income helps to do that.



You were the one to first use the term here. What did you mean by it?

then why not say all of that? It is inconsequential since there is no tech bubble looming that the economy can attach itself to in the near future.

I asked you what your version is since you just used it in the context of people making 250k or above.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

then why not say all of that? It is inconsequential since there is no tech bubble looming that the economy can attach itself to in the near future.

I asked you what your version is since you just used it in the context of people making 250k or above.

No I didn't. I was referring to YOUR reference about the mega-rich, what YOU said about moving money offshore, etc.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Why would you guess that outcome? I don't see much support for that supposition.

The tax rate on the mega-rich is going from 36% back to 39.6%, and is the tax rate they had during the boom years of the Clinton administration. The practical rate of the mega-rich is more like 17% average due to their massive deductions.

The reversion back to the normal tax rates equals about 100,000 per one million dollars, BEFORE deductions and adjusted gross income determination.

Surveys have shown the mega rich already do not infuse any extra money into consumerism or capitalism, it's extra = thus they save it, invest it.

Why would you think that small shift would cause the mega-rich to totally alter their historical behaviours, thus cause our economy to stagnate, let alone move money offshore, tax shelters, stop investing?

The only thing that increased when the tax rates dropped in 2001 and 2003 was the mega-rich saving more of the extra money they got.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

And the best part of that is showing how our income from the wealthy will increase, thus help cut our deficit.

Are you posting that in support of this contention?:

"As I have said before, the economy doesn't operate in a vaccum. let's say that we did eliminate the cuts and raise taxes. Lets say that causes our economy to stagnate as the mega rich move more money offshore or to tax shelters or they stop investing in their businesses, ect. The slowing down of economic growth would most certainly cause the extra money supposed to be raised by the cuts to be lower than suggested. Add in tax reciepts overall decreasing as the economy gets worse. Not a good picture."

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

And the best part of that is showing how our income from the wealthy will increase, thus help cut our deficit.

Are you posting that in support of this contention?:

"As I have said before, the economy doesn't operate in a vaccum. let's say that we did eliminate the cuts and raise taxes. Lets say that causes our economy to stagnate as the mega rich move more money offshore or to tax shelters or they stop investing in their businesses, ect. The slowing down of economic growth would most certainly cause the extra money supposed to be raised by the cuts to be lower than suggested. Add in tax reciepts overall decreasing as the economy gets worse. Not a good picture."

Are you denying that tax receipts increased after cutting taxes?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Are you denying that tax receipts increased after cutting taxes?

Beyond obviously not, because my first line was: And the best part of that is showing how our income from the wealthy will increase, thus help cut our deficit.

our income from the wealthy, = increased tax receipts. As shown in your article. Having those receipts back would be awesome.