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

[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.

[Riot]

Here's my bottom line: We have a huge deficit.

The vast majority of it is due to three things that President Bush II oversaw (he entered his Presidency with a fast-decreasing deficit in progress, he chose not to maintain that course)

1) unfunded - two wars

2) unfunded - two tax cuts 2001 and 2003, with the largest percentage cuts for the wealthiest

3) unfunded - the single largest Medicare entitlement ever given (prescription drug change)

To get out of the hole created by the hugely expensive, unfunded mandates above, we need to cut our spending, and increase our income.

The best way to immediately increase our income is to let ALL the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, as they were designed to.

But we are in a deep recession, thus probably best to not make those of lower income - lets say $250,000 per year and less - have a tax increase right now. Heck, I'd even go with Schumer's one million a year.

The wealthiest 2% can revert to their previous levels with no harm to the economy. They can have their tax cut back in 5 years if we are doing well (we should go to a flat income tax one day). Meanwhile, we get a huge cash infusion into our budget deficit - $700 trillion over 10 years. That's a very good start.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Here's my bottom line: We have a huge deficit.

The vast majority of it is due to three things that President Bush II oversaw (he entered his Presidency with a fast-decreasing deficit in progress, he chose not to maintain that course)

1) unfunded - two wars

2) unfunded - two tax cuts 2001 and 2003, with the largest percentage cuts for the wealthiest

3) unfunded - the single largest Medicare entitlement ever given (prescription drug change)

To get out of the hole created by the hugely expensive, unfunded mandates above, we need to cut our spending, and increase our income.

The best way to immediately increase our income is to let ALL the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, as they were designed to.

But we are in a deep recession, thus probably best to not make those of lower income - lets say $250,000 per year and less - have a tax increase right now. Heck, I'd even go with Schumer's one million a year.

The wealthiest 2% can revert to their previous levels with no harm to the economy. They can have their tax cut back in 5 years if we are doing well (we should go to a flat income tax one day). Meanwhile, we get a huge cash infusion into our budget deficit - $700 trillion over 10 years. That's a very good start.

Here's my plan that makes sense and is bi-partisan. We revert back to GWB's 'over inflated' budget (of course w/inflation considerations) as the starting point. Then based on the tax basis before GW raise taxes every tax reversion/continuation of a dollar taxed will be met with a dollar cut from WHATEVER can be cut! Simple.......700 Billion taxed = 700 Billion cut that equals 1.4 Trillion for American ctizens That's how stimulus money works. Win-win again.

[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.