PDA

View Full Version : Your Choice: Tax-Raiser, Tax-Raiser, or Tax-Raiser


recxjake
05-30-2007, 02:08 PM
Your Choice: Tax-Raiser, Tax-Raiser, or Tax-Raiser

In their never-ending quest to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, as they are so apt at doing, the three leading Democratic candidates have now all announced they plan to raise taxes if elected President.

John Edwards wants to raise taxes by approximately $120 billion - and that’s only to give health insurance only to the uninsured.

Today, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have announced they would like to raise taxes by similar amounts. Barack wants to give government health insurance to the uninsured as well (quick, cancel your health insurance in case one of these two guys wins!), and Hillary, as noted below, wants us to become the “we are in this together” society and get the government further into the business of redistributing wealth.

Ever since Walter Mondale announced that he would raise taxes if President, the American people have wisely rejected candidates that will cost them a lot more money. Even Michael Dukakis told the American people he would raise taxes “only as a last resort”… which I suppose puts Hillary, Obama, and Edwards to the left of Dukakis on this issue.

And keep in mind that this $100 billion tax hike is just for one program - and one that won’t even benefit 85% of the American population. Any other increased spending these candidates announce from here on out will require additional tax increases.

2008 should have been a fairly easy year for Democrats to keep control of Congress and win the White House, what with Bush fatigue and party fatigue eating at the Republicans. However, they are doing their darndest to make sure they lose.

www.race42008.com

HolmeZz
05-30-2007, 02:18 PM
That site looks pretty fair and balanced.

banyon
05-30-2007, 02:26 PM
Yeah, you don't raise taxes during an expensive war, that's CRAAAZY! Let your children and grandchildren pay for it.

recxjake
05-30-2007, 02:48 PM
Yeah, you don't raise taxes during an expensive war, that's CRAAAZY! Let your children and grandchildren pay for it.

uhhh, did you read it? The word war was not even said....

This is just their crazy plans for health care.

Amnorix
05-30-2007, 02:49 PM
Yeah, you don't raise taxes during an expensive war, that's CRAAAZY! Let your children and grandchildren pay for it.

Plus interest.

recxjake
05-30-2007, 03:30 PM
It doesn't matter who the Repubs put up, if the Dems are running on higher taxes, it will be a victory for them.

HolmeZz
05-30-2007, 03:32 PM
What would you do to fix the healthcare system, Jakey?

Also what are your plans for continuing to pay for a war that you don't see an end to?

Brock
05-30-2007, 03:34 PM
Yes, let's all enjoy Walter Reed-like accomodations.

banyon
05-30-2007, 04:19 PM
uhhh, did you read it? The word war was not even said....

This is just their crazy plans for health care.

Apparently you did not even read your own garbage article either as they clearly make very general claims about raising taxes for any purpose in paragraphs 1, 3,and 4.

Then again, it's pretty poorly written, so I can see how it is confusing.

Mr. Kotter
05-30-2007, 04:38 PM
Yes, let's all enjoy Walter Reed-like accomodations.
Nicely played.

LMAO



:clap:

FD
05-30-2007, 05:35 PM
Yes, let's all enjoy Walter Reed-like accomodations.

and for only a hundred billion or so of higher taxes!

SBK
05-30-2007, 06:31 PM
lower taxes = increased revenues to the treasury. Sorry for raining on the parade.

banyon
05-31-2007, 09:36 AM
lower taxes = increased revenues to the treasury. Sorry for raining on the parade.

:spock: So, if the tax rate is 0% , then we will have infinite revenue?

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 09:40 AM
:spock: So, if the tax rate is 0% , then we will have infinite revenue?

He said "lower" not "0."

Do you have evidence of modern examples of reasonable tax cuts that have NOT produced increases in federal revenues (even if adjusted for inflation?) :shrug:

I'd find that interesting... :hmmm:

banyon
05-31-2007, 09:44 AM
He said "lower" not "0."

Do you have evidence of modern examples of reasonable tax cuts that have NOT produced increases in federal revenues (even if adjusted for inflation?) :shrug:

I'd find that interesting... :hmmm:

Funny you should ask.

Individual income tax revenue:

2000 1,043,908,000,000
2001 994,339,000,000 (Bush Cuts taxes)
2002 858,345,000,000
2003 793,699,000,000
2004 808,959,000,000
2005 927,222,000,000
2006 1,043,908,000,000 (Inflation begins to catch up again/GDP)

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=203

Anyway, my point, although perhaps made in too subtle a fashion was that SBK was basically speaking out of his a** and has no idea where we are on the mythical Laffer Curve anymore than I would with a magic 8-ball.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 10:00 AM
Funny you should ask.

Individual income tax revenue:

2000 1,043,908,000,000
2001 994,339,000,000 (Bush Cuts taxes)
2002 858,345,000,000
2003 793,699,000,000
2004 808,959,000,000
2005 927,222,000,000
2006 1,043,908,000,000 (Inflation begins to catch up again/GDP)

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=203

Anyway, my point, although perhaps made in too subtle a fashion was that SBK was basically speaking out of his a** and has no idea where we are on the mythical Laffer Curve anymore than I would with a magic 8-ball.Remember Econ 101: "in times of recession, reduce taxes to stimulate growth..."?

Considering what happened after 9/11...it seems to have worked like a charm in stopping the recession...:hmmm:

:p


Thanks for the link and figures, banyon. :thumb:

Chief Henry
05-31-2007, 10:15 AM
[QUOTE=banyon]Funny you should ask.

Individual income tax revenue:

2000 1,043,908,000,000
2001 994,339,000,000 (Bush Cuts taxes)
2002 858,345,000,000
2003 793,699,000,000
2004 808,959,000,000
2005 927,222,000,000
2006 1,043,908,000,000 (Inflation begins to catch up again/GDP)

[URL=http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=203] QUOTE]


Dam, those tax cuts are looking very impressive. Look at the
revenue they're generating. Now, if we could get the sticken US Gov't
to stop spending and spending and spending and spending.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 10:30 AM
Hey, banyon....

I just noticed you, interestingly, left out the collection of revenue from Cooperations during the same time....

2001 151,075
2002 148,044
2003 131,778
2004 189,371
2005 278,282
2006 353,282

:hmmm:

banyon
05-31-2007, 11:22 AM
Hey, banyon....

I just noticed you, interestingly, left out the collection of revenue from Cooperations during the same time....

2001 151,075
2002 148,044
2003 131,778
2004 189,371
2005 278,282
2006 353,282

:hmmm:

What's your point? The corporate rates weren't changed by Bush's tax plan.
Corporate collections also only represent about about 10-20% of the returns historically, so it's not nearly enough to offset the revenue we lost with the income tax cut.

Direckshun
05-31-2007, 11:24 AM
Rollback of the Bush taxcuts.

Next.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 11:34 AM
Rollback of the Bush taxcuts.

Next.

If that's the Democratic mantra in '08, they will lose.

Direckshun
05-31-2007, 11:35 AM
If that's the Democratic mantra in '08, they will lose.
Zing?

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 11:36 AM
Zing?

:spock:

:shrug:

banyon
05-31-2007, 11:53 AM
If that's the Democratic mantra in '08, they will lose.

Usually they add "On the wealthiest Americans" so that they won't lose.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 11:57 AM
Usually they add "On the wealthiest Americans" so that they won't lose.

Most Americans are smart enough to see through that ruse; so they WILL lose.

banyon
05-31-2007, 01:23 PM
Most Americans are smart enough to see through that ruse; so they WILL lose.

Really? Have you mind-melded with recxjake so you know all of this stuff in advance too?

Cochise
05-31-2007, 01:26 PM
Usually they add "On the wealthiest Americans" so that they won't lose.

That "wealthiest 1%" mantra didn't work out so well in 2000 and 2004.

banyon
05-31-2007, 02:16 PM
That "wealthiest 1%" mantra didn't work out so well in 2000 and 2004.

You're referring to when they won the popular vote?

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-31-2007, 02:20 PM
That "wealthiest 1%" mantra didn't work out so well in 2000 and 2004.

It didn't work in 2004, when the entire campaign was "terr', terr' and gay marriage".

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 02:21 PM
Zing?

Who was the last president to win on a campaign of tax increases?

Cochise
05-31-2007, 02:23 PM
You're referring to when they won the popular vote?

Big deal.. in a country of 300 million people they had 1 million more people on their side. It's not like you can say that people were responding to it all over the country, rallying to the democratic cause because of it.

Like I was saying, I think that a candidate promising to raise taxes and actually winning would be unprecedented, we'll see if it happens.

SBK
05-31-2007, 02:26 PM
Big deal.. in a country of 300 million people they had 1 million more people on their side. It's not like you can say that people were responding to it all over the country, rallying to the democratic cause because of it.

Like I was saying, I think that a candidate promising to raise taxes and actually winning would be unprecedented, we'll see if it happens.

I think it's a good plan. :clap:

Cochise
05-31-2007, 02:34 PM
I think it's a good plan. :clap:

Really? So you are going into this election cycle looking for the guy who is going to raise your taxes the most?

Honest question :shrug:

SBK
05-31-2007, 02:39 PM
Really? So you are going into this election cycle looking for the guy who is going to raise your taxes the most?

Honest question :shrug:

No, I'm looking forward to another democrat defeat. :)

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 02:43 PM
Really? Have you mind-melded with recxjake so you know all of this stuff in advance too?
I'll repeat RC's question:

Who was the last president to win on a campaign of tax increases?

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-31-2007, 02:44 PM
Who was the last president to win on a campaign of tax increases?

Walter Mondale


:)


Although GHB and Reagan both raised taxes (Reagan in his second term, Bush in his first) despite saying they wouldn't.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 02:46 PM
Walter Mondale


:)


Although GHB and Reagan both raised taxes (Reagan in his second term, Bush in his first) despite saying they wouldn't.
:spock:

He said "win"--not get BURRIED ALIVE under an electoral avalanche.

The question remains the same: Who was the last president to win on a campaign of tax increases? :shrug:

HolmeZz
05-31-2007, 02:54 PM
Honesty is not the best political policy!

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 02:56 PM
:spock:

He said "win"--not get BURRIED ALIVE under an electoral avalanche.

The question remains the same: Who was the last president to win on a campaign of tax increases? :shrug:

Sarcasm, Mr. Kotter, sarcasm. ;)
And he has a good point, Reagan and GHW Bush both increased taxes, they just weren’t as up front about it as Mondale who got “buried in an electoral avalanche” for his honesty.

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 03:01 PM
Honesty is not the best political policy!

Maybe you'll give us an answer:

Who was the last president to win on a campaign of tax increases? :shrug:

HolmeZz
05-31-2007, 03:12 PM
Dunno. But are you advocating that it's better to say you won't raise taxes and end up doing so than being honest with your plans?

I know it's smarter politically, but how do you personally feel?

Mr. Kotter
05-31-2007, 03:20 PM
Dunno. But are you advocating that it's better to say you won't raise taxes and end up doing so than being honest with your plans?

I know it's smarter politically, but how do you personally feel?

Some taxes may have to be raised. Congress will have to be the driving force though, because in Presidential politics admitting that during an election is political suicide.

It would take and extraordinary set of circumstances for the people to vote for someone who openly says: "I intend to raise taxes." Unless it were sufficiently targeted at a small and less influencial segment of the population, which wouldn't matter politically (and in the end wouldn't likely produce substantial increased revenues.)

banyon
05-31-2007, 03:21 PM
Who was the last president to win on a campaign of tax increases?
Um, no one campaigns on the negative effects of their plans. Bush didn't run on "Hey vote for me and I will increase the national debt by $3 trillion"!

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 03:50 PM
Um, no one campaigns on the negative effects of their plans. Bush didn't run on "Hey vote for me and I will increase the national debt by $3 trillion"!

:spock: We've covered this ground already. We’re not in disagreement here.

Who was the last president to win on a campaign of tax increases?

Walter Mondale


:)


Although GHB and Reagan both raised taxes (Reagan in his second term, Bush in his first) despite saying they wouldn't.

:spock:

He said "win"--not get BURRIED ALIVE under an electoral avalanche.

The question remains the same: Who was the last president to win on a campaign of tax increases? :shrug:

Sarcasm, Mr. Kotter, sarcasm. ;)
And he has a good point, Reagan and GHW Bush both increased taxes, they just weren’t as up front about it as Mondale who got “buried in an electoral avalanche” for his honesty.

Busy day I take it?

banyon
05-31-2007, 04:11 PM
:spock: We've covered this ground already. We’re not in disagreement here.









Busy day I take it?

Pretty much. :)