PDA

View Full Version : Elections Obama On Taxes...Please Explain...


RINGLEADER
09-09-2008, 03:30 AM
Did Obama say that he may not enact the tax increases on the wealthy if the economy is doing poorly? If he now believes that lower taxes help the economy when things are slower, why would he want to ever raise them?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-09-2008, 03:35 AM
Budget deficits?

banyon
09-09-2008, 08:06 AM
Budget deficits?

This is where you find out that RINGLEADER believes the Laffer curve is a 45 degree angle.

Chief Henry
09-09-2008, 10:11 AM
Did Obama say that he may not enact the tax increases on the wealthy if the economy is doing poorly? If he now believes that lower taxes help the economy when things are slower, why would he want to ever raise them?

Now you're just f'n with them...stop that. Do you mean he's against raising tax's after he said he was FOR raising TAX's....WTF which one is it Barry ?

Maybe Barry is paying attention to the people and the polls. People don't like they're money confiscated from them.

banyon
09-09-2008, 10:36 AM
Now you're just f'n with them...stop that. Do you mean he's against raising tax's after he said he was FOR raising TAX's....WTF which one is it Barry ?

Maybe Barry is paying attention to the people and the polls. People don't like they're money confiscated from them.

Yeah, why would we want to have a tax policy that's responsive to the economy? It's always gots to be the same way or your a hippocrite, take that MUSLIM! Am I right, Henry, or am I right?

Donger
09-09-2008, 10:39 AM
why would he want to ever raise them?

Because they've got all the money.

Duh.

Chief Henry
09-09-2008, 10:40 AM
Yeah, why would we want to have a tax policy that's responsive to the economy? It's always gots to be the same way or your a hippocrite, take that MUSLIM! Am I right, Henry, or am I right?

A responsive tax poicy is what you are calling Barrys latest tax comment ? Do you mean lower tax's are BETTER for the ECONOMY ? Am I right, Banyon, or am I right ?

banyon
09-09-2008, 10:42 AM
A responsive tax poicy is what you are calling Barrys latest tax comment ? Do you mean lower tax's are BETTER for the ECONOMY ? Am I right, Banyon, or am I right ?

Yeah, tax rate 0! Infinite Revenues and economy! Ballgame!

Chief Henry
09-09-2008, 10:44 AM
Yeah, tax rate 0! Infinite Revenues and economy! Ballgame!

grasping at straws banyon, am i right

RINGLEADER
09-09-2008, 10:45 AM
Budget deficits?

But he wants to keep them low when he believes the economy is slow.

And as history shows, lower taxes raise more revenue.

According to the treasury website nearly $2.5 trillion was collected in 2007 (up from the approximately $2.0 trillion in 2003).

Obama said himself that he was raising capital gains taxes because it was the "fair" thing to do (even though it brings in less revenue historically). I give the guy props for realizing that's a stupid economic strategy.

I guess he was for tax fairness before he was against it.

RINGLEADER
09-09-2008, 10:47 AM
grasping at straws banyon, am i right

I have noticed that when this argument gets brought up and liberals are forced to address the facts that the treasury revenues are up 20% in the last five years they usually pull out Laffer Curves and articles from Paul Krugman. They never address the fact that revenues go up when you lower taxes.

banyon
09-09-2008, 10:48 AM
grasping at straws banyon, am i right

It's not a straw, it's the futility of trying to explain the physics of an atomic reaction to Ms. South Carolina.

Donger
09-09-2008, 10:50 AM
I have noticed that when this argument gets brought up and liberals are forced to address the facts that the treasury revenues are up 20% in the last five years they usually pull out Laffer Curves and articles from Paul Krugman. They never address the fact that revenues go up when you lower taxes.

That's because it really isn't about revenue for them. It's about Robin Hood.

banyon
09-09-2008, 10:50 AM
I have noticed that when this argument gets brought up and liberals are forced to address the facts that the treasury revenues are up 20% in the last five years they usually pull out Laffer Curves and articles from Paul Krugman. They never address the fact that revenues go up when you lower taxes.

Actually I have on three occasions and you've backed out of every thread that I did. Tax revenues from Income taxes went down since Bush's tax cuts, not up.

And to eliminate further confusion, the Laffer Curve is a conservative invention, it's your idea, not mine.

Chief Henry
09-09-2008, 10:51 AM
It's not a straw, it's the futility of trying to explain the physics of an atomic reaction to Ms. South Carolina.

Sorry banyon, it still looks, smells, feels, sounds like grasping at straws.
AM I RIGHT ?

J Diddy
09-09-2008, 10:52 AM
A responsive tax poicy is what you are calling Barrys latest tax comment ? Do you mean lower tax's are BETTER for the ECONOMY ? Am I right, Banyon, or am I right ?


just think how much lower taxes could be if we weren't paying 406 billion a year in interest?

Wow just think we could keep all our programs and have lower taxes

am I right or am I right

http://www.federalbudget.com/

banyon
09-09-2008, 10:54 AM
Sorry banyon, it still looks, smells, feels, sounds like grasping at straws.
AM I RIGHT ?

No, Henry, you are wrong. Arguing that tax policy should always be the same budget deficits, national debt, war expenditures, or economic malaise be damned, is pretty much straight up retarded. Unsurprising, but retarded.

J Diddy
09-09-2008, 10:55 AM
No, Henry, you are wrong. Arguing that tax policy should always be the same budget deficits, national debt, war expenditures, or economic malaise be damned, is pretty much straight up retarded. Unsurprising, but retarded.



:clap:

Thank you banyon, you put it into words. Big words that they won't understand, but words nonetheless.

Chief Henry
09-09-2008, 10:59 AM
just think how much lower taxes could be if we weren't paying 406 billion a year in interest?

Wow just think we could keep all our programs and have lower taxes

am I right or am I right

http://www.federalbudget.com/

Just think how how much we could keep if we didn't have to pay for
everything ? Am I right ?

Just think if we had no payroll tax and every one had to send in quarterly tax checks. Just think if Obama wasn't so confusing on his economic policy.

J Diddy
09-09-2008, 11:03 AM
Just think how how much we could keep if we didn't have to pay for
everything ? Am I right ?

Just think if we had no payroll tax and every one had to send in quarterley tax checks. Just think if Obama wasn't so confusing on his economic policy.


how much a tax break would it be if we didn't have to pay $406 billion a year in interest?

Sounds like John Bush needs him some dave ramsey

Chief Henry
09-09-2008, 11:10 AM
how much a tax break would it be if we didn't have to pay $406 billion a year in interest?

Sounds like John Bush needs him some dave ramsey



Spending by the US Gov't is crazy, that you won't get an argument from me.

I'm guessing Dave Ramsey would most likely tell you that rasing tax's is bad for the economy too.

J Diddy
09-09-2008, 11:12 AM
Spending by the US Gov't is crazy, that you won't get an argument from me.

I'm guessing Dave Ramsey would most likely tell you that rasing tax's is bad for the economy too.


actually if the govt were a person dave would tell them to increase revenue, decrease expenses and sell all your shit to be debt free

banyon
09-09-2008, 11:13 AM
Could you at least stop saying "tax's"? People might be visiting this forum and get the wrong idea.

Chief Henry
09-09-2008, 11:27 AM
actually if the govt were a person dave would tell them to increase revenue, decrease expenses and sell all your shit to be debt free

100% accurate J Diddy. Now if we could curtail the spending. I'd be happy if the US Gov't would just spend the exact same amount of money per year
for two years in a row.

Chief Henry
09-09-2008, 11:28 AM
Could you at least stop saying "tax's"? People might be visiting this forum and get the wrong idea.

Dude, I get paid to make decisons, not by my spelling.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-09-2008, 11:30 AM
Dude, I get paid to make decisons, not by my spelling.

No one really cares when the "decisions" you get paid to make involve a choice between two different scents of urinal cakes.

banyon
09-09-2008, 11:32 AM
Dude, I get paid to make decisons, not by my spelling.

That's not spelling.

J Diddy
09-09-2008, 11:59 AM
Dude, I get paid to make decisons, not by my spelling.


um, this ain't work

:shrug:

if it is hook a brother up

Chief Henry
09-09-2008, 02:58 PM
No one really cares when the "decisions" you get paid to make involve a choice between two different scents of urinal cakes.

Look everyone, Hamas is showing off his IQ.

You must really be pissed off with your daddy getting his ass handed to him in the national polls right now. I know they don't mean a great deal right now, but we both know that your daddy was expected to be up by 10-15%
right now, and he's not heading the other way.

Life is good, yes ?

Logical
09-09-2008, 06:25 PM
Just think how how much we could keep if we didn't have to pay for
everything ? Am I right ?

Just think if we had no payroll tax and every one had to send in quarterly tax checks. Just think if Obama wasn't so confusing on his economic policy.If tax cuts raise revenue, lets eliminate all taxes, think of how much revenue we would have then.....wait 0 taxes = 0 revenue. Maybe we can just call ourselves Red China of the USA and they will bail us out.

patteeu
09-09-2008, 07:11 PM
Actually I have on three occasions and you've backed out of every thread that I did. Tax revenues from Income taxes went down since Bush's tax cuts, not up.

And to eliminate further confusion, the Laffer Curve is a conservative invention, it's your idea, not mine.

The Laffer curve is a mathematical truth.

HonestChieffan
09-09-2008, 09:49 PM
Oh dont worry, Obama will change his mind on this too

RINGLEADER
09-09-2008, 09:54 PM
Actually I have on three occasions and you've backed out of every thread that I did. Tax revenues from Income taxes went down since Bush's tax cuts, not up.

And to eliminate further confusion, the Laffer Curve is a conservative invention, it's your idea, not mine.

LOL.

As I've said elsewhere (numerous times) the Laffer Curve is portrayed by many as a predictive indicator which it isn't. I'm talking about actual numbers and trends that result from certain events like the Kennedy tax cuts from 1964, or the Reagan tax cuts, or the Bush tax cuts.

Please refute this from your national treasury (as posted on the earlier thread YOU disappeared from when it was posted):

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/revenue%20growth.jpg

2000 - Revenues of approximately $2.0 trillion
2003 - When Bush stimulus is passed revenues of around
2007 - Revenues of approximately $2.5 trillion

RINGLEADER
09-09-2008, 09:58 PM
just think how much lower taxes could be if we weren't paying 406 billion a year in interest?

Wow just think we could keep all our programs and have lower taxes

am I right or am I right

http://www.federalbudget.com/


Borrowing against a portion of our GDP has become an unfortunately acceptable part of the world economy. It would be nice if we weren't paying that interest but without it there'd be a host of programs that wouldn't be funded.

But I hear you and agree. It sucks that politicians of both parties have found ways to keep grabbing more than they should to spend.

RINGLEADER
09-09-2008, 10:00 PM
If tax cuts raise revenue, lets eliminate all taxes, think of how much revenue we would have then.....wait 0 taxes = 0 revenue. Maybe we can just call ourselves Red China of the USA and they will bail us out.

Just like 100% taxes = 0 revenue because there's no incentive for anyone to work.

I'm just pointing out that when taxes are lowered, historically, the rate of revenues and economic growth is spurred.

But no one has addressed why Obama thinking is contradictory yet.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 10:02 PM
Did Obama say that he may not enact the tax increases on the wealthy if the economy is doing poorly? If he now believes that lower taxes help the economy when things are slower, why would he want to ever raise them?

Budget deficits?

Sun spots?

tiptap
09-10-2008, 08:15 AM
Just like 100% taxes = 0 revenue because there's no incentive for anyone to work.

I'm just pointing out that when taxes are lowered, historically, the rate of revenues and economic growth is spurred.

But no one has addressed why Obama thinking is contradictory yet.

Laffer curves are mostly about timing. That is your argument as well. Your assessment is that well placed reductions lead to increase revenue. It is conceded that one simply can't lower taxes continually and see the effect. So the question is where in the economic cycle is it appropriate to consider reduction of taxes. My contention it is when the economy is primed to reorganize itself a task. That task may come from the private sector or the public sector, (silicon or Star Wars/Military expenditure, space race) and does not have to be limited to one thing. But it does have to building without expending the resource. What I mean by this is that you can build up the military but if you expend those resources faster than they are replaced, say in a war, you don't retain the benefits long term. They are spent, lost resources to the economy. So I contend that a Green Revolution would be a massive goal and would lend itself to this. But only if the tax structure moves the economy at the same time in a direction that is conducive.