PDA

View Full Version : Economics Top Reagan Advisors: Raise Taxes on the Wealthy


KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 01:28 PM
Top Reagan Advisors: Raise Taxes on the Wealthy

Friday, July 29, 2011

Preface: As I've previously noted, I think that there are arguments for doing away with all taxes. However, if we're going to have taxes, the top 1% should pay their fair share.

Of course, if we prosecuted fraud and clawed back ill-gotten gains we wouldn't be in such a deep hole.

Reagan's domestic policy advisor (Bruce Bartlett) said Wednesday that it was a myth that tax cuts are the key to prosperity, that higher taxes may actually help the economy, and reminded people that Reagan raised the capital gains rate:

(Reagan actually raised taxes 11 times).
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133489113/Reagan-Legacy-Clouds-Tax-Record


Bartlett also recently pointed out:

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2011/07/debt-ceiling-voodoo-hyperinflation.html

Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006.

It would have been one thing if the Bush tax cuts had at least bought the country a higher rate of economic growth, even temporarily. They did not. Real G.D.P. growth peaked at just 3.6 percent in 2004 before fading rapidly. Even before the crisis hit, real G.D.P. was growing less than 2 percent a year...

According to a recent C.B.O. report, they reduced revenue by at least $2.9 trillion below what it otherwise would have been between 2001 and 2011. Slower-than-expected growth reduced revenue by another $3.5 trillion.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12187/ChangesBaselineProjections.pdf

Spending was $5.6 trillion higher than the C.B.O. anticipated for a total fiscal turnaround of $12 trillion. That is how a $6 trillion projected surplus turned into a cumulative deficit of $6 trillion.

Ronald Reagan's budget director David Stockman called the Bush tax cuts the "worst fiscal mistake in history", and said that extending them will not boost the economy.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/12/reagans-omb-director-bush-tax-cuts.html

And even Reagan's Assistant Secretary of Treasury with impeccable conservative credentials, who is widely credited with being the "father of supply-side economics" (Paul Craig Roberts) maintains that the Bush tax cuts made no economic sense ... even from a supply-side point of view.

As Roberts wrote in 2006:

The George W. Bush regime was faced with no stagflation and no worsening trade-offs between employment and inflation. The Bush administration did not use changes in the marginal rate of taxation to correct a mistaken policy mix or an oversight in economic policy. Moreover, global labor arbitrage is causing American jobs to be outsourced abroad. As Americans are experiencing declining opportunities to work, the response of labor supply to better incentives is small. Similarly, US companies are locating their investments in plant and equipment abroad. The substitution of foreign for American labor and the relocation abroad of US plant and equipment prevent reductions in marginal tax rates from having any appreciable effect on aggregate supply in the US.

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060227_economics.htm

I am not a partisan of Dubya’s tax cuts. Income distribution is a legitimate issue. This is especially the case when offshore production and jobs outsourcing are destroying the American middle class.

Just as Dubya hides behind "freedom and democracy" to wage wars of naked aggression, he hides behind supply-side economics in order to reward his cronies.

It's not just Bush. Roberts laments that the current debt ceiling shenanigans may be:

A perfectly orchestrated scenario for getting rid of the New Deal and the Great Society that use up money that could be spent on wars and bailouts and tax cuts for the rich.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25792

Read this for background on why tax cuts for the richest and tax increases for the rest hurt the economy.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/07/its-simple-tax-cuts-for-middle-class.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/07/top-reagan-aids-raise-taxes-on-wealthy.html

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 03:14 PM
Well that seems logical to me. Raise taxes on less than 20% of the nation, while 50% continue to not only NOT pay a penny in federal taxes, but actually receive funding of one sort or another.

That should fix our debt issue.

When did we change from a nation of explorers, self sustainers, and producers into this pansy sissified imaginary class warfare consumers who scream for more more more while offering nothing in return?

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 03:21 PM
Well that seems logical to me. Raise taxes on less than 20% of the nation, while 50% continue to not only NOT pay a penny in federal taxes, but actually receive funding of one sort or another.

That should fix our debt issue.

When did we change from a nation of explorers, self sustainers, and producers into this pansy sissified imaginary class warfare consumers who scream for more more more while offering nothing in return?

You can't squeeze blood from a turnip, however the upper wage earners can pay the same as the middle class.

VAChief
07-31-2011, 03:34 PM
Well that seems logical to me. Raise taxes on less than 20% of the nation, while 50% continue to not only NOT pay a penny in federal taxes, but actually receive funding of one sort or another.

That should fix our debt issue.

When did we change from a nation of explorers, self sustainers, and producers into this pansy sissified imaginary class warfare consumers who scream for more more more while offering nothing in return?

The problem with hyperbole is that there is usually some truth...like those great producers on Wall Street.

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 03:37 PM
You can't squeeze blood from a turnip, however the upper wage earners can pay the same as the middle class.

Maybe you missed that 50% pay NOTHING WHATSOEVER. And don't give me that "turnip" crap. Those earning 35,000 a year aren't getting rich. But they have their iPods, Smartphones, government assisted purchase of new cars, big screen tvs, and premium cable to go with it. The problem is they believe they are entitled to the above instead of actually realizing they are extras in their lives. Meanwhile we pay their earned income credit, their cash for clunkers to get that new car, while they reap the benefits paid for by federal taxes like new roads, military protection, etc etc etc.

The "upper class" actually still pay more on earnings than any other class. Your class warfare mindset is a disease in this country that will prevent us from ever excelling until we remove it.

I wouldn't mind the "upper class" paying 39% on annual earnings, seems reasonable to me. In fact, to assure they do, I would love to see a graduated flat tax system created and implemented. I wonder why the Democrats and liberals fight that concept so much if it is a guarantee that the upper class pay their fair share?

You want fair, I got fair - flat tax, eliminate the IRS, remove government pansy programs that failed to deliver as promised (NEA, Dept of Education), drastically reduce government grants for studies that produce no viable results in 3-5 years, create a law eliminating piggy back pork attachments to laws, install term limits for House and Senate, review assistance to other nations with automatic cutoff to countries like Pakistan that not only harbor terrorist but create safe havens for them.

I am betting neither side touches the above and both sides have asinine reasons for not installing any of the above.

I will give you half your argument, we should eliminate tax "loopholes" and create a fair taxation system, but at the same time this winy assed class warfare BS is for the birds. It is an illusion created to try and take more from others while offering nothing from ourselves in return.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 03:40 PM
Maybe you missed that 50% pay NOTHING WHATSOEVER. And don't give me that "turnip" crap. Those earning 35,000 a year aren't getting rich. But they have their iPods, Smartphones, government assisted purchase of new cars, big screen tvs, and premium cable to go with it. The problem is they believe they are entitled to the above instead of actually realizing they are extras in their lives. Meanwhile we pay their earned income credit, their cash for clunkers to get that new car, while they reap the benefits paid for by federal taxes like new roads, military protection, etc etc etc.

The "upper class" actually still pay more on earnings than any other class. Your class warfare mindset is a disease in this country that will prevent us from ever excelling until we remove it.

I wouldn't mind the "upper class" paying 39% on annual earnings, seems reasonable to me. In fact, to assure they do, I would love to see a graduated flat tax system created and implemented. I wonder why the Democrats and liberals fight that concept so much if it is a guarantee that the upper class pay their fair share?

You want fair, I got fair - flat tax, eliminate the IRS, remove government pansy programs that failed to deliver as promised (NEA, Dept of Education), drastically reduce government grants for studies that produce no viable results in 3-5 years, create a law eliminating piggy back pork attachments to laws, install term limits for House and Senate, review assistance to other nations with automatic cutoff to countries like Pakistan that not only harbor terrorist but create safe havens for them.

I am betting neither side touches the above and both sides have asinine reasons for not installing any of the above.

I will give you half your argument, we should eliminate tax "loopholes" and create a fair taxation system, but at the same time this winy assed class warfare BS is for the birds. It is an illusion created to try and take more from others while offering nothing from ourselves in return.

I think were all taxed too much, however with the system we currently have the rules are slanted towards the super wealthy and those that take handouts while the middle class pay more than their fair share.

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 03:46 PM
I think were all taxed too much, however with the system we currently have the rules are slanted towards the super wealthy and those that take handouts while the middle class pay more than their fair share.

Wow, again, how can we all be taxed too much WHEN 50% OF US PAY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?

FD
07-31-2011, 03:47 PM
Wow, again, how can we all be taxed too much WHEN 50% OF US PAY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?

What????

Guru
07-31-2011, 03:47 PM
Wow, again, how can we all be taxed too much WHEN 50% OF US PAY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?

I'm curious, where is the line at for paying nothing?

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 03:47 PM
Tax Cuts for the Middle Class and Poor STIMULATE The Economy, But Tax Cuts for the Wealthy HURT The Economy

Preface: There is an argument for repealing all taxes. I have a strong libertarian streak, and there are arguments that government is wasting our tax money on imperial wars which weaken our national security and other shenanigans. There are also various legal arguments alleging that income taxes are illegal. This essay solely asks how taxes - if we do have them, and given that tax and other government policy has radically redistributed wealth upwards, creating current below-third-world-levels of inequality (greater than seen for many years before the Great Depression) - effect the economy.

Extreme conservatives push for tax cuts ... but just for the wealthy.

Extreme liberals are against all tax cuts, believing that we need higher taxes to pay for government programs ... and that taxes somehow won't create any drag on the economy.

Both extremes are wrong.

In fact, tax cuts for the middle class and poor stimulate the economy, but tax cuts for the wealthy hurt the economy.

This is actually a very simple concept, although some politicians and economists unintentionally or intentionally muddy the waters.

As Ed Harrison notes today:

Bruce Bartlett, a Republican political appointee and domestic policy advisor to Ronald Reagan, points out that:

Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006.

It would have been one thing if the Bush tax cuts had at least bought the country a higher rate of economic growth, even temporarily. They did not. Real G.D.P. growth peaked at just 3.6 percent in 2004 before fading rapidly. Even before the crisis hit, real G.D.P. was growing less than 2 percent a year...

According to a recent C.B.O. report, they reduced revenue by at least $2.9 trillion below what it otherwise would have been between 2001 and 2011. Slower-than-expected growth reduced revenue by another $3.5 trillion.

Spending was $5.6 trillion higher than the C.B.O. anticipated for a total fiscal turnaround of $12 trillion. That is how a $6 trillion projected surplus turned into a cumulative deficit of $6 trillion.

Bartlett offers this killer chart as a summary of the numbers:

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Changes-in-CBO-projections-2001-2011.jpg

If you recall, it was George W. Bush’s father, GWH Bush, who, when campaigning against Reagan, called supply side economics’ claims that tax cuts pay for themselves Voodoo Economics. And Bush was proved right when deficits spiralled out of control and both Reagan and Bush were forced to raise taxes.

***

The Bush tax cuts accrued disproportionately to the wealthy. The Tax Policy Center shows that 65 percent of the dollar value of the Bush tax cuts accrued to the top quintile, while 20 percent went to the top 0.1 percent of income earners.

If you want to talk about redistribution, there it is.

The New York Times reported in 2007:

Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

The Economic Policy Institute reported in June:

The Bush-era tax changes conferred disproportionate benefits to those at the top of the earnings distribution, exacerbating a trend of widening income inequality at a time of already poor wage growth.

***

The top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts. The lower 60% of filers (making less than $67,715) received less than 20% of the total benefit of Bush’s tax policies.

http://w3.epi-data.org/temp2011/Snapshot_Bush-tax-cut.jpg

The Bush-era tax cuts were designed to reduce taxes for the wealthy, and the benefits of faster growth were then supposed to trickle down to the middle class. But the economic impact of cutting capital gains rates and lowering the top marginal tax rates never materialized for working families. Inflation-adjusted median weekly earnings fell by 2.3% during the 2002-07 economic expansion, which holds the distinction for being the worst economic expansion since World War II.

This isn't complicated. Rampant inequality largely caused the Great Depression and the current economic crisis (and see this). Cutting taxes on the middle and lower classes reduces inequality and stimulates the consumer economy. But cutting taxes for the wealthy reduces aggregate consumer demand.

As economics professor Robert Reich notes:

First, the rich spend a smaller proportion of their wealth than the less-affluent, and so when more and more wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of the wealth, there is less overall spending and less overall manufacturing to meet consumer needs.

Second, in both the Roaring 20s and 2000-2007 period, the middle class incurred a lot of debt to pay for the things they wanted, as their real wages were stagnating and they were getting a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. In other words, they had less and less wealth, and so they borrowed more and more to make up the difference. As Reich notes:

Between 1913 and 1928, the ratio of private credit to the total national economy nearly doubled. Total mortgage debt was almost three times higher in 1929 than in 1920. Eventually, in 1929, as in 2008, there were “no more poker chips to be loaned on credit,” in [former Fed chairman Mariner] Eccles' words. And “when their credit ran out, the game stopped.”

And third, since the wealthy accumulated more, they wanted to invest more, so a lot of money poured into speculative investments, leading to huge bubbles, which eventually burst. Reich points out:

In the 1920s, richer Americans created stock and real estate bubbles that foreshadowed those of the late 1990s and 2000s. The Dow Jones Stock Index ballooned from 63.9 in mid-1921 to a peak of 381.2 eight years later, before it plunged. There was also frantic speculation in land. The Florida real estate boom lured thousands of investors into the Everglades, from where many never returned, at least financially.

Tax cuts for the little guy gives them more "poker chips" to play with, boosting consumer spending and stimulating the economy.

As Reich noted last year:

Small businesses are responsible for almost all job growth in a typical recovery. So if small businesses are hurting, we're not going to see much job growth any time soon.

On the other hand (despite oft-repeated mythology), tax cuts for the wealthiest tend to help the big businesses ... which don't create many jobs.

In fact, economics professor Steve Keen ran an economic computer model in 2009, and the model demonstrated that:

Giving the stimulus to the debtors is a more potent way of reducing the impact of a credit crunch [than giving money to the big banks and other creditors].

And as discussed above, Reich notes that tax cuts for the wealthy just lead to speculative bubbles ... which hurt, rather than help the economy.

Indeed, Keen has demonstrated that "a sustainable level of bank profits appears to be about 1% of GDP" ... higher bank profits lead to a ponzi economy and a depression. And too much concentration of wealth increases financial speculation, and therefore makes the financial sector (and the big banks) grow too big and too profitable.

Government policy has accelerated the growing inequality. It has encouraged American companies to move their facilities, resources and paychecks abroad. And some of the biggest companies in America have a negative tax rate ... that is, not only do they pay no taxes, but they actually get tax refunds. Indeed, instead of making Wall Street pay its fair share, Congress covered up illegal tax breaks for the big banks.

For those who still claim that tax cuts for the rich help the economy, the proof is in the pudding. The rich have gotten richer than ever before, and yet we have Depression-level housing declines, unemployment and other economic problems.

No wonder Ronald Reagan's budget director David Stockman called the Bush tax cuts the "worst fiscal mistake in history", and said that extending them will not boost the economy.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/07/its-simple-tax-cuts-for-middle-class.html

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 03:51 PM
I'm curious, where is the line at for paying nothing?

If you have a flat tax, it is no longer a moving target. Typically it is currently around 35,000 with factors like children, housing, and thousands of other factors raising the number ever upward.

I would say between 30 and 35K is reasonable, providing ALL loopholes are removed - no more corporation breaks, no more hiding earnings over x amount in moving and rotating accounts - at the same time no more credits for interest paid in housing, no more earned income credit.

We all know EXACTLY where we stand because if we earn "X" dollars, then we ALL pay "X*%" in taxes. Why do liberals find this concept so unappealing?

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 03:52 PM
Tax Cuts for the Middle Class and Poor STIMULATE The Economy, But Tax Cuts for the Wealthy HURT The Economy


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/07/its-simple-tax-cuts-for-middle-class.html
Yeah, that stimulus bill and cash for clunkers really worked out well didn't they?

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 03:56 PM
Yeah, that stimulus bill and cash for clunkers really worked out well didn't they?

ummm.. No. I've stated Obama was a Wall Street puppet from the beginning, I expected no less from El Presidente.
I've been vehemently against the bailouts and other crap projects Obama has introduced.

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 03:59 PM
ummm.. No. I've stated Obama was a Wall Street puppet from the beginning, I expected no less from El Presidente.
I've been vehemently against the bailouts and other crap projects Obama has introduced.

Both were taxation attempts (funded by the wealthy, by the way) to stimulate the economy by causing tax breaks and creating jobs for the middle and lower class.

Your statement above and your link below are in direct opposition with one another.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 04:04 PM
Both were taxation attempts (funded by the wealthy, by the way) to stimulate the economy by causing tax breaks and creating jobs for the middle and lower class.

Your statement above and your link below are in direct opposition with one another.

notice

1st article

Preface: As I've previously noted, I think that there are arguments for doing away with all taxes. However, if we're going to have taxes, the top 1% should pay their fair share.

2nd article

Preface: There is an argument for repealing all taxes. I have a strong libertarian streak, and there are arguments that government is wasting our tax money on imperial wars which weaken our national security and other shenanigans. There are also various legal arguments alleging that income taxes are illegal. This essay solely asks how taxes - if we do have them, and given that tax and other government policy has radically redistributed wealth upwards, creating current below-third-world-levels of inequality (greater than seen for many years before the Great Depression) - effect the economy.

I was called a conspiracy theorist pointing out the bailouts would do the opposite as stated, looks like i was right.

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 04:07 PM
notice

1st article

Preface: As I've previously noted, I think that there are arguments for doing away with all taxes. However, if we're going to have taxes, the top 1% should pay their fair share.

2nd article

Preface: There is an argument for repealing all taxes. I have a strong libertarian streak, and there are arguments that government is wasting our tax money on imperial wars which weaken our national security and other shenanigans. There are also various legal arguments alleging that income taxes are illegal. This essay solely asks how taxes - if we do have them, and given that tax and other government policy has radically redistributed wealth upwards, creating current below-third-world-levels of inequality (greater than seen for many years before the Great Depression) - effect the economy.

I was called a conspiracy theorist pointing out the bailouts would do the opposite as stated, looks like i was right.

More power to you, but I think you are misguided. A few blogs and rented website links with some graphs may support your position, but hardly prove you are right.

We will never eliminate all taxes, if you can find a way that doesn't lead to meltdown in this nation, I support your acts. But I don't think you can.

Brainiac
07-31-2011, 04:16 PM
Hmmm. It sure sounds like the point of this thread is that our nation's financial problems will go away if we just tax more. I haven't seen a word about trends in government spending.

Silly me. I thought the government was spending too much.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 04:17 PM
Hmmm. It sure sounds like the point of this thread is that our nation's financial problems will go away if we just tax more. I haven't seen a word about excess government spending.

Silly me. I thought the government was spending too much.

That wasn't the point of this thread however the reality will be those who do most of the work will pay more and receive less as per usual.

mlyonsd
07-31-2011, 04:21 PM
If you have a flat tax, it is no longer a moving target. Typically it is currently around 35,000 with factors like children, housing, and thousands of other factors raising the number ever upward.

I would say between 30 and 35K is reasonable, providing ALL loopholes are removed - no more corporation breaks, no more hiding earnings over x amount in moving and rotating accounts - at the same time no more credits for interest paid in housing, no more earned income credit.

We all know EXACTLY where we stand because if we earn "X" dollars, then we ALL pay "X/%" in taxes. Why do liberals find this concept so unappealing?Your absence from the board has left you a little behind. Let me help you catch up on how us Americans feel.

The liberal mantra built from the 60's on has grown to an epidemic in that most of us believe in now. Our grandparents that actually lived through hard times and scrapped us out of peril are now gone so they can't give us a moral compass.

Meanwhile, with a global economy we have lost taxpaying jobs at the same time we all think cable, unlimited free texting, and a 42 inch HD tv are an American right, not privilege.

Never mind we don't want to be bothered with paying attention to what our elected officials are doing. After all, if we pull that ballot lever we know that elected will continue to give us the things we have rights to.

We don't understand that the rich will eventually become the turnips. We truly believe we have a right to everyone elses money. We also can't see past the end of our noses and the Titanic is unsinkable.

We also know that if we pass a flat tax all of us would pay taxes. That's bull shit. We should be able to pull that ballot lever with no skin in the game. We look at Obama willing to pay more taxes as justification we're right even though we don't understand he only says that because he wants to keep his job another four years.

That pretty much sums it up. Please quit posting your ideologue ideas just because you're rich.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 04:25 PM
Please quit posting your ideologue ideas just because you're rich.

Heh, i doubt he's in the top .1 percentile which probably places him in the middle class. I could be wrong though. We have to find a way to stop run away inflation which will be the largest tax on everyone.

mlyonsd
07-31-2011, 04:47 PM
Heh, i doubt he's in the top .1 percentile which probably places him in the middle class. I could be wrong though. We have to find a way to stop run away inflation which will be the largest tax on everyone.Understand I'm middle class and know in a flat tax I'd be paying more, and I don't have a problem with it because I know it's the right thing to do.

Brainiac
07-31-2011, 05:03 PM
That wasn't the point of this thread however the reality will be those who do most of the work will pay more and receive less as per usual.

Yes, let's make sure those 50% of Americans pay their "fair share"!

http://i53.tinypic.com/2irq39x.jpg

go bowe
07-31-2011, 05:07 PM
Understand I'm middle class and know in a flat tax I'd be paying more, and I don't have a problem with it because I know it's the right thing to do.

middle class? pfffffffffft!

you are clearly super-rich and are defending your economic interests to the death...

oh wait...

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 05:10 PM
Yes, let's make sure those 50% of Americans pay their "fair share"!

http://i53.tinypic.com/2irq39x.jpg

Those "50%" pay the same taxes on everything but income and most of that is loaned to the government until tax time.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 05:14 PM
Understand I'm middle class and know in a flat tax I'd be paying more, and I don't have a problem with it because I know it's the right thing to do.

Actually if you're in the middle class you would probably pay less from what i've seen.

Brainiac
07-31-2011, 05:15 PM
Those "50%" pay the same taxes on everything but income and most of that is loaned to the government until tax time.
So in other words, they pay no income taxes. Thanks for agreeing with me.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 05:18 PM
So in other words, they pay no income taxes. Thanks for agreeing with me.

I'm libertarian, so i would love to get rid of all income taxes or move towards a flat tax and eliminate all taxes on necessities such as food.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 05:43 PM
We can do as Britain's Labor government of 1945, which cut taxes but not on the rich. ( Obama-style)

OR

Do as German Federal Republic of late 1940s and 1950s, "which repeatedly cut taxes across the board and thus triggered the economic miracle that led the German economy to become the strongest in Europe." ( Yeah, yeah the Marshall Plan I got it...but still.... )

"We have casebook studies of how tax cuts can actually hurt and help an economy. They can be used, not as weapon for helping regenerate an economy, but as a method of social engineering and promoting egalitarianism. This was the policy of England's first powerful socialist government, the Clement Atlee ministry of 1945." ( Obama-style )

Ya' know this was when Britain began to implement socialized medicine. This was all done when England had economic advantages continental Europe didn't have.

However, Germany's Finance Minister Ludwig Erhard was a student of the Austrian School of economics. His brave move was that he "ended wage and price controls without the permission of the occupying forces. In 1948, he began a remarkable series of tax cuts and tax reforms that went on for a decade. In addition to benefiting both the rich and the poor, these reforms continually redefined who "the rich" were by pushing the income thresholds up at the same time that tax rates were being cut."

More— http://mises.org/mobile/daily.aspx?Id=649

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 06:03 PM
Your absence from the board has left you a little behind. Let me help you catch up on how us Americans feel.

The liberal mantra built from the 60's on has grown to an epidemic in that most of us believe in now. Our grandparents that actually lived through hard times and scrapped us out of peril are now gone so they can't give us a moral compass.

Meanwhile, with a global economy we have lost taxpaying jobs at the same time we all think cable, unlimited free texting, and a 42 inch HD tv are an American right, not privilege.

Never mind we don't want to be bothered with paying attention to what our elected officials are doing. After all, if we pull that ballot lever we know that elected will continue to give us the things we have rights to.

We don't understand that the rich will eventually become the turnips. We truly believe we have a right to everyone elses money. We also can't see past the end of our noses and the Titanic is unsinkable.

We also know that if we pass a flat tax all of us would pay taxes. That's bull shit. We should be able to pull that ballot lever with no skin in the game. We look at Obama willing to pay more taxes as justification we're right even though we don't understand he only says that because he wants to keep his job another four years.

That pretty much sums it up. Please quit posting your ideologue ideas just because you're rich.
my cheeks hurt I smiled so much reading this. Thanks.

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 06:04 PM
Yes, let's make sure those 50% of Americans pay their "fair share"!

http://i53.tinypic.com/2irq39x.jpg

That cartoon sums up all this class warfare BS.

VAChief
07-31-2011, 06:29 PM
Letting the failed Bush tax breaks expire wouldn't be the only solution to fiscal solvency, but considering it didn't produce the expected returns I don't see a logical argument for why they can't be PART of the plan. Spending cuts are definitely needed, but it appears that what we most likely will get is less revenue as well (fewer employed). Of course it is only class warfare as long as the top 1% have to make do with less during these times.

Bump
07-31-2011, 09:00 PM
how about taxing US companies who abuse loopholes and outsource the appropriate amount? It's such a crock of shit how easily things could be dealt with but never will because of ya'lls precious 1st amendment.

BigChiefFan
07-31-2011, 10:51 PM
Letting the failed Bush tax breaks expire wouldn't be the only solution to fiscal solvency, but considering it didn't produce the expected returns I don't see a logical argument for why they can't be PART of the plan. Spending cuts are definitely needed, but it appears that what we most likely will get is less revenue as well (fewer employed). Of course it is only class warfare as long as the top 1% have to make do with less during these times.
Great post. Agreed on all counts. There's alot more they could easily do, but your points should be part of the solution to weening the government off of, We the People's teet.

mlyonsd
08-01-2011, 09:12 AM
Actually if you're in the middle class you would probably pay less from what i've seen.Not from what I've seen. Think about it....if lowering taxes on the middle class was possible both political parties would have already done so and tried to claim it was their idea.

FishingRod
08-01-2011, 10:28 AM
Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner.