CBO Report 2005: In the absence of the Bush Tax Cuts the nation would be returning to a surplus in 2011

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'm discussing tax cuts for the wealthy with a someone who probably doesn't have two nickels to rub together and will never be able to enjoy the fat cat tax breaks, I guess that makes me looney tunes. Tax cuts are loss of revenue, that's exactly what they are, no matter how many fancy labels you want to place on them. Spending is the same thing, outflow or loss of revenue. One is directed and the other is more general in nature. Maybe that's lost on you and those of your ilk. A tax cut is ME subsidizing YOU, maybe that tax cut was paid for in the loss of something that I used, maybe I just paid more somewhere else. It doesn't matter. I subsized you. Do the rich use government services, of course they do, so should they not have to pay their fair share? Why do they get the tax cuts? Using your logic all of my money is my money and I shouldn't have to pay taxes since it's my money, just curious but how many copies of The Anarchist's Cookbook do you have stashed around the compound?

The rich already hold the vast majority of the tax burden the last time I checked. Hold on, let me check again. Yup, still do.

One "rich" person paying his/her taxes, even with the 'evil' tax cuts is enough to support lowly welfare deadbeat garbage by scores of people. THAT is reality.

So you want to talk about 'fair share' - Let's talk about the breeding pieces of ####### that pop out 6 kids, pay no taxes and actually leech off the system by taking hard earned money of others.

I'm not defending the rich as you might think, but i'm sure as hell not defending the leeches of society either until EVERYONE pays their fair share and doesn't abuse a piece of ####### system.

Oh and those 'government services' you're referring to that the "rich" use, those are 99% of the time paid for by state/local taxes in which they still pay the most of because of high property taxes on luxury homes and of course, let's not forget, they buy more ####### so they pay more in sales taxes as well.

[scandal 951]

Lower taxes = higher government revenue (you can select multiple answers)

LMFAO - ya, maybe lowering taxes from 90 to 80%, otherwise no

ROFLMFAO

LOL

Yes, in most cases lower taxes will produce higher revenue.

It is unknown

I honestly do not know

LI, I chose "It is unknown".

There is ongoing debate amongst economists about what the maximal point on the Laffer curve is, at which threshold revenues are at their greatest. In theory, increasing taxes beyond this point will decrease revenue (since the higher tax burden disincentivizes people to work more) and decreasing below this point also decreases revenue (since the percentage of total economic activity taken in taxes is lower). Economists are divided: 65%? 35%? 70%? 26%? Symmetric? Assymetric? Questions abound. Is there a single unique maximum point on the curve? Probably not, since individual factors play into the group psychology of work incentives - factors that are not strictly related to tax policy. Even if there is an idealized Laffer curve with a unique maximum, how would we know if we are to the left or the right of it? How would we know if that point doesn't shift over time as the structure of the economy and society change?

In short - I believe that lowering or raising taxes does have an effect on revenue but it's difficult if not impossible to predict in advance what the long term effect will be. What can be said is that we're not at a historical low point for taxes, thanks to the Bush tax cuts. A reversion to the mean argument suggests that if we're going to change policy in any direction then higher is more sensible than lower. Given how difficult our deficit situation is I think it makes sense to close the obvious tax loopholes and go back to tax rates that were not seen as punitive and disincentivizing when we had them during the 1990s.

Here's some of the academic discussion of maximal Laffer point:

Research on revenue maximising tax rate

Economist Paul Pecorino argued in 1995 that the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%.[19] A 1996 study by Y. Hsing of the United States economy between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing tax rate (the point at which another marginal tax rate increase would decrease tax revenue) between 32.67% and 35.21%.[20] A 1981 empirical study published in the Journal of Political Economy found that the point of maximum tax revenue in Sweden in the 1970s would have been 70%.[21] A recent paper by Trabandt and Uhlig of the NBER found that the US and most European economies are on the left of the Laffer curve (in other words, that raising taxes would raise further revenue).[22] The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that for academic studies, the mid-range for the revenue maximizing rate is around 70%.[23]

However, a study by Teather and Young of the Adam Smith Institute using evidence from the Republic of Ireland has suggested that the optimal rate for capital gains tax, as opposed to income tax, may be around 20%, but this is at least partly due to savvy taxpayers holding onto assets in anticipation of tax rates being lowered in the future.[24] A 2007 study by the American Enterprise Institute, a right leaning think tank, found that the revenue maximizing rate for corporate taxes in OECD countries was about 26%, down from about 34% in the 1980s.[25]

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

The rich already hold the vast majority of the tax burden the last time I checked. Hold on, let me check again. Yup, still do.

One "rich" person paying his/her taxes, even with the 'evil' tax cuts is enough to support lowly welfare deadbeat garbage by scores of people. THAT is reality.

So you want to talk about 'fair share' - Let's talk about the breeding pieces of ####### that pop out 6 kids, pay no taxes and actually leech off the system by taking hard earned money of others.

I'm not defending the rich as you might think, but i'm sure as hell not defending the leeches of society either until EVERYONE pays their fair share and doesn't abuse a piece of ####### system.

Oh and those 'government services' you're referring to that the "rich" use, those are 99% of the time paid for by state/local taxes in which they still pay the most of because of high property taxes on luxury homes and of course, let's not forget, they buy more ####### so they pay more in sales taxes as well.

Nobody is defending the welfare bums, no matter how much income they make. The tax cut mantra is so persuasive, why not just eliminate all taxes, that should solve the problem. You make many bald assertions about what the rich pay but do they pay what they should or are they using unfair dodges to escape? You avoid the issue by discussing breeders, that's another issue but you are defending the rich no matter how you colour it. The so-called deadbeat garbage of society are human beings and if we had some manner to get them gainful employment instead of giving money to fat cats hiding income or using their corporate enterprises to set up offshore holding companies to avoid a minimal tax burden then there wouldn't be a problem. The tax breaks that corporations use and abuse are paid for by you and me, don't forget that. The cushy deals so that some fundraisers can contribute to a politicians campaign are paid for by you aqnd me. Your example of the 99% of government services, even if true means that they are diverting money from other worthwhile programs. Nobody said that they don't pay taxes, the percentages of taxes they do pay are scandalously low and thanks to generous tax breaks they recoup them. But you shouldn't worry, neither you nor I qualify for any of them.

[Ste 6]

The rich already hold the vast majority of the tax burden the last time I checked. Hold on, let me check again. Yup, still do.

One "rich" person paying his/her taxes, even with the 'evil' tax cuts is enough to support lowly welfare deadbeat garbage by scores of people. THAT is reality.

So you want to talk about 'fair share' - Let's talk about the breeding pieces of ####### that pop out 6 kids, pay no taxes and actually leech off the system by taking hard earned money of others.

I'm not defending the rich as you might think, but i'm sure as hell not defending the leeches of society either until EVERYONE pays their fair share and doesn't abuse a piece of ####### system.

Oh and those 'government services' you're referring to that the "rich" use, those are 99% of the time paid for by state/local taxes in which they still pay the most of because of high property taxes on luxury homes and of course, let's not forget, they buy more ####### so they pay more in sales taxes as well.

Ok, so lets forget the rich for a second. I and I'm sure almost everyone else here agree with you that it's generally not good for people to churn out loads of kids in order to leech off welfare. Take them out of the equation as well. Now we're left with the middle classes. They're the ones who actually suffer. They don't get freebies like those leeches you mentioned. Their actual tax burden (Ability to pay rather than simply the amount they pay, vs the amount of benefit they receive from it) is the one that will always suffer when there's government cuts or tax increases. And when there's things like the Bush tax cuts which generally apply to wealthier people, the burden always shifts more on to the middle classes.

Back to the richer people.. It's not so much of a burden for them if their tax goes up a little. What would they be like? "Oh noes, I was taking home $1,000,000 now it's just $900,000 how am I gonna feed my kids and fill my car?" Of course they wouldn't say that. It's the middle classes who actually do the suffering. I don't see why people defend the very rich. It's not like the 'trickle down' theory works. (As judged by the actual numbers rather than peoples' opinions) The gap between richer and poorer is widening more than ever, and what have the richest people done as thanks for that? Gambled away the economy in failed banking practices.

If you believe in a fair country, then it's right to try and level out the financial strain and actual financial burden for everyone in the country. That might mean those lower class 'leeches' getting less, the middle classes getting less, but it would certainly include putting more of an ACTUAL burden on the richest in society. If not then it perpetuates a bad situation. The poor will get poorer at a quicker rate (as is already happening) and the richer will have no choice but to bear more of a burden in order to prevent a social meltdown in the future.

they still pay the most of because of high property taxes on luxury homes and of course, let's not forget, they buy more ####### so they pay more in sales taxes as well.

And on this point, no one is forcing the rich to buy luxury houses or buy more stuff. It's their choice. However, if you're not rich then having somewhere or nowhere to live, or having a vehicle to get to a job or not isn't much of a choice. There's also the problem of the richest in society easily being able to shield most of their money from the tax collector anyway. Middle and lower class people don't have access to offshore banks and armies of tax lawyers.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Ok, so lets forget the rich for a second. I and I'm sure almost everyone else here agree with you that it's generally not good for people to churn out loads of kids in order to leech off welfare. Take them out of the equation as well. Now we're left with the middle classes. They're the ones who actually suffer. They don't get freebies like those leeches you mentioned. Their actual tax burden (Ability to pay rather than simply the amount they pay, vs the amount of benefit they receive from it) is the one that will always suffer when there's government cuts or tax increases. And when there's things like the Bush tax cuts which generally apply to wealthier people, the burden always shifts more on to the middle classes.

Back to the richer people.. It's not so much of a burden for them if their tax goes up a little. What would they be like? "Oh noes, I was taking home $1,000,000 now it's just $900,000 how am I gonna feed my kids and fill my car?" Of course they wouldn't say that. It's the middle classes who actually do the suffering. I don't see why people defend the very rich. It's not like the 'trickle down' theory works. (As judged by the actual numbers rather than peoples' opinions) The gap between richer and poorer is widening more than ever, and what have the richest people done as thanks for that? Gambled away the economy in failed banking practices.

If you believe in a fair country, then it's right to try and level out the financial strain and actual financial burden for everyone in the country. That might mean those lower class 'leeches' getting less, the middle classes getting less, but it would certainly include putting more of an ACTUAL burden on the richest in society. If not then it perpetuates a bad situation. The poor will get poorer at a quicker rate (as is already happening) and the richer will have no choice but to bear more of a burden in order to prevent a social meltdown in the future.

And on this point, no one is forcing the rich to buy luxury houses or buy more stuff. It's their choice. However, if you're not rich then having somewhere or nowhere to live, or having a vehicle to get to a job or not isn't much of a choice. There's also the problem of the richest in society easily being able to shield most of their money from the tax collector anyway. Middle and lower class people don't have access to offshore banks and armies of tax lawyers.

More poor people would be dead but they can't afford the coins on their eyelids. The middle class is getting hammered by these tax cuts, I agree with you on that one.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Nobody is defending the welfare bums, no matter how much income they make. The tax cut mantra is so persuasive, why not just eliminate all taxes, that should solve the problem. You make many bald assertions about what the rich pay but do they pay what they should or are they using unfair dodges to escape? You avoid the issue by discussing breeders, that's another issue but you are defending the rich no matter how you colour it. The so-called deadbeat garbage of society are human beings and if we had some manner to get them gainful employment instead of giving money to fat cats hiding income or using their corporate enterprises to set up offshore holding companies to avoid a minimal tax burden then there wouldn't be a problem. The tax breaks that corporations use and abuse are paid for by you and me, don't forget that. The cushy deals so that some fundraisers can contribute to a politicians campaign are paid for by you aqnd me. Your example of the 99% of government services, even if true means that they are diverting money from other worthwhile programs. Nobody said that they don't pay taxes, the percentages of taxes they do pay are scandalously low and thanks to generous tax breaks they recoup them. But you shouldn't worry, neither you nor I qualify for any of them.

This is so damn ignorant it's not even funny.

Tax breaks are KEEPING YOUR OWN MONEY. THEY DONT COST ANYTHING.

outside of Fortune 500 companies, MOST small businesses are corporations as well. Let us not forget that one.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Tax breaks are KEEPING YOUR OWN MONEY. THEY DONT COST ANYTHING.

Well, right now, they cost interest since that money ain't coming in and is, hence, borrowed to be paid by someone else later. It's really basic math - you should try it.

[dalegg 143]

Its a tough one to call. If you graph out the 90s then we have pretty much the best scenario and I have to guess everyone wishes we could be like that again. You do have some factors that I think are hard to predict- We have to assume 9/11 and the subsequent recession was going to happen and that would have reduced revenues no matter who was president. Then there is the basis for the 90s economy which was the dot com bubble and that burst right around the same time, so you'd have to factor that loss in as well. Its hard to say exactly how sluggish the economy would have been without the cuts, and how that would have affected the revenue.

Most independent agencies say that the tax cuts cost us between 2 to 3 trillion dollars, so despite questions I have, I would go with that. But the thing I would consider the most ironic about this debate is this-

Obviously the Bush tax cuts gave the most to the wealthiest. Nobody argues that. But the Obama stimulus tax cuts/credits gave the most to the middle and lower classes- which probably encompass 99.9% of the people complaining about them. I can personally attest to about $6,000 in tax breaks that came straight from tax breaks' portion- not the spending portion- from the Obama stimulus plan. The latest ads on TV state- "$890 billion in failed stimulus"- that's the total amount of the stimulus, including the cuts/credits, so they obviously hate the tax breaks portion as much as they hate the spending portion. I'm not going to argue that the stimulus is mostly a failure, but-

So here is my question- why would you so vehemently argue to keep in tax cuts for the wealthy, but protest so strongly against tax cuts for yourself, or people just like you?

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

This is so damn ignorant it's not even funny.

Tax breaks are KEEPING YOUR OWN MONEY. THEY DONT COST ANYTHING.

outside of Fortune 500 companies, MOST small businesses are corporations as well. Let us not forget that one.

No, that fact that you just don't get it is what's hilarious. If you give me $5, that's $5 out of your pocket. You will be $5 dollars poorer. If I don't have to pay you back the $5 that I owe you then how much will you have? You keep trying to get away from the issue, using your logic all those little corporations contribute nothing since almost all the corporate taxes are paid by the Fortune 500 companies. The SBA is just pablum for the corporate leeches.

Its a tough one to call. If you graph out the 90s then we have pretty much the best scenario and I have to guess everyone wishes we could be like that again. You do have some factors that I think are hard to predict- We have to assume 9/11 and the subsequent recession was going to happen and that would have reduced revenues no matter who was president. Then there is the basis for the 90s economy which was the dot com bubble and that burst right around the same time, so you'd have to factor that loss in as well. Its hard to say exactly how sluggish the economy would have been without the cuts, and how that would have affected the revenue.

Most independent agencies say that the tax cuts cost us between 2 to 3 trillion dollars, so despite questions I have, I would go with that. But the thing I would consider the most ironic about this debate is this-

Obviously the Bush tax cuts gave the most to the wealthiest. Nobody argues that. But the Obama stimulus tax cuts/credits gave the most to the middle and lower classes- which probably encompass 99.9% of the people complaining about them. I can personally attest to about $6,000 in tax breaks that came straight from tax breaks' portion- not the spending portion- from the Obama stimulus plan. The latest ads on TV state- "$890 billion in failed stimulus"- that's the total amount of the stimulus, including the cuts/credits, so they obviously hate the tax breaks portion as much as they hate the spending portion. I'm not going to argue that the stimulus is mostly a failure, but-

So here is my question- why would you so vehemently argue to keep in tax cuts for the wealthy, but protest so strongly against tax cuts for yourself, or people just like you?

That's his modus operandi, no one can understand it.

Well, right now, they cost interest since that money ain't coming in and is, hence, borrowed to be paid by someone else later. It's really basic math - you should try it.

I get it, but he doesn't. Revenue is important.

[dalegg 143]

That's his modus operandi, no one can understand it.

To be clear, I wasn't pointing that at anyone specifically.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Well, right now, they cost interest since that money ain't coming in and is, hence, borrowed to be paid by someone else later. It's really basic math - you should try it.

and why are we paying interest on anything? Why is the government in debt in the first place.

THAT should be the question that every red-blooded American should be asking.

Instead, they are acting like damn sheep and saying "oh it's ok to raise the debt ceiling this once" when they have no damn clue that has been a fvcked up process for a very long time now.

They ignore the cause, the effect, and it has NOTHING to do with tax rates on the rich and everything to do with out of control spending.

STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DO NOT HAVE. This is basic economics. Basic accounting.

[mawilson 2,133]

Obviously the Bush tax cuts gave the most to the wealthiest. Nobody argues that.

It's not obvious at all, because it's not true.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

and why are we paying interest on anything? Why is the government in debt in the first place.

THAT should be the question that every red-blooded American should be asking.

Instead, they are acting like damn sheep and saying "oh it's ok to raise the debt ceiling this once" when they have no damn clue that has been a fvcked up process for a very long time now.

They ignore the cause, the effect, and it has NOTHING to do with tax rates on the rich and everything to do with out of control spending.

STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DO NOT HAVE. This is basic economics. Basic accounting.

No, increase taxes on the rich, close loopholes that apply to them and cut spending. Problem solved!!!!!!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

No, increase taxes on the rich, close loopholes that apply to them and cut spending. Problem solved!!!!!!

You don't give a pig more food unless he's ready to be slaughtered. This government is not yet ready to be slaughtered and we all know that.

Stop the spending first and THEN and only then authorize more funds if necessary.

However if you cut spending appropriately, then more funds should not be needed.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

and why are we paying interest on anything? Why is the government in debt in the first place.

Because revenues were reduced while spending was increased by self-proclaimed fiscally responsible Republicans. Because fiscally responsible Republicans opted to start two wars w/o raising a dime for it, because those same fiscally responsible Republicans passed trillion dollar entitlement legislation w/o raising a single dime for it and because fiscally responsible Republicans built a huge new federal bureaucracy w/o ever raising a single dime to pay for it. Or, as then VP Cheney put it, because deficits don't matter. That's why.

STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DO NOT HAVE. This is basic economics. Basic accounting.

No, STOP reducing revenues while increasing federal spending. That is basic economics and basic accounting that the Republicans are incapable of. And because they're incapable of understanding these simple principles of fiscal sanity, we're sitting on 14 trillion dollars of debt rather than being close to having any debt worth mentioning at all. But they are the fiscally responsible party.