Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumPic Of The Moment: Stop Me If You've Heard This One Before
Trump aides sell tax plan with Pinocchio-laden claims
Claim That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves" Is Too Good To Be True
The Legacy of the 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts
Follow @demunderground
Lochloosa
(16,067 posts)hibbing
(10,109 posts)See how many support these. Hard to go back and tell your constituents you voted against a tax cut. Of course, they don't really care about their constituents, they are there to serve their corporate masters.
Peace
Initech
(100,099 posts)While the rest of us suffer.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I may have been wrong.
Maybe this IS better than traditional retirement!
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,033 posts)pansypoo53219
(20,991 posts)niyad
(113,527 posts)FakeNoose
(32,723 posts)It seems the media is jumping through hoops trying to show everyone how bad this is.
Maybe my media is different from yours. (?)
mdbl
(4,973 posts)Steve Dooshey and the rest of those idiots talk about how wonderful it is. Maybe that is what the person was watching.
FakeNoose
(32,723 posts)But now I understand your comment. I'm very happy to have MSNBC.
athenasatanjesus
(859 posts)Tobin S.
(10,418 posts)underpants
(182,868 posts)at least for a couple seconds.
ffr
(22,671 posts)Because, had the GOP did nothing, the CBO had forecast that the total national debt would have been paid off by 2009. Zero, zilch, nada. I'm not talking annual deficit, I'm talking the entire national debt PAID OFF. But instead of $0.00 in 2009, total public debt was $10.8T. Now we know the true cost of conservative tax policies. Tax cuts are nothing more than deferred taxes with interest.
BUT NO! Bush and the republicans gave us $300 - $600 back on our taxes and what we reaped form the 2008 recession that resulted was a loss of 50% of our portfolio assets, including value on real estate. No thanks. Next time republicans talk about tax cuts, think about who really made tax policy work, Bill Clinton, their arch enemy. Now you know why they had it in for him and Hillary.
noneof_theabove
(410 posts)Here it is by the numbers.
According to the Interbanking people between 5 and 15 TRILLION change hands EVERY DAY.
The Feds need 14 TRILLION per year.
Yes, these are "bigly" numbers.
Most people do not understand 3 times there pay check.
So conservative 5 T calculation.
Times 250 working days. [this hits wall street and McMansion]
Divide 12T by ( 5T * 250) and you get 1.12%.
Even with 2% that will take down the deficit quick.
This is when moves the mover tags the tax at the "banking" level.
No more IRS, H&R Blockheads, etc.
No deductions, kids, houses, nothing...
This is equality for all, just like the Constitution says.
I have 20+ percent pulling from the paycheck and end up in 15-18 percent on IRS [single no deductions]
I am ready and willing to pay 2%, awe heck even 5% is a big savings.
No badger your congress-critter KISS the the tax system.
mdbl
(4,973 posts)they would rather you pay for everything.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Doing the actual work required shows the Laffer curve calls to increase taxes right now. One study of the United States between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing tax rate (the point at which another tax rate increase would decrease tax revenue) at between 32.67% and 35.21%.[3] In 1991 the "average" tax rate was 19.58%. The US is currently on the lower side of the maximum tax rate predicted by Laffer's curve. Hsing also concluded that Reagan's tax cuts reduced revenue, since the average tax rate at the time was only 20.41%. This means Laffer's curve has completely backfired in what it was said it was supposed to do (increase government revenue).
The tax rate the Laffer curve deals with is an "average" or overall rate. In a progressive tax system, lower income people should be paying, approximately, a total tax of 10-15% and upper income people in the 60-70% range, comparable to the 70% that was found to give an optimal result in Sweden in the 1970s.[4] And despite that marginal rate since being lowered to +55% in Sweden (the shortfall resulting in sales tax increases), it is still well higher than the the highest federal bracket in the US 35% in 2011. A worker earning about $20,000 a year pays a 15% income tax plus almost 15% in "payroll" taxes towards the Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid programs, or about 8% less than the tax rate paid by someone earning a hundred times as much.[5]
Its invoked to justify objectives opposite to those it purports to achieve. The whole point of the Laffer curve is to set taxes at the optimal level, where the curve reaches its peak, in order to maximize government revenue. But it is then cited to justify endless tax cuts, by those who seek to minimize government revenue, to reduce government spending by starving the beast. This non sequitur goes almost universally unnoticed by both advocates and opponents of the policy.
It focuses on the wrong segment of the population. The people that'd theoretically benefit the most from the tax cut would be those facing the highest effective tax rate; the people on welfare. Due to the rules about means-testing for things like housing assistance, food stamps, and healthcare, make juuust enough money and you lose it all. Oh sure, it's phased out, but the end result is that it's still effectively a tax. Earn an extra $10,000 this year? Screw you, you don't need these $6,000 worth of food stamps and housing benefits, oh and you can now afford to pay an extra $2000 in tax, oh and this is after we tax your money through your employer before you even see it! And this is BEFORE Social Security which for some stupid reason is only levied on the first $110,000. This is known as the Welfare trapWikipedia's W.svg. It's almost as if the system is designed to prevent people from escaping poverty. So even if the Laffer Curve was true, the rich are the last group that need the cut.
The Mouth
(3,164 posts)it's nice to see "dead" and "Reagan" next to each other.