my first reaction was to give an answer. But then i remembered, i did that in 4 other topics from this 'gifted' writer. But not a single question answered, and no serious counter arguments delivered, i will keep it simple.

Dont bother responding on te remarks of this pig-headed conservative. He is doomed to be a stubborn brick.

It isn't my assumption Undercover.
It is a fact found in the Treasury Departments own reports.

Undercover, you "want" the rich to put their money into "investments" that generate capital gains-investing in business through the stock market, investing in real estate that generates proper taxes, investing in savings that growth the stock of capital for loans.

As the Treasury Departments own statistics show when you raise capital gains rates you decrease revenue because investment capital is being diverted into channels which do not yield taxable capital gains and reduce the amount of investment capital available to grow business and create jobs.

The 28% tax rate generated less revenue than the 15% tax rate, and that is a fact established by the United States Treasury Department. It is not an assumption.
If the capital gains rate is high then

I have you muted, Tettleton, because you're an asshat and give intelligent conservatives/libertarians a bad name. But I saw this thread before the javascript loaded and needed to reply to the obvious idiocy. I'll say it very slowly: in. fla. tion.

The Laffer curve is a real thing, but using those numbers is just a stupid, stupid example.

Another instance where cutting tax rates increased revenue.

One is the myth that if we cut rates, somehow that is going to have the result of cutting revenues. I do not know what we have to do in history to show that is not correct. The first time that the whole idea came out was way back, following the First World War. At that time, it was the Harding administration and the Coolidge administration. They raised money in order to fight the war. And, of course, that was successful. But after the war, they decided that with the war effort gone, they could reduce the taxes .They reduced the top rate from 73 percent to 25 percent. They thought that would have a dramatic reduction in the revenues that were produced around our country. But they were willing to do it. To their surprise—this is the first time they had learned this—the economy, as a result of that reduction from the top rate of 73 percent down to25 percent, actually grew the economy59 percent between 1921 and 1929. And the revenues during that time grew from $719 million in 1921 to $1.16 billion in 1928.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2001-02-07/pdf/CREC-2001-02-07-senate.pdf

By your logic, cutting taxes to zero results in infinite revenue

Oh, wait, I forgot - you parrot the talking points someone told you, and don't bother to think for yourself. My apologies to everyone else for wasting their time

John F. Kennedy ended one of many of FDR's ruinous economic policies, no wonder the Depression lasted as long as it did under FDR.
The 91% tax rate that FDR instituted was slashed to 70%.
The Kennedy tax cuts
Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

http://www.neo.edu/LinkClick.aspx fileticket=gC1Efk6M5XY%3 &tabid=455&mid=3829

The facts are irritating some muted fool.

These increases/decreases don't occur in a vacuum. The Kennedy vs. FDR tax rate comparison assumes equal bases from which to draw taxes, which is an entirely false assumption. Tax revenues increased 33% in those years, but simultaneously, GDP increased 53% (got the #s from FRED), which in in real terms. Similar story from 1987-2007, GDP increased ~40% in real terms. When people have more money, government takes in more taxes, even with lower rates. You can't compare apples and oranges, especially in nominal terms.

2nd white line,

No where in any of these posts is Kennedy era tax revenue compared to FDR ear tax revenue.

FDR was dead in 1961, the first year of comparison. What are you talking about?
FDR was president from 1932-1944. There is not data in that post at about tax revenue from 1932-1944.

Where do these people that cant' comprehend simple date come from?

points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points points

damn, it doesn't work.. did i do it wrong? point

2nd White Line,

When people pay lower taxes and get to keep more of their productive output they are willing to generate more risks and make GDP grow.

I appreciate that you understand the connection between increased GDP and increased tax receipts.

The economy sure didn't grow under FDR when he had 90% top bracket tax rates, laws that artificially inflated union wages and gave government contracts at those inflated union rates.
Gosh, I just posted what the economic idiot Obama wants to do in his jobs bill, take us back to the utterly failed economic policies of FDR.

When I said "those years," I meant the years during the Kennedy administration ('61 on), when the tax rate was lowered from the FDR 90%. At no point did I mention anything about FDR.

Regarding tax rates, though: when you say a "90% tax rate" you need to clarify what portion of income that tax rate is affecting. You imply that a person making $100000 a year would be paying $90000 in taxes, which is a ridiculous misinterpretation of tax policy. Tax rates are marginal and do not apply to every penny of income. A businessman such as you should obviously know that.

The highest tax rate which I can find under FDR occurred in 1944/45, the peak of WWII when the government needed income, at 94%. This tax rate ONLY applied to incomes over $2,493,107, which adjusted for inflation is $32,090,961.67 in 2011 dollars. Even today, that is a ridiculous amount of money, which does not include income from capital gains and dividends, which is taxed differently and at a lower rate. This is also at a time when average incomes were under $3000 for a married couple. It's utterly ridiculous to imply that this 94% tax on people making over $32 million per year hurt business, especially when the number of people making that much money was surely in the single digits.

The point, though, is that your understanding of tax rates is severely flawed and deliberately worded to provoke sympathy for those few people who control an incredibly disproportionate amount of income as compared to the rest of the working American population. FDR had a lot of failed policies, but the tax rate on the richest few was nothing that harmed the economy any more than it already was.

The economy is moved with purchases, it is grown thru investment.

If you make it difficult to invest money (taxes), the economy cant grow easily, period.

Our economy is moved forward by consumers (for the most part), and right now, there isnt a lot of extra money in themiddle class (the ones who drive the economy) and the rich (the ones who technically help grow it) are not interested at all in investing.

this is the simple version, but it is how things work here.

So, with that in mind, your 17-21% REAL unemployment (not that BS 9.1) so those people are surviving at best. Then you have what is left of the middle class, scared to spend on luxuries, and keeping money tight to the chest (Consumer Confidence scores back me up on this). And the rich, well, those high tax rates are making them 'hide' that money elsewhere.

I was going to start a small business. I have the money, investors, plan, experience/education to do it. However, I am waiting until I see what happens with this election. Obamas version of rich and mine are much different, and I would certainly hatre to catapult myself into the 'rich' class now.

Not all taxes are ahead of the Laffer Curve at all times. And of course people holding long-term debt are going to opt to pay capital gains if it's lower than the marginal income tax rate.

You remind me of a younger me, Tettleton. You've successfully pierced the veil of the left-wing propaganda machine and can see through the squealing emotive appeals to better nature.

Now you have to figure out that your own side DOES and WILL lie to you as well, or at the very least, you need to figure out that the right gets shit wrong. Beating a leftist in an argument doesn't make you right. It just makes you smarter than a leftist.

2ndWhiteLine,

I would assume that someone who responded with such knowledge and authority would realize that the only group in American history to pay a 90% income tax rate is the top tax bracket or brackets.
Are you European where tax rates about 50% if not higher are imposed on everyone to support the welfare state?
We don't do that in America.

In America right now 47% of all American pay nothing at all in income tax.
We don't have a VAT either.

Stop repeating Fox News talking points. 47% of Americans pay nothing in FEDERAL income tax. They pay plenty in state, FICA, etc. Those Americans also make next to nothing, so why would you tax someone who has very little income? Isn't your whole point that lowering taxes is better for the economy?

By "pay nothing at all in income tax," do you mean that all their taxes get withheld? Do you mean they deduct it down to zero? Do you mean they simply aren't making any taxable income? And no, we don't have a VAT. We have state sales taxes.

Dont try to get through to him

harder than sneaking into west berlin, over the wall naked and bleeding

TC is all for tax hikes....on the poor.

tax hikes on the poor? What a novel idea...stupid, but novel. Is that really what he suggests, or are you simply translating his words to fit your agenda?

The poor have no money to tax, so its a moot point, isnt it?


taxing the rich is very counter productive, because they can turle up in a hurry when you start attacking their finances, and then you lose any real economic growth (see now).

You cant jsut keep taxing to meet a fat, far too big budget. That is not even logical. You must shorten the budget to meet the revenue, not the other way.

I cant go out and make more money (well i guess I can, but really I cant), so I need to bring my bills in line with my revenue, not the other way. Everyone understand this part?

You cant say "okay, today, we have a 8 trilion dollar budget, so we have to double all taxes to balance it" WRONG!!!!!! that is not what is suppose to happen, and anyone who suggests that, needs their head checked.

on the same note, we cant have no taxes either. A flat rate sales tax would help solve a lot of these problems, as much as it pains me to say this. I have never been a big fan of it, but wow, would it sure simplify things a lot.

And instead of giving each department a budget, you give them a % of the tax revenue brought in, and say "okay, work with what you got" or something similar. Or, you take care of the big ones first (military, federal employees) and what is left, isdivided up amonst the less important.

I dont have a real good answer, but, then again nobody else does either. The flat sales tax however would being a LOT of money back into the country to be used and possibly invested. I think I heard 14 trillion is hidden overseas by Americans. That sure would look good in the economy right now.

Well he recites Fox News talking points about who pays taxes, implying it's unfair that the working poor, retired, unemployed, etc don't pay federal income taxes. Republicans have called for "expanding the tax base" which means making a higher percentage of those poor, unemployed, retired people pay federal income tax. That's objectively raising taxes on those who can least afford it.

We've had high rates of growth with much higher tax rates. This notion that capital is simply waiting for their taxes to be lowered and then they'll invest is nonsense (especially since some corporations pay zero). They're sitting on record profits. But what is happening is the destruction of the middle class. Good luck growing the economy when nobody has any money to spend.

The flax tax exempts taxes on capital gains and investment, which is another boondoggle for the rich. The issue of untaxed overseas investment would also not be helped with a flat tax. Flat tax proponents oppose repatriation taxes.

"Those Americans Make Next to Nothing."
Who knows what Americans 2nd is posting about. Basically he is talking out of his ass because I frustrated him when I pointed out the horrendous taxation in Europe.

In the United States I guess TV's, computers, air conditioners, DVD players, etc must fall from the sky because how could 47% of American who "also make next to nothing" according to 2nd get the things they posses.

Americans percentages of ownership of the following items by Household.
99.9% Refrigerator
98.7% Televsion
98.5% Stove/Oven
95% Automobile
87.9% Microwave
83% Washer
78% More than one TV
79% Cable TV Service
79% DVD Player
76% Cell Phone
68% A computer
http://205.254.135.24/emeu/recs/recs2005/hc2005_tables/detailed_tables2005.html

The per capita income of the United States is higher than every country in Europe except Norway.

So if Americans don't make anything then how did they get all the possessions they own and have the income's per capita they have?

Europeans must be running around naked and hungry if Americans "make next to nothing."

Where did you get these absurd numbers, I didn't see them anywhere on your "link".

After Putin's calling of bullshit, I checked his link too. What TC said is false, those percentages were pulled out of his arse.

Putin, you do a FINE job of cherry picking, dont you? It is what you do best, no?

Give me some fine examples of high job growth with high taxes, that didnt involve a major war, ok? lets see what exactly was the result, because simply put, higher Cap GAin taxes DOES INDEED drive money over seas. it is why there is an estinated 14 trillion hidden by Americans now.

Tittleton grabbed those percentages from a yearly bullshit survey conducted by the Heritage Foundation. Look them up on Google, you likely won't find them. They're so far to the right they probably won't even appear on the screen.

You're really grasping at straws now, Tittleton. Refrigerators and stoves are a necessity. What, do you think that 47% of Americans cook over campfires and eat out of tin cans? You must think every poor family in the United States resembles the Joads. Besides, for those low income people who rent, those appliances (and usually a washer/microwave) come with apartments anyway. Are refrigerators and stoves reserved as luxuries only for the rich?

Televisions are dirt cheap, microwaves are dirt cheap, DVD players are dirt cheap. For the majority of Americans who don't live in cities (and many who do) and need to get to work, a car is also a necessity and if it breaks down and someone can't get to work, they are screwed. These aren't BMWs we're talking about, either. As far as cell phones and computers go, we happen to live in 2011, where even the unemployed need internet access to search for jobs and even communicate at the most basic of levels.

Next time you decide to cite an extremely biased Heritage Foundation survey, use come critical thought (I know you have a brain in that thick skull of yours somewhere) and consider what an American needs to survive in 2011 and what is actually considered a "luxury" and not an "essential."