Higher Federal Taxation under Obama...

[otoc]

I read the report and you are apparently bent I won't explain it to you. Too bad. Go sharpen your pencil and read it again. I'm sure others will not have your issues.

Really. And the responses of "others" is where? You posted the links to duplicate reports and offered no position other than c&p. So the issue here is I'm not putting words in your mouth?

I said that? No. You decided to flog the strawman again and stated:



I never made any such claim. I'd be more than happy to discuss/debate things I've actually said. Until you feel like reciprocating in kind I'm stuck setting your straw guys on fire and listening to you cry.



Your god?? What's Algore got to do with this?? What I'm saying is you should try responding to what I actually say. Or at the very least stop making sh*t up. For the gazillionth time.. If your gonna get all bent outta shape when I point out your obvious strawman constructs, discontinue the practice of building them.

There you go repeating yourself over and over over again. Calm down and remember I kept asking you why you posted the "5 myths" link for it supported the Obama position and you kept responding without saying anything. You still haven't. So the problem here is when you c&p a link to an article you obviously haven't read that supports the Obama position you have to keep complaining about me? I didn't post the link. You did. Why? No amount of repeating outrage over me is going to take away from the fact you posted an OpEd that supports the Obama position. Again, should we simply ignore what you post?

[AMDScooter]

Really. And the responses of "others" is where? You posted the links to duplicate reports and offered no position other than c&p. So the issue here is I'm not putting words in your mouth?



There you go repeating yourself over and over over again. Calm down and remember I kept asking you why you posted the "5 myths" link for it supported the Obama position and you kept responding without saying anything. You still haven't. So the problem here is when you c&p a link to an article you obviously haven't read that supports the Obama position you have to keep complaining about me? I didn't post the link. You did. Why? No amount of repeating outrage over me is going to take away from the fact you posted an OpEd that supports the Obama position. Again, should we simply ignore what you post?

I keep repeating myself for no other reason than your reading/comprehension issues. Should you ignore what I post?? That's not even a question.. you do it habitually. You did not ask about the "5 myths" post. You simply and provably made sh*t up and tried to attribute those words to me. When asked to provide a quote where I said any of what you claimed, you put the turbo from the Saab onto the washer and hit spin.

I'm simply gonna C&P what I've already said till ya admit your straw ridden ways.

lol, OK, let's focus on your 5 myths that somehow support your notion that the tax cuts should be indefinitely continued.

I never made any such claim. I'd be more than happy to discuss/debate things I've actually said. Until you feel like reciprocating in kind I'm stuck setting your straw guys on fire and listening to you cry.

Enjoy your denial.

[otoc]

You did not ask about the "5 myths" post. You simply and provably made sh*t up and tried to attribute those words to me. When asked to provide a quote where I said any of what you claimed, you put the turbo from the Saab onto the washer and hit spin.

I'm simply gonna C&P what I've already said till ya admit your straw ridden ways.



Enjoy your denial.

I never asked why you posted the "5 myths" article?

wtf scoot. Does machine gun posting in multiple threads mean you don't actually read the links you provide to enforce the NOGOP story of tax cuts? This article is not supportive to your position. Just the opposite

Gale seems to be arguing more for Obama's position than the GOP. And you feel this supports your position?

Great. I expected that slipslide because you don't state a position with all these posts. So you posted that article because you agree with Obama then. Wow. Like pulling teeth with you. Why all the arguing? Or is that your point?

Again scoot, why did you post "5 myths"?

[BlackDragon24]

Again scoot, why did you post "5 myths"?

Because it is the new republican way. Post an article from a blog from some right wing nutjob, point out the merits of the wingnuttery, but don't actually defend any position. Just let the wingnuts defend it for you.

We could end this little charade right now if Scooter would just state his position with regards to the tax cuts. We all know what that position is even if he hasn't said it, but seeing as he is so vehemently defending his non-position about what he never said there is no point in debating this further.

[otoc]

Because it is the new republican way. Post an article from a blog from some right wing nutjob, point out the merits of the wingnuttery, but don't actually defend any position. Just let the wingnuts defend it for you.

We could end this little charade right now if Scooter would just state his position with regards to the tax cuts. We all know what that position is even if he hasn't said it, but seeing as he is so vehemently defending his non-position about what he never said there is no point in debating this further.

true dat. Seems to be a trend to keep focusing on NO NO NO and not what he actually did, or that there was agreement many pages ago to the fact that he posted that proObama link without making a statement why.

It's like the warming thread. He posts a chart that states 12 years of cooling, backs it up with the same data I used to show warming, ignores what he originally wrote and then complains about something else while accusing others of being in denial. Classic projection that I've come to expect from him.

[Dutchcedar]

And when scooter asks for a computer model that correctly predicted warming, you answer, "You aren't seeing warming?"

It is Summer.

Here's a clue... seeing warming and a computer model that correctly predicts it are not one and the same. The question in that thread is whether or not global warming is man-made. Saying its warmer doesn't answer that.

Why scooter has to have a stated position on the tax cuts to engage in this conversation is beyond me.

It seems to me that both BD and otoc are defending increases in tax rates and that's fine and dandy, but neither have shown that that would improve our economic condition.

I'll admit, we can find analysis to show whatever we choose to show. Maybe we rely too heavily on internet data here and should spend more time posting our own thoughts. To wit, this is an excerpt from an article at The Hill today:

Depending where you do your research, there is loads of data to back up each party’s claim. Do you trust the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which says that 8.9 percent or fewer of earners with small-business income make more than $250,000, or the congressional Joint Tax Committee, which found that half of all small-business income would be affected by the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket? Wait, what about the Brookings Institution, which found that less 2 two percent of returns reporting small-business income are reported by taxpayers in the top brackets? But the National Federation of Independent Business insists businesses hit by the tax hike employ one-quarter of the workforce, while the National Association of Manufacturers found 68 percent of manufacturers file as individuals and had taxable incomes of more than $250,000.

Economists continue dueling on the subject. Arthur Laffer wrote this week in The Wall Street Journal that the richest workers, should they have their taxes raised, are the most capable of altering their level of taxation through lawyers and accountants and that ultimately, new taxes on the wealthy won’t lead to increased revenue for the government, but to increased deficits. Such taxes will lead to less employment and output as well, and therefore require more government spending, in what he called a catch-22. Liberal economist Robert Reich, on the other hand, argues that the wealthy already save a large portion of what they earn and spend what they want to spend.

Now maybe you left wing economic gurus can make clear predictions and analysis based on such solid information, but I've seen little more than crap analysis.

I've said many times that liberals in the federal government will follow the tax and spend model of California and that's exactly what they're doing and the results appear to be coming out pretty much the same.

Its like having a computer model on your left coast.

I think there's a twisted idea that when the government says, "send us XX% of your income", the earners will simply pony up accordingly. Heck, liberals don't even play that game (see John Kerry, Vietnam veteran, and his yacht).

[BlackDragon24]

And when scooter asks for a computer model that correctly predicted warming, you answer, "You aren't seeing warming?"

It is Summer.

Here's a clue... seeing warming and a computer model that correctly predicts it are not one and the same. The question in that thread is whether or not global warming is man-made. Saying its warmer doesn't answer that.

Why scooter has to have a stated position on the tax cuts to engage in this conversation is beyond me.

It seems to me that both BD and otoc are defending increases in tax rates and that's fine and dandy, but neither have shown that that would improve our economic condition.

I'll admit, we can find analysis to show whatever we choose to show. Maybe we rely too heavily on internet data here and should spend more time posting our own thoughts. To wit, this is an excerpt from an article at The Hill today:Now maybe you left wing economic gurus can make clear predictions and analysis based on such solid information, but I've seen little more than crap analysis.

I've said many times that liberals in the federal government will follow the tax and spend model of California and that's exactly what they're doing and the results appear to be coming out pretty much the same.

Its like having a computer model on your left coast.

I think there's a twisted idea that when the government says, "send us XX% of your income", the earners will simply pony up accordingly. Heck, liberals don't even play that game (see John Kerry, Vietnam veteran, and his yacht).

It is a futile cycle. And in the end, as I've stated many times, I don't think anyone really knows what's going on any more. There have been instances where raising taxes has seen a dramatic improvement in the economy, and vice versa. Each side likes to play to the instances that favor them, but in reality, we don't have a precedent for this type of situation. We have never been in this situation before with this political climate, the global economy, the internet age, whatever you want to call it.

What I do know is what is going on right now. You've got businesses and the upper 1% hoarding cash. The REASON you give them tax breaks is so they will use that money to create American jobs to bolster the economy (which, theoretically, would be beneficial to them as well). If they take those tax breaks and create jobs in India, do you keep giving them tax breaks? If they take that money and sit on it and collect interest, do you keep giving them tax breaks?

[Dutchcedar]

What I do know is what is going on right now. You've got businesses and the upper 1% hoarding cash. The REASON you give them tax breaks is so they will use that money to create American jobs to bolster the economy (which, theoretically, would be beneficial to them as well).

I get the deal on tax breaks to give incentives to business. But I don't get the deal on higher earners having to pay higher rates based on the whims of the ruling class.

If they take those tax breaks and create jobs in India, do you keep giving them tax breaks? If they take that money and sit on it and collect interest, do you keep giving them tax breaks?

Would you get equally upset if Obambi did just that with the money he collects from us? He is:

Despite President Obama’s pledge to retain more hi-tech jobs in the U.S., a federal agency run by a hand-picked Obama appointee has launched a $22 million program to train workers, including 3,000 specialists in IT and related functions, in South Asia.Following their training, the tech workers will be placed with outsourcing vendors in the region that provide offshore IT and business services to American companies looking to take advantage of the Asian subcontinent’s low labor costs.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=226500202

And no, I didn't read the entire article. Its a busy morning here.

If they take that money and sit on it and collect interest, do you keep giving them tax breaks?

I'm not aware of any tax breaks in place for saving one's cash or collecting interest.

[AMDScooter]

I never asked why you posted the "5 myths" article?

Again scoot, why did you post "5 myths"?

It surely was NOT for the reasons you claimed on my behalf:

lol, OK, let's focus on your 5 myths that somehow support your notion that the tax cuts should be indefinitely continued.

So again I'll sidestep all your subsequent spinning and ask you provide a quote where I made any such claim.

What I actually said minus the patented otoc revisionist history attempts:

Funny how quickly the stinkprogress crowd forgets reconciliation is supposed to be used for the budgetary processes. Not say.. to ram so called "health care reform" down an unwilling populaces throats.

On a related note..

Five myths about the Bush tax cuts

So show us otoc... master of the strawman... where exactly in that post did I claim:

1) the tax cuts should be indefinitely continued.
2) the "5 myths" article supports ^^ that claim I never made.

I still eagerly await your turbocharged spin.

Back on topic... good article from the WSJ:

The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22

Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.

—President John F. Kennedy,
Economic Report of the President,

January 1963

If only more of today's leaders thought like JFK. Sadly, in the debate over whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and if so whether the cuts should be extended to those people who are in the highest tax bracket, there is a false presumption that higher tax rates on the top 1% of income earners will raise tax revenues.

Anyone who is familiar with the historical data available from the IRS knows full well that raising income tax rates on the top 1% of income earners will most likely reduce the direct tax receipts from the now higher taxed income—even without considering the secondary tax revenue effects, all of which will be negative. And who on Earth wants higher tax rates on anyone if it means larger deficits?


Columnist Kimberley Strassel discusses Nancy Pelosi's plan to have a tax vote before November, and OpinionJournal.com assistant editor Allysia Finley reports on the battle to reform state spending.

Since 1978, the U.S. has cut the highest marginal earned-income tax rate to 35% from 50%, the highest capital gains tax rate to 15% from about 50%, and the highest dividend tax rate to 15% from 70%. President Clinton cut the highest marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains from the sale of owner-occupied homes to 0% for almost all home owners. We've also cut just about every other income tax rate as well.

During this era of ubiquitous tax cuts, income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 3.3% of GDP in 2007 (the latest year for which we have data) from 1.5% of GDP in 1978. Income tax receipts from the bottom 95% of income earners fell to 3.2% of GDP from 5.4% of GDP over the same time period. (See the nearby chart).



These results shouldn't be surprising. The highest tax bracket income earners, when compared with those people in lower tax brackets, are far more capable of changing their taxable income by hiring lawyers, accountants, deferred income specialists and the like. They can change the location, timing, composition and volume of income to avoid taxation.

Just look at Sen. John Kerry's recent yacht brouhaha if you don't believe me. He bought and housed his $7 million yacht in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts, where he is the senior senator and champion of higher taxes on the rich, avoiding some $437,500 in state sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000.

Howard Metzenbaum, the former Ohio senator and liberal supporter of the death tax, chose to change his official residence to Florida just before he died because Florida does not have an estate tax while Ohio does. Goodness knows what creative devices former House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel has used to avoid paying taxes.


Associated Press
The stern of John Kerry's yacht

In short, the highest bracket income earners—even left-wing liberals—are far more sensitive to tax rates than are other income earners.

When President Kennedy cut the highest income tax rate to 70% from 91%, revenues also rose. Income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 1.9% of GDP in 1968 from 1.3% in 1960. Even when Presidents Harding and Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, tax receipts from the rich rose. Between 1921 and 1928 the highest marginal personal income tax rate was lowered to 25% from 73% and tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners went to 1.1% of GDP from 0.6% of GDP.

Or perhaps you'd like to see how the rich paid less in taxes under the bipartisan tax rate increases of Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter? Between 1968 and 1981 the top 1% of income earners reduced their total income tax payments to 1.5% of GDP from 1.9% of GDP.

And then there's the Hoover/Roosevelt Great Depression. The Great Depression was precipitated by President Hoover in early 1930, when he signed into law the largest ever U.S. tax increase on traded products—the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. President Hoover then thought it would be clever to try to tax America into prosperity. Using many of the same arguments that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are using today, President Hoover raised the highest personal income tax rate to 63% from 24% on Jan. 1, 1932. He raised many other taxes as well.

President Roosevelt then debauched the dollar with the 1933 Bank Holiday Act and his soak-the-rich tax increase on Jan. 1, 1936. He raised the highest personal income tax rate to 79% from 63% along with a whole host of other corporate and personal tax rates as well. The U.S. economy went into a double dip depression, with unemployment rates rising again to 20% in 1938. Over the course of the Great Depression, the government raised the top marginal personal income tax rate to 83% from 24%.

Is it any wonder that the Great Depression was as long and deep as it was? Whoever heard of a country taxing itself into prosperity? Not only did taxes as a share of GDP fall, but GDP fell as well. It was a double whammy. Tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners stayed flat as a share of GDP, going to 1% in 1940 from 1.1% in 1928, but at what cost?

We all know that there are lots of factors influencing tax revenues from the rich, but the number one factor has to be the statutory tax rates government tells the rich they have to pay. Not only do the direct income tax consequences of higher tax rates on those in the highest brackets lead to higher deficits, the indirect effects magnify the tax revenue losses many fold.

As a result of higher tax rates on those people in the highest tax brackets, there will be less employment, output, sales, profits and capital gains—all leading to lower payrolls and lower total tax receipts. There will also be higher unemployment, poverty and lower incomes, all of which require more government spending. It's a Catch-22.

Higher tax rates on the rich create the very poverty and unemployment that is used to justify their presence. It is a vicious cycle that well-trained economists should know to avoid.

Mr. Laffer is the chairman of Laffer Associates and co-author of "Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status" (Threshold, 2010).

[otoc]

And when scooter asks for a computer model that correctly predicted warming, you answer, "You aren't seeing warming?"

It is Summer.

No dutch even if I ignore your summer dig. In the spirit of what you write below, do what you state. When scooter posts a chart that states 12 years of cooling and backs it up with nothing while demanding proof of warming when he actually posts data that shows warming it gets into an endless spiral. That was my point and it seems to match yours even with your inconsistencies. Funny how you make the statements below and choose to ignore it in the above where the proof of warming was shown and where no proof of cooling was shown.

Here's a clue... seeing warming and a computer model that correctly predicts it are not one and the same. The question in that thread is whether or not global warming is man-made. Saying its warmer doesn't answer that.

Here's a clue dutch. Let's keep the warming debate in the warming thread, and if you are going to jump into the debate of scooters style of downward spiral and calling everyone in denial when he himself is showing how he is in denial, then let's actually do it.

Why scooter has to have a stated position on the tax cuts to engage in this conversation is beyond me.

Really. To your point below, does simply disagreeing without being willing to show a position do anything?

It seems to me that both BD and otoc are defending increases in tax rates and that's fine and dandy, but neither have shown that that would improve our economic condition.

I can't speak for BD, but I will once again state my point and it has more to do with your point below in relationship to numerous issues and not simply economic.

First, what I'm seeing from the Obama administration is to keep tax cuts for 4/5ths of the population.

Second, for the last two economic related bills, unemployment benny extensions and small business incentives, the GOP fought hard and fast with the explanation that it was all about deficit spending.

Third, now the GOP wishes the continuation of all tax cuts, while even admitting the effect on the deficit. It's no longer about deficits. Waffle. But waffles are only bad when they come from those with a D behind their name and ignored when there is an R. I say call 'em on both sides.

Forth, if the tax cuts were designed to throw dollars into the economy, then where are they? Studies show the lower income classes have not seen after tax income that keeps up with inflation over the last 30 years, studies show that the upper classes have seen anywhere from 100% to 400% increases. Yet the argument from the GOP is that Obama wants to redistribute wealth in the manner of a socialist. F that. It seems the truth is there already has been a redistribution of wealth and all the administration is doing is making adjustments according to those having the capability to afford it.

Fifth, the argument by the GOP if unemployment benny extensions are allowed will add to the deficit, then let's look at that. Tax cuts, by word of economists, bring in .40 for every dollar committed. Unemployment brings in 1.30 for every dollar committed. People in unemployment will spend the entire amount into the economy. People in the higher tax brackets have been shown to be stashing it. If the point is to prime the pump of the economy, then let's do it.

Fifth, regardless of whom you believe regarding the point about small business owners below, incentives for small business owners were turned down by the GOP. That initiative would have reached 100% of the small business owners. But noo. It was all about the deficit. But it wasn't about the deficit in terms of the argument against raising taxes on the upper class. It was about how it would affect a small percentage of small business owners.

Sixth, I see you defend scooter for having no position, you state below there are numerous ways to interpret things, but I see no position from you other than to knock the other side. Explained below.

I didn't mean to repeat myself here but I think it shows that I considered both sides of the equation before I came to my conclusion stated in the past.

I'll admit, we can find analysis to show whatever we choose to show. Maybe we rely too heavily on internet data here and should spend more time posting our own thoughts.

Great concept.

To wit, this is an excerpt from an article at The Hill today:Now maybe you left wing economic gurus can make clear predictions and analysis based on such solid information, but I've seen little more than crap analysis.

Woah dutch. That's the opinion you came up with after that great thought? Crap analysis from the left when the article you quote from says points are being made to support both sides? Wow.

I've said many times that liberals in the federal government will follow the tax and spend model of California and that's exactly what they're doing and the results appear to be coming out pretty much the same.

Really? Then how do you explain the position of the federal government to not tax the 4/5ths of the population that haven't seen after tax income keep up with inflation over the years? It seems California lost a huge amount of income from the loss of estate taxes that were never replaced. Seems to me the problem is that a GOP initiative was put into action without taking into consideration where the loss of revenue was going to be replaced other than from the people in your state. So what was the conservative plan? Where will you suddenly cut? It applies to the federal level which is why I'm asking. How about defense. You want to make cuts there considering how we spend in comparison to the rest of the world?

Its like having a computer model on your left coast.

Huh?

I think there's a twisted idea that when the government says, "send us XX% of your income", the earners will simply pony up accordingly.

huh? Isn't that what the tax system is? What are you going to replace it with?

Heck, liberals don't even play that game (see John Kerry, Vietnam veteran, and his yacht).

Yeah, let's see John Kerry. He hadn't taken complete ownership of his yacht and used existing tax laws to berth it in Newport where is was being worked on. And regardless of the lack of foresight, you don't mention that he has paid his Mass excise tax to where he will eventually birth the boat.

You know, I'd say, you had a great point to look at both sides and express an opinion on the actual points. Too bad you didn't follow it.

[BlackDragon24]

I get the deal on tax breaks to give incentives to business. But I don't get the deal on higher earners having to pay higher rates based on the whims of the ruling class.

Well its a pragmatic issue mostly. Those who are making the most money generally can afford higher tax rates.

Would you get equally upset if Obambi did just that with the money he collects from us? He is:http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=226500202

And no, I didn't read the entire article. Its a busy morning here.

I don't like any program that sends job overseas, so the answer to your question is yes. But lets compare apples to apples. We are talking about a foreign aid type of program that costs $36 mil vs. a tax cut that costs $3 tril.

I'm not aware of any tax breaks in place for saving one's cash or collecting interest.

They already got the tax break Dutch. Its what they are doing with it now that tells the story.

[otoc]

It surely was NOT for the reasons you claimed on my behalf:



So again I'll sidestep all your subsequent spinning and ask you provide a quote where I made any such claim.

What I actually said minus the patented otoc revisionist history attempts:



So show us otoc... master of the strawman... where exactly in that post did I claim:

1) the tax cuts should be indefinitely continued.
2) the "5 myths" article supports ^^ that claim I never made.

I still eagerly await your turbocharged spin.

Stop repeating yourself scooter. Pages ago I asked what your point was. Pages ago I stated you hadn't made a point after numerous posts so I was asking and probing. You still haven't explained why you posted an article that agreed with the Obama administration. Even dutch is here defending you for not having a point other than, I guess, to simply argue. Time to state a postion or stfu. Why did you post that other than to agree with the link and in effect agree with Obama while disagreeing with the GOP?

Back on topic... good article from the WSJ:

The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22

Ahh, Kennedy again. And what was the tax rate when Kennedy came into office?

JANUARY 30, 2010 3:09PM
JFK and Tax Cuts


While watching the President’s Q&A session with the House Republicans, I was struck by how the Republicans love to throw out Kennedy’s embrace of tax cuts to stimulate the economy as proof to Democrats that all tax cuts are good. The Republican mantra is they haven’t met a tax cut they didn’t like, unless it happens to be proposed by a Democrat other than JFK. Kennedy did embrace tax cuts but not in the context that the Republicans would have us believe. By the way, the tax cuts might have been initially proposed by Kennedy, but they were marshaled in by Johnson.
Kennedy’s approach to tax cuts was not just an attempt to spur economic development but also an aggressive action to correct tax flaws and close loopholes as well as an attack on tax scofflaws that had skirted paying taxes. He sought to eliminate the voluntary reporting of dividend and investment interest by requiring the payee to deduct taxes at a rate to 20% before sending the earnings to its recipient. He pursued the repeal of dividend credits and exclusions. He asked for legislation to eliminate the deduction of entertainment business expenses. He proposed taxing gains from the sale of business property at the higher income rate instead of at the lower capital gains rate. He also asked Congress to extend the current corporate profit tax rates to stave off an automatic reduction from 52% to 47%. This rate today stands at between 15% and 35% depending on amount of profit.
Kennedy also believed in order to be equitable, he could not overlook the tax advantages that cooperatives, private investment banks and insurance companies held over corporations. Because of this he recommended that these institutions be taxed in the same manner as corporation. He recommended the extension of excise taxes on certain consumer goods and services that were scheduled to decline or expire.
Yes, Kennedy did reduce taxes. But, let’s be honest. The tax rates at the time of Kennedy were exorbitant by today’s standards. But considering the circumstances leading up to the time, our government had engaged in some mighty lofty endeavors. Those taxes paid for the recovery from The Great Depression, World War II, the reconstruction of Europe and Japan, and the Korean War. The top marginal tax rate was 91% for income over $400,000; today that rate is 35% for income over $372,950. One would hardly recommend we return to those levels. It is interesting to note that the decades preceding Kennedy is referred to as our Greatest Generation.
You will be hard-pressed to find a Democrat or Republican that will disagree that Kennedy’s tax cuts had positive results. The problem we face today is we have entered into a culture that believes if one tax cut had positive results then more tax cuts will produce more positive results.

And what is your point here, scooter? Why did you think it was a good article?

[AMDScooter]

Stop repeating yourself scooter. Pages ago I asked what your point was. Pages ago I stated you hadn't made a point after numerous posts so I was asking and probing. You still haven't explained why you posted an article that agreed with the Obama administration. Even dutch is here defending you for not having a point other than, I guess, to simply argue. Time to state a postion or stfu. Why did you post that other than to agree with the link and in effect agree with Obama while disagreeing with the GOP?

I'll keep pointing out your strawman argument till you admit to constructing it. No amount of "I kept asking... you hadn't made a point... why did you post the "5 myths" story... etc." BS explains away attributing a point I never made to my post and then demanding a response to that defend that point.

Here is an easier exercise smart guy... for the gazillionth time +1... simply show where exactly in MY POST I claim:

lol, OK, let's focus on your 5 myths that somehow support your notion that the tax cuts should be indefinitely continued.

As you've pointed out yourself.. I've made the request repeatedly. All I get in return is boilerplate otoc trying to unpaint himself outta the corner responses. Answer the question and the response to your continual whine as to why I put the link to that story in the post answers itself.

I still eagerly await a response to my question(s). And already know you'll simply try to exit responding to a very direct set of questions with your usual grace..

Ahh, Kennedy again. And what was the tax rate when Kennedy came into office?

You needed an external link to answer the question? From the story above:

When President Kennedy cut the highest income tax rate to 70% from 91%, revenues also rose. Income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 1.9% of GDP in 1968 from 1.3% in 1960. Even when Presidents Harding and Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, tax receipts from the rich rose. Between 1921 and 1928 the highest marginal personal income tax rate was lowered to 25% from 73% and tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners went to 1.1% of GDP from 0.6% of GDP.

Woah.. that was hard to spot.

And what is your point here, scooter? Why did you think it was a good article?

Gee.. that's yet another tough one...







Perhaps I thought it was a good article and simply wanted to share. Perhaps I felt and even agreed with the portions I boldfaced. I dunno. In TLR among non self proclaimed centrists it's pretty well understood when someone boldfaces portions of an article they quote it's cuz they feel those portions hold significance/relevance to the discussion at hand... and/or possibly support a position they share. You keep telling everyone what a smart guy you are... yet you are the only one in the years I've been posting here that I've had to spell out to what the significance of that mysterious boldfacing means. It's equally confusing in regard to your own use of boldface and colors in the post where you request what I mean. Why-o-why did you do that otoc??

Again I eagerly await your response avoiding responding to my request as to where in my previous post I claimed:

lol, OK, let's focus on your 5 myths that somehow support your notion that the tax cuts should be indefinitely continued.

Get used to seeing that. It's gonna be in every reply until I get an answer or you once again retreat from a discussion the victim of your own strawman construct.

[Dutchcedar]

Well its a pragmatic issue mostly. Those who are making the most money generally can afford higher tax rates.

So, people with the most can afford to have it taken from them at a higher rate. Gotcha. Disagree with premise that affordability should be a basis for taxation but I get your position.

I don't like any program that sends job overseas, so the answer to your question is yes. But lets compare apples to apples. We are talking about a foreign aid type of program that costs $36 mil vs. a tax cut that costs $3 tril.

Interesting apples. A tax cut and foreign aid are both apples. A better pair of apples would be say, HP sending out millions to start up a company in Sri Lanka to provide offshore IT and business services to American companies looking to take advantage of the Asian subcontinent’s low labor costs and the federal government sending out millions to start up a company in Sri Lanka to provide offshore IT and business services to American companies looking to take advantage of the Asian subcontinent’s low labor costs. Curious how the former would be criticized by the person actually doing the latter. I'm not surprised you try to minimize it even though you'll participate in paying for it.

They already got the tax break Dutch. Its what they are doing with it now that tells the story.

Its their money. We aren't socialists quite yet. And remember, because they can afford it, they were taxed at a higher rate.

[otoc]

I'll keep pointing out your strawman argument till you admit to constructing it. No amount of "I kept asking... you hadn't made a point... why did you post the "5 myths" story... etc." BS explains away attributing a point I never made to my post and then demanding a response to that defend that point.

Here is an easier exercise smart guy... for the gazillionth time +1... simply show where exactly in MY POST I claim:



As you've pointed out yourself.. I've made the request repeatedly. All I get in return is boilerplate otoc trying to unpaint himself outta the corner responses. Answer the question and the response to your continual whine as to why I put the link to that story in the post answers itself.

I still eagerly await a response to my question(s). And already know you'll simply try to exit responding to a very direct set of questions with your usual grace..








You needed an external link to answer the question? From the story above:



Woah.. that was hard to spot.



Gee.. that's yet another tough one...







Perhaps I thought it was a good article and simply wanted to share. Perhaps I felt and even agreed with the portions I boldfaced. I dunno. In TLR among non self proclaimed centrists it's pretty well understood when someone boldfaces portions of an article they quote it's cuz they feel those portions hold significance/relevance to the discussion at hand... and/or possibly support a position they share. You keep telling everyone what a smart guy you are... yet you are the only one in the years I've been posting here that I've had to spell out to what the significance of that mysterious boldfacing means. It's equally confusing in regard to your own use of boldface and colors in the post where you request what I mean. Why-o-why did you do that otoc??

Again I eagerly await your response avoiding responding to my request as to where in my previous post I claimed:



Get used to seeing that. It's gonna be in every reply until I get an answer or you once again retreat from a discussion the victim of your own strawman construct.

Sigh....So much for asking a direct question of you to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Let's go back a bit, not years ago in unrelated threads like you do to prove some childish point about me, but in this thread alone.

After Dutch opened this thread about how Obama was going to raise taxes you posted the following points.

Yes.. we'll continue to act like the OMFG OPPOSITION Party!

seems like the GOP position to me...

...and again

But don't forget captain bullsh*t's claims..



95% still waiting for our taxes to go down.

and yet another GOP talking point comes up...

I'm confused as to why every single time it's shown that lower taxes = increased tax receipts the conversation gets shifted to something entirely unrelated... like the income gap?

then this GOP evil wealthy talking point...

Those 33vil "wealthy" are not investing now cuz the current administration is making it much more economically sound for them to simply sit on their capitol.

and this GOP talking point...

I disagree. Increased tax receipts as a result of lowered taxes are the rule not the exception unless you can prove otherwise. I've yet to read anything in your replies that makes that case. On a related note... have you looked into what the end effect increased taxes has had on the economy historically?

You are still clear as a bucket of mud. Are you implying the tax receipts went down as a result of the recession, the tax cuts, "fake" money folks paid taxes on anyway or all of the above?



You have? I've yet to see anything that shows tax receipts did not go up. Plenty about "related" stuff and "fake" money. A cpbb article from 04 and a WAPO bit with some feigned indignation that the OMFG repugs used reconciliation to pass budgetary legislation

and then this jem came up, an OpEd that pretty much defined the Obama administration position.

On a related note..

Five myths about the Bush tax cuts

Again. What the f is your point scoot? That I should ignore posts you make in the thread I respond to? It was obvious to me simply based on your words that nothing Obama will do will go through the "Opposition Party" you described as "we".

That's why, and look carefully so we can end this nonsense and charade as BD described it, I asked the following questions:

I never asked why you posted the "5 myths" article?

wtf scoot. Does machine gun posting in multiple threads mean you don't actually read the links you provide to enforce the NOGOP story of tax cuts? This article is not supportive to your position. Just the opposite

Gale seems to be arguing more for Obama's position than the GOP. And you feel this supports your position?

Great. I expected that slipslide because you don't state a position with all these posts. So you posted that article because you agree with Obama then. Wow. Like pulling teeth with you. Why all the arguing? Or is that your point?

Again scoot, why did you post "5 myths"?

I still ask and when you can tear yourself away from your feigned indignation that no longer amuses me, your usual half-truth into absolute lies, take a look that I admitted to exactly what I was doing while I continued to ask you, and you still can't answer.

Because the answer is obvious. You didn't read the freaking "5 myths" OpEd in your haste to rat-a-tat a bunch of posts into TLR.

It's like the WSJ OpEd from Lasser you just posted. I'll bet you didn't even realize dutch posted the same piece pages ago and we already discussed it did you?

Truth interrupts the tax increase means more revenue farce.From that conservative of high regard:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...112674598.html

Back on topic... good article from the WSJ:

The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22

So yeah, dood. Lasser brought up Kennedy. I know the tax rates at the time. Freaking 90%. Of course a reduction was needed. And of course over time as they reduced down to the 30s it had an impact.

And Obama is holding fast on keeping the lower tax rates down for the vast majority because of the crappy economy and the fact that that vast majority hasn't been keeping up with inflation in terms of after tax dollars.

And those whom have, are sitting on it. And yes, it adds to the deficit and hasn't been used to help prime the economy. And as your "5 myths" article shows, Obama is on target with what he wants to do in spite of your need to hide the fact that you messed up by posting it.