GOP Rejects Obama Offer of $1.6 Trillion Tax Increase

[rstrong]

Newsmax. No wonder you're so ignorant and misinformed.

Are they still calling for a military coup against Obama?

[O Really]

Good analysis of what's really happening... http://www.nj.com/us-politics/index.ssf ... _talk.html

[Stinger]

Newsmax. No wonder you're so ignorant and misinformed.

Are they still calling for a military coup against Obama?

That was funny.

You should listen to Michael Savage telling how Obama's going to do away with the 22nd Amendment and run again in 2016. (Gingrich buddy Porter Stansberry already sent out an e-mail to that effect on Nov. 1st.)

I'm guessing that's probably when he'll do away with the 2nd Amendment and take everyone's guns.

[Colonel Taylor]

So what did Clinton raise the capitol gains taxes by, oh yea he lowered them, you forgot to mention that, by what was it 8 or 10 percent. Wasn't there a thing called the child tax credit that also lowered taxes, isn't that a loop hole you always whine about. Was it the tax relief that improved revenue after the lousy outcome of the 1993 tax hikes that made the Clinton economy successful. Lowering the capitol gains taxes caused investment to triple by 98 and double by 99. This was caused by TAX CUTS.
The libs whined that the tax cuts would reduce revenue when it in fact it it increased them, hence the vrede twist and lib talking points about taxes.

I notice that a goal of Republicans has been met - George W Bush no longer exists, at least according to the Wall Street Journal.... funny... http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/11/ge ... picks=true

That's not the only funny thing about it.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page today, having previously recognized the hopeless lack of leverage in budget negotiations, takes to pleading with President Obama not to raise taxes because it will harm growth. The editorial is accompanied by this helpful chart showing what the Journal editorial considers some important historical lessons of recent two-term presidents. Look at the chart very closely:



No George W. Bush! Possibly there wasn't enough room. Or possibly the lesson of the most recent former president, whose tax cuts are set to expire and who presided over poor economic growth, might not offer the lesson the Journal editorial page is seeking to convey.

Clinton, who raised taxes, saw the economy outperform Reagan's, who cut taxes, 5 years out of 8 with 1 tie. So, even if they remove Shrub to deceptively make a point, they still don't make the point.

Not that facts, even from Murdoch's WSJ, will ever sway cons from their dogma.

One other thing, the chart commits a fallacy that we've discussed here often. The first year of a presidency by rights should be credited more towards the predecessor. Policy takes awhile to have an effect. I'm not sure what this would do for Bill and Reagan, but the WSJ's obvious intent is to blame Obama for Shrub's impact.

[Stinger]

Was it the tax relief that improved revenue after the lousy outcome of the 1993 tax hikes that made the Clinton economy successful. Lowering the capitol gains taxes caused investment to triple by 98 and double by 99. This was caused by TAX CUTS.

No, the dot com bubble did that. Cling to your rightwing mythology, though.

[Reality]

"..that lying is so common, so reflexive, that we are literally unaware of the steady stream of falsehoods we utter."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-me ... d%3D240280

I sent this to Obama but haven't got a response.

[Stinger]

"..that lying is so common, so reflexive, that we are literally unaware of the steady stream of falsehoods we utter."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-me ... d%3D240280

I sent this to Obama but haven't got a response.

He already knows what a steady stream of falsehoods you utter. The NSA keeps him informed.

He's also unaware how utterly unimportant you are.

[Bungalow Bill]

Clinton raised the top income tax rates and revenue went up. It ain't rocket surgery.

[Wneglia]

Clinton raised the top income tax rates and revenue went up. It ain't rocket surgery.

That's true, it ain't rocket surgery. Rates go down, revenues go up:

Link

and we 1%'ers pay more.

[rstrong]

Clinton raised the top income tax rates and revenue went up.

He only raised the top income tax rates by a small, token amount. They were still MUCH LOWER than they were under Reagan. And that was offset by tax cuts for lower-income families and small businesses.

Nice try though.

[Stinger]

That's true, it ain't rocket surgery. Rates go down, revenues go up:

Link

and we 1%'ers pay more.

1%-ers pay more because they're the only ones making more.

The graph shows percentage of taxes paid, not increased federal revenues.

The increases in federal revenues coincide with the dot com and housing bubbles, largely caused by artificially-low interest rates.

Then the bubbles crash, the middle class takes the hit, and the 1%-ers go right back to getting wealthier while the middle class and poor get poorer.

[rstrong]

and we 1%'ers pay more.

er, No.




Payroll taxes went up as corporate and excise taxes went down.

Now, the company I work for pays for my internet line because I use it for work. They pay for my cell phone because I use it for tech support and developing mobile web sites. In the past I've written off part of my house expenses because I have a home office. One of these days I'll visit a trade show - in a city where I've been wanting to take a vacation - and write it off as a business expense. But few in the middle or low incomes do this.

The 1%'ers - who can afford tax accountants - do it on a much larger scale. Cars, trips, computer equipment, apartments in other cities, restaurants, you name it, even paying for services like the tax accountant, all paid for by the company. Often it's thier own personal company, which pays corporate tax rates, while they work for another company.

The 1%'ers share of income taxes has gone up only because while everyone else has gotten slightly poorer over the last generation, the 1%'ers have gotten much, much richer. They're still getting that income taxed at a much lower rate than a generation ago, and they've enjoyed having their personal expenses - taxed at corporate rates - taxed at a much lower level.

[Bungalow Bill]

Not exactly. The lowest top tax rate under Reagan was 28%, which is obviously lower than
39.6%. The 28% rate was raised to 31% during the Bush I administration, then to 39.6%
under Clinton, an increase of 25%, not a token amount.

[Reality]

I didn't send this to the Vred and Dingle but I did get a response. Wonder why?

"..that lying is so common, so reflexive, that we are literally unaware of the steady stream of falsehoods we utter."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-me ... d%3D240280

I sent this to Obama but haven't got a response.

[O Really]

I wrote to the Queen to say I thought Corgis should grow tails. I didn't get a response. I wonder why.

[Bungalow Bill]

I should have made it clearer I was responding to rstrong, who used the word token to
describe the Clinton tax rate increases, which I think went beyond just token. Effective
tax rates are more important, as is the consideration of all types of taxes. Marginal tax
rates are easier to figure out if you're pressed for time.

[Bungalow Bill]

Hey, shit happens.

[rstrong]

Not exactly. The lowest top tax rate under Reagan was 28%, which is obviously lower than 39.6%.

Let's add some context here. The top tax rate when Reagan entered the White House was 70%, down from 90% a little over a decade earlier. Bumping it from 31% back up only to 36%/39.6% is indeed a token amount.

[Wneglia]

Not exactly. The lowest top tax rate under Reagan was 28%, which is obviously lower than 39.6%.

Let's add some context here. The top tax rate when Reagan entered the White House was 70%, down from 90% a little over a decade earlier. Bumping it from 31% back up only to 36%/39.6% is indeed a token amount.

Some more context: Before and under Reagan, there were so many legal tax shelters available that virtually nobody paid the highest marginal rate. I remember one year back then when my taxable income was reduced by almost 90% through tax shelters, and even though those extremely high marginal rates existed, I paid almost no income tax. Reagan did away with those loopholes and dropped the marginal rates, and revenues went up.

[Stinger]

Not exactly. The lowest top tax rate under Reagan was 28%, which is obviously lower than 39.6%.

Let's add some context here. The top tax rate when Reagan entered the White House was 70%, down from 90% a little over a decade earlier. Bumping it from 31% back up only to 36%/39.6% is indeed a token amount.

Some more context: Before and under Reagan, there were so many legal tax shelters available that virtually nobody paid the highest marginal rate. I remember one year back then when my taxable income was reduced by almost 90% through tax shelters, and even though those extremely high marginal rates existed, I paid almost no income tax. Reagan did away with those loopholes and dropped the marginal rates, and revenues went up.

So, Reagan raised taxes -- I believe his words were "everyone pays their fair share" -- and revenues went up.