Tax the Rich!

[Openmind]

....You mean....as-opposed-to BUSHCO's economic-advisers....right?​

I like your style! No bull, just facts!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I like your style! No bull, just facts!

It's a gift!!



(...Not exactly appreciated by the Faith/Belief-based folks.)

See: Michael Shermerhttp://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/391554/july-11-2011/michael-shermer​

 

[TruthSeeker]

Unfortunately for the leftists, history proves that cutting taxes increases revenues, because "allowing" people to keep more of their money is the simplest and most effective of all economic "stimulus" plans.

Presenting a bunch of left wing Keynesian "economists" with fancy titles and a bunch of partisan hacks as the ultimate arbiters of good and bad economic policies is dishonest, disingenous, and sleazy.

I would expect nothing less from the leftist Keynesian zombies.

 

[nobull]

....You mean....as-opposed-to BUSHCO's economic-advisers....right?​

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

Well done, nobull, as usual.

 

[ProudLefty]

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

My mother world send me to my room if I wrote that piece. Her reasons would be:

1. Assertions made and not backed up with sources.
2. Cherry picking data.
3. Using cherry picked data in such a way as to "Use the truth to tell a lie."
4. Disregarding significant facts that contradict the positions taken.
5. Reaching a conclusion that flies in the face of the observed facts.

The very simple truth is that in 8 years as President, GW Bush had two recessions and was responsible for well over a million jobs lost; the poorest economic record since Herbert Hoover.

 

[Lagboltz]

See: Michael Shermer

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/391554/july-11-2011/michael-shermer​

Actually the site Mr Shaman references is quite interesting. For those who don't have patience with videos, this is from an Amazon review of Michael Shermer's new book, The Believing Brain.

... Simply put, beliefs come first and explanations for beliefs follow. .... Once beliefs are formed the brain begins to look for and find confirmatory evidence in support of those beliefs, which accelerates the process of reinforcing them, and round and round the process goes in a positive-feedback loop of belief confirmation.

That is one good explanation of why there is such a disconnect between liberals and conservatives.

 

[nobull]

Lefty..Not to insult your mother, she sounds like a tough lady..Some people thrive on their own arrogance. They’re self-important, holier-that-thou, know-it-alls who seize every opportunity to try and make others feel small. The funny thing about these kinds of people is that they’re:
Often wrong,
Actually don’t know what they’re talking about,
And use arrogance to mask their lack of confidence.
Like bullies, when they’re called on it, they back down. Though sometimes they fight harder — since any resistance will shed more light on their weakness. So they slather on a big ole’ jar of assclown, and use it to cover their inadequacies.

Anytime someone tries to appear more powerful by belittling others — that’s obvious arrogance.

And in your case I guess it's not necesssary to understand things in order to argue about them.

regards
doug

 

[ProudLefty]

Lefty..Not to insult your mother, she sounds like a tough lady..Some people thrive on their own arrogance. They’re self-important, holier-that-thou, know-it-alls who seize every opportunity to try and make others feel small. The funny thing about these kinds of people is that they’re:
Often wrong,
Actually don’t know what they’re talking about,
And use arrogance to mask their lack of confidence.
Like bullies, when they’re called on it, they back down. Though sometimes they fight harder — since any resistance will shed more light on their weakness. So they slather on a big ole’ jar of assclown, and use it to cover their inadequacies.

Anytime someone tries to appear more powerful by belittling others — that’s obvious arrogance.

And in your case I guess it's not necesssary to understand things in order to argue about them.

regards
doug

Why am I unimpressed with your continued assertions with no sources to back them up? If what you have said is actually true then there must be reliable (not right wing blogs) that back you up, eh? It'd take no time at all to back up your assertions.

The truth is, your assertions are for the most part half-truths and distortions.

For instance,

#5 is a half-truth and a distortion.
#6 is a half-truth'
#7 is a non-sequitor.
what does #8 even mean?
#9 did not help the economy. We lost a million jobs and entered the longest recession in 80 years!
#10 Yes the tax cuts were tilted towards the rich. The fact is that they also caused a huge recession and destroyed the middle class, dropping middle class incomes below taxable levels.

Here is the full truth on #4

 

[Dr.Who]

I would make a few of points.

• A case can be made that those with the most in fact receive the most government services if for no other reason than they have the most to lose.

• 
  
  If you mean that the rich get more then that is the fault of congress and should be stopped. Stealing from you and me to give to the rich and then stealing from you and me to give to the poor to make up for the original theft is not justice. Stopping all the theft would be justice.
  
  

  [*]A case can be made that the wealthy use their wealth to bend the benefits in their direction. The poor have no need for depreciation allowances for instance.

  
  Congress would be complicit then and congress should be held accountable. The rules should not be bent in favor of anyone but should be fair and apply to all. Depreciation is a poor example of injustice.
  
  

  [*]A case can be made that the one thing the wealthy need, above all else, is a strong, well educated, healthy, and vibrant middle class or there are no workers and no customers for the wealthy.

  
  We would all benefit equally then when anyone thrives. lets let people thrive.
  
  

  [*]A case can be made that wealth redistribution has already been done - the strong and wealthy have already confiscated the wealth created by the working class. Taxes are just a tool to redress that original wrong.

  
  When the strong and wealthy confiscate wealth then a wrong has been done and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. When they merely make money or even when they make money better than someone else then they deserve the fruits of their labor as much as you and I do. Taxes are the poorest of all ways to address wrongs. There is no justice in taxation and taxes allow the wrongs to continue.
  
  
  

  [*]A case can be made that wealth does not remain concentrated with the wealthy. The only valid question is: Does the redistribution get done peacefully through taxes or violently through revolution?

Neither as both systems of redistribution are wrong. redistribution should be done through free trade between individuals who make fair contracts with each other backed by the full force of the government whose role is to ensure that people treat each other rightly in such contracts. If people are not treating each other fairly (which they are prone to do) in contracts and the state is not enforcing justice then get rid of government and get one that will do its job.

In other words, it is not a slam dunk case that taxing the rich is in someway an illegitimate confiscation of their "rightfully stolen" wealth.

[/QUOTE]
Yes it is. taxing people with any sort of arbitrary discrimination is illegitimate.

 

[GenSeneca]

Yes it is. taxing people with any sort of arbitrary discrimination is illegitimate.

Immoral is the word I would choose there... Great post Dr.Who and welcome back from vacation!

Discrimination, of any sort, is immoral and the tax code certainly discriminates. And then there's this...

Does the redistribution get done peacefully through taxes or violently through revolution? ​

In other words: Either I hold a gun at your head and force you to give me money, or I use the gun and take both your life and your money. Notice there is not a truly peaceful option, i.e. one that does not involve the use of force. Such barbarism must be abandoned by any civilization that wishes to consider itself civilized.

 

[Gipper]

Immoral is the word I would choose there... Great post Dr.Who and welcome back from vacation!

Discrimination, of any sort, is immoral and the tax code certainly discriminates. And then there's this...

Does the redistribution get done peacefully through taxes or violently through revolution? ​

In other words: Either I hold a gun at your head and force you to give me money, or I use the gun and take both your life and your money. Notice there is not a truly peaceful option, i.e. one that does not involve the use of force. Such barbarism must be abandoned by any civilization that wishes to consider itself civilized.

Well Gen, is it safe to conclude from your post that you believe our current system is barbaric and must be abandoned?

 

[GenSeneca]

Well Gen, is it safe to conclude from your post that you believe our current system is barbaric and must be abandoned?

The barbarians believe themselves to be civilized...

And they will not willingly abandon their only means to their desired ends.

 

[Gipper]

The barbarians believe themselves to be civilized...

And they will not willingly abandon their only means to their desired ends.

It is not the young ones who are the barbarians. It is the old rich ones who must be "forced" to abandon their deceitful ways.

The young ones are merely useful idiots.

 

[Dr.Who]

Great post Dr.Who and welcome back from vacation!

Thanks, its nice to be back. Vacations are nice but I really do them for my wife. For me there is that house we bought; the place that we spent so much time and money making just right - so we can live in it rather than spend our time living elsewhere.