BUSH tax cuts cost 2x health care reform

[blueblood]

I'm not justifying a tax hike. I don't know what the ideal tax rate is.

You're the one saying taxes are high. I ask you AGAIN -> what is a high rate of tax, what is a low rate of tax ?

You seem to me to be playing games. If you have an idea what a high rate of tax is, why not say so ?

I said what my ideal tax rate was, it was in an earlier post in this thread.

You are justifying tax hikes, I'll ask you again PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US WHY TAX HIKES ARE A GOOD THING FOR AN ECONOMY???

22% corporate tax what the NDP is proposing and 44% tax on the highest income bracket is a HIGH rate of tax and needs to come down.

[blueblood]

You kept yelling about the founding fathers. Well that is what the founding fathers did instead of taxes they had tariffs. That is what they intended because is what they did right? You have to open a history book, or any book really to learn something. You can't just keep making facts up because people keep calling you on them.

I ntthe US to proceed like it did under FDR, Truman, and Ike. That was the time all of the wealth the US has today was generated and the top tax bracket was 95%. I know you hate the three men who helped the US win WW2 but I think they were pretty smart guys. Comrade.

PS red baiting is so 1950 no one cares anymore.

Tariffs are taxes, they hinder the economy the same way and the consumer pays more for goods regardless. There are export tariffs and import tariffs, all the money goes to the gov't. The less money that goes to the gov't the better. Remember I'm in the camp that wants to pay as little tax as possible.

You think a 95% tax rate for people and business's/corporations with a net income of over 100K is good for an economy. Reagan's tax slash, helped set the stage for the economic boom of the 90's which is where the longest period of economic expansion took place. Buddy get your head out of the history books and take a commerce and an economics class.

[punked]

Tariffs are taxes, they hinder the economy the same way and the consumer pays more for goods regardless. There are export tariffs and import tariffs, all the money goes to the gov't. The less money that goes to the gov't the better. Remember I'm in the camp that wants to pay as little tax as possible.

You think a 95% tax rate for people and business's/corporations with a net income of over 100K is good for an economy. Reagan's tax slash, helped set the stage for the economic boom of the 90's which is where the longest period of economic expansion took place. Buddy get your head out of the history books and take a commerce and an economics class.

But Blueblood that is what the founding fathers intended they would be rolling in their grave if they heard you......wait no they wouldn't that is just a dumb arguement people use with out thinking that the founding fathers just wanted to be represented and have a say. Punked 1 Blueblood 0 now that you have changed your arguement away from what the founding fathers would have done.

Too your second paragraph no I do not think that Blueblood, because instead of 6 income brackets FDR, Truman, and Ike had close 14 or 15 the top income bracket only kicking in when you made 100,000,000 in today's dollars. OPEN A BOOK PLEASE AND READ WHAT I AM SAYING. As for the 90s it certainly was not the longest period of economic expansion and the tax rates went up in that period to where the top income bracket was paying close to 40%. I think there needs to be a higher income bracket on individuals then 350,000, which is the top income bracket in the US not 100,000 because you don't know anything about this subject, maybe 5 million. Also I would point corporations pay cooperate taxes the top income bracket being 18 million not 100,000 again.

PS no economics class is going to teach you supply side economics only crazy people believe in that. Please read a book or take a class because you have no clue what you are talking about all around.

[punked]

I said what my ideal tax rate was, it was in an earlier post in this thread.

You are justifying tax hikes, I'll ask you again PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US WHY TAX HIKES ARE A GOOD THING FOR AN ECONOMY???

22% corporate tax what the NDP is proposing and 44% tax on the highest income bracket is a HIGH rate of tax and needs to come down.

Again you are just making numbers up. As has been shown in the last post. You can't win an arguement by making things up.

[Michael Hardner]

I said what my ideal tax rate was, it was in an earlier post in this thread.

You are justifying tax hikes, I'll ask you again PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US WHY TAX HIKES ARE A GOOD THING FOR AN ECONOMY???

22% corporate tax what the NDP is proposing and 44% tax on the highest income bracket is a HIGH rate of tax and needs to come down.

I didn't say tax hikes were good for the economy, so I don't have to justify that. You did refer to "high" taxes, among a bunch of nonsensical posts. I'll explain why after I find your tax rate, posted by you earlier in the thread.

[Michael Hardner]

I said what my ideal tax rate was, it was in an earlier post in this thread.

You are justifying tax hikes, I'll ask you again PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US WHY TAX HIKES ARE A GOOD THING FOR AN ECONOMY???

22% corporate tax what the NDP is proposing and 44% tax on the highest income bracket is a HIGH rate of tax and needs to come down.

The best example I can find is where you said this:

If that was a tax rate (I wish I had a 6% tax rate)

So, based on what Punked posted - I guess you'll be voting NDP next election, right ? Also you can't call them socialist anymore, you're the socialist by your own definition because you want a higher tax rate than they're proposing.

And that's my point: lazy minded people like you tell the NDP that it's not 1968, because you're caught up in the BRAND of the NDP, and don't know anything about their policies.

That was a tortuous little trip, but it ended pretty well, I thought.

Socialist.

[blueblood]

Again you are just making numbers up. As has been shown in the last post. You can't win an arguement by making things up.

The NDP platform has across the board 22% federal corporate tax rate. Links have been provided earlier on in the thread. The going federal corporate rate is 11% for small corporate businesses and 15% regular in 2012.

44% is the total personal income tax someone who makes over 100K will contribute (both federally and provincially combined)

Those are facts deal with it.

[blueblood]

But Blueblood that is what the founding fathers intended they would be rolling in their grave if they heard you......wait no they wouldn't that is just a dumb arguement people use with out thinking that the founding fathers just wanted to be represented and have a say. Punked 1 Blueblood 0 now that you have changed your arguement away from what the founding fathers would have done.

The founding fathers want low taxes. Tariffs are a tax, whether you believe it or not. The founding fathers wanted the smallest gov't possible, Obama is doing the exact opposite, hence the tea party demonstrations in the US.

Too your second paragraph no I do not think that Blueblood, because instead of 6 income brackets FDR, Truman, and Ike had close 14 or 15 the top income bracket only kicking in when you made 100,000,000 in today's dollars. OPEN A BOOK PLEASE AND READ WHAT I AM SAYING. As for the 90s it certainly was not the longest period of economic expansion and the tax rates went up in that period to where the top income bracket was paying close to 40%. I think there needs to be a higher income bracket on individuals then 350,000, which is the top income bracket in the US not 100,000 because you don't know anything about this subject, maybe 5 million. Also I would point corporations pay cooperate taxes the top income bracket being 18 million not 100,000 again.

Ho hum

"The U.S experiences its longest period of economic expansion during the decade. Personal incomes doubled from the recession in 1990, and there was higher productivity overall. After the 1996 Welfare Reform Act there was a reduction of poverty,[2] and the Wall Street stock exchange stayed over the 10,500 mark from 1999 to 2001."

My link

Reagan set the stage with his slash the tax and all clinton had to do was sit back and enjoy the ride.

This is why the NDP will never get power is because if their idiotic mindset that people who contribute should be punished.

I know that lower taxes lead to increased prosperity, the Irish know that to a T.

The fact that you think soaking people for 95% tax not only shows you are clueless in economics, it shows you think people are too stupid to know what to do with their money. Jack thinks so too and wonders why 80% of the country reject his policies.

Better crack open an economics textbook.

PS no economics class is going to teach you supply side economics only crazy people believe in that. Please read a book or take a class because you have no clue what you are talking about all around.

Good thing for me I have a diploma in agribusiness loaded up with management, commerce, and economics.

Anybody who thinks that people who have finally made it should be taxed 95% have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to economics.

[blueblood]

The best example I can find is where you said this:

So, based on what Punked posted - I guess you'll be voting NDP next election, right ? Also you can't call them socialist anymore, you're the socialist by your own definition because you want a higher tax rate than they're proposing.

And that's my point: lazy minded people like you tell the NDP that it's not 1968, because you're caught up in the BRAND of the NDP, and don't know anything about their policies.

That was a tortuous little trip, but it ended pretty well, I thought.

Socialist.

What the hell are you talking about?

Who wouldn't want a 6% income tax. If I had a choice b/w a 6% income tax and 44%, guess which one I'm taking.

I stated flat tax over and over again, which is set at the median rate of the highest to lowest tax rates. Corporate rates should be frozen at 15%. Spending should be froze, and tax cuts occur as the economy grows (which over time happens consistently).

Socialism and Capitalism are shades of grey, if you don't understand that your problem not mine. I have a line where I think taxes should be at, crossing that line gets the brand socialism. You obviously are over that line, hence the tag socialism.

The NDP has garbage policies and 80% of the country rejects them, are 80% of people lazy minded as well? Since your an NDP supporter, you must think so.

Dropping taxes has been proven over and over again to be more prosperous for an economy and that results in a better life for everyone.

If you think the government knows how to spend money, by all means cut them a cheque.

Once again your not seeing the forest through the trees, there is a line between paying the operating costs of government and wandering through the lands of socialism. Operating costs are not socialism no matter how much you want it to be. And like I said, that line is subjective.

You Ontario/Quebec people and your tax the crap out of everything, hows that been working out there?

Edited December 16, 2009 by blueblood

[Pliny]

Just for clarity perhaps some insight upon a few terms would help.

Capitalism is a system of economy and not a system of politics.

Socialism is a process and not an ideal. It is an evolutionary process progressing toward Statism. The totalitarian socialist state is the ideal, the result, the end, of the socialist process.

An organization has structure as all organizations must. All Capitalist ventures have a socialistic organizational structure. Customers do not vote how the business should run and even employees do not do so. There is no "democracy" and if companies ran as democracies they would soon fail. The Capitalist enterprise is run by either a Founder or a Board of Directors. On a parallel, if it were political you could call it a totalitarian state. You will find that certain well-known Capitalists actually detested Capitalism. JD Rockefeller was quoted as saying that "Competition was the greatest sin." It is very important, I think, for Capitalists to be in control of their sphere of influence and although competition is a part of the capitalist Free market they don't like it for the very reason they don't control it. How could they control it? By making it a part of their organization. And that is what is wrong with socialism in politics. Free trade allows the economy to run unencumbered. The process of socialism progressively brings more and more organizations under it's regulation until the ideal is attained and all organizations are an arm of the State - a single organization.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

What the hell are you talking about?

Who wouldn't want a 6% income tax. If I had a choice b/w a 6% income tax and 44%, guess which one I'm taking.

I stated flat tax over and over again, which is set at the median rate of the highest to lowest tax rates. Corporate rates should be frozen at 15%. Spending should be froze, and tax cuts occur as the economy grows (which over time happens consistently).

Ok, then 15% is your number. If I propose 13%, then, you're the socialist. But you're already far to the left of the NDP.

Socialism and Capitalism are shades of grey, if you don't understand that your problem not mine. I have a line where I think taxes should be at, crossing that line gets the brand socialism. You obviously are over that line, hence the tag socialism.

Maybe, but saying something is "shades of grey" doesn't mean that you can use the terms wheneve ryou like.

Show me where I proposed any tax rate whatsoever. I didn't.

The NDP has garbage policies and 80% of the country rejects them, are 80% of people lazy minded as well? Since your an NDP supporter, you must think so.

Where did I say I'm an NDP supporter ?

Dropping taxes has been proven over and over again to be more prosperous for an economy and that results in a better life for everyone.

If you think the government knows how to spend money, by all means cut them a cheque.

Once again your not seeing the forest through the trees, there is a line between paying the operating costs of government and wandering through the lands of socialism. Operating costs are not socialism no matter how much you want it to be. And like I said, that line is subjective.

You Ontario/Quebec people and your tax the crap out of everything, hows that been working out there?

You're making up arguments for me, based on the fact that I'm calling you on your lazy thinking.

Answer my questions, please socialist: where did I say on this thread that I'm an NDP supporter ? Where did I say what a fair, good, or high/low tax rate would be ?

[blueblood]

Ok, then 15% is your number. If I propose 13%, then, you're the socialist. But you're already far to the left of the NDP.

How am I far to the left of the NDP, please explain that to me I need a laugh. I'm saying tax hikes are bad and anyone justifying raising taxes because they are a cash and spend liberal has the calling card of a socialist.

I think I can call bs that 13% is your number, being as your left of center and trying to lump me in with that crap line of thinking, your proposed tax rate is higher. You probably like boat loads of gov't services, and don't mind paying high taxes, I get it its an Ontario/Quebec thing. I've been completely honest with how I put the tax rate, you can be also completely honest and accept the fact that you are IMO a socialist (socialist being subjective).

Maybe, but saying something is "shades of grey" doesn't mean that you can use the terms wheneve ryou like.

Show me where I proposed any tax rate whatsoever. I didn't.

Ah, but I threw in a line, crossing it in my books is socialism. If it makes you feel any better, those calling for a 5% income tax rate would call me a socialist, and I could care less. It's like Stephen Harper, in Canada he's an ultra right neo-con, and in the states he would be viewed as a socialist. That term is subjective deal with it. If you don't like being tagged as a socialist, your problem not mine.

Lets see what your ideal tax rate/spending policies and be honest about it, or are you being a coward because you don't want to be labelled as a socialist. If your going to ask for my opinion on it, at least have the guts to put down your opinion and defend it. I don't agree with Punked 95% of the time, but at least he had the guts to lay down a tax rate and defend it, and has no problem with being a socialist.

[Michael Hardner]

How am I far to the left of the NDP, please explain that to me I need a laugh. I'm saying tax hikes are bad and anyone justifying raising taxes because they are a cash and spend liberal has the calling card of a socialist.

Because you're proposing a tax rate that's higher than theirs.

You're a socialist by your own definition.

I think I can call bs that 13% is your number, being as your left of center and trying to lump me in with that crap line of thinking, your proposed tax rate is higher. You probably like boat loads of gov't services, and don't mind paying high taxes, I get it its an Ontario/Quebec thing. I've been completely honest with how I put the tax rate, you can be also completely honest and accept the fact that you are IMO a socialist (socialist being subjective).

As I've said repeatedly, and you've failed to grasp, I never gave you MY number.

Ah, but I threw in a line, crossing it in my books is socialism. If it makes you feel any better, those calling for a 5% income tax rate would call me a socialist, and I could care less. It's like Stephen Harper, in Canada he's an ultra right neo-con, and in the states he would be viewed as a socialist. That term is subjective deal with it. If you don't like being tagged as a socialist, your problem not mine.

I wouldn't mind it, if I had even given you a tax rate, as I've said 4 or 5 times already.

Lets see what your ideal tax rate/spending policies and be honest about it, or are you being a coward because you don't want to be labelled as a socialist.

Now you ask me for my tax rate, after talking as though I had already stated it ?!? Huh ?

If your going to ask for my opinion on it, at least have the guts to put down your opinion and defend it. I don't agree with Punked 95% of the time, but at least he had the guts to lay down a tax rate and defend it, and has no problem with being a socialist.

Your posts are pretty much garbage. You accuse me of being a socialist without knowing my opinion on anything, you assign me positions on things, including what I think the tax rate should be, then you ASK me what I think it should be ?

You should find another board where they will accept posters like you.

[blueblood]

Because you're proposing a tax rate that's higher than theirs.

You're a socialist by your own definition.

Really, since when is a flat federal corporate rate of 15% higher than the 22% proposed by the NDP??

When is my flat tax of 15% (which according to you is the median tax rate) higher than 44%, 35%, etc.

Where are my tax increases?

As I've said repeatedly, and you've failed to grasp, I never gave you MY number.

Then you shouldn't be asking my number and assigning labels if you aren't going to state your opinion. Or are you just scared that you honestly do like higher taxes and higher spending and don't want to be labelled as a socialist?

Your posts are pretty much garbage. You accuse me of being a socialist without knowing my opinion on anything, you assign me positions on things, including what I think the tax rate should be, then you ASK me what I think it should be ?

You should find another board where they will accept posters like you.

So my posts are "garbage". I can accuse you, because you are dodging what you think tax rates/spending should be. If your rates are honestly lower than mine, you would have no problem posting it. Since you have a problem posting it, that creates an air of suspicion.

Edited December 16, 2009 by blueblood

[Michael Hardner]

Really, since when is a flat federal corporate rate of 15% higher than the 22% proposed by the NDP??

When is my flat tax of 15% (which according to you is the median tax rate) higher than 44%, 35%, etc.

Where are my tax increases?

Punked pointed out their policy to reduce the rate for small businesses. I assume you're not owner of a multinational corporation, based on your performance here.

Then you shouldn't be asking my number and assigning labels if you aren't going to state your opinion. Or are you just scared that you honestly do like higher taxes and higher spending and don't want to be labelled as a socialist?

It doesn't work that way. I don't have to give my opinion on something just because you did.

So my posts are "garbage". I can accuse you, because you are dodging what you think tax rates/spending should be. If your rates are honestly lower than mine, you would have no problem posting it. Since you have a problem posting it, that creates an air of suspicion.

You just asked me now and you're accusing ME of dodging ? When it took you 5 times to come up with a rate, after you stated that certain rates were too high or low ?

My my.

[punked]

Again I am a progressive not a socialist. I am all for private corporation, I am also for a tax system where the bottom pays less then the top. After we get past those two things and maybe agree on them we can talk about the structure. If you make 100,000,000 a year why should you pay the same as someone who makes 350,000 a year if they have to pay more then someone who pays 80,000. Yes the very top tax bracket should pay 60% tax. I don't really want a 95% top bracket but I think we should have a different one for over 5 million. That is just my opinion. I think the government has a roll and we must pay for that roll. I don't really have time to over everything but there is a huge difference between longest and strongest economic growth who care if your economy grows by 1% every year, if you have two or three years where it grows 20% then one where it contracts by 1%. Lets be a bit more qualitative about this. Those years where the top US tax bracket was 80% the economy grew more then any other. That is a fact.

[bush_cheney2004]

Again I am a progressive not a socialist. I am all for private corporation, I am also for a tax system where the bottom pays less then the top.

Such is the case today....end of story.

Those years where the top US tax bracket was 80% the economy grew more then any other. That is a fact.

Patently false....you don't live in the US...obviously!

[punked]

Such is the case today....end of story.

Patently false....you don't live in the US...obviously!

Here is a nice graph for you BC.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SZSAGhk7rVI/AAAAAAAAAqs/2_cagw55LFo/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg

I will let you guess what the top tax bracket was in 43.

Maybe you can compare it too this taxation graph.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg

Edited December 17, 2009 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

Here is a nice graph for you BC.

Maybe you can compare it too this taxation graph.

There was no marginal income tax rate in the 19th century....and no WW2 either.

Do you want to buy a clue?

Maybe you can pretend you live in America!

[blueblood]

Again I am a progressive not a socialist. I am all for private corporation, I am also for a tax system where the bottom pays less then the top. After we get past those two things and maybe agree on them we can talk about the structure. If you make 100,000,000 a year why should you pay the same as someone who makes 350,000 a year if they have to pay more then someone who pays 80,000. Yes the very top tax bracket should pay 60% tax. I don't really want a 95% top bracket but I think we should have a different one for over 5 million. That is just my opinion. I think the government has a roll and we must pay for that roll. I don't really have time to over everything but there is a huge difference between longest and strongest economic growth who care if your economy grows by 1% every year, if you have two or three years where it grows 20% then one where it contracts by 1%. Lets be a bit more qualitative about this. Those years where the top US tax bracket was 80% the economy grew more then any other. That is a fact.

Like I said socialist is subjective, no need to get knickers in a knot.

The beauty of a flat tax is that the more money you make the more money you keep. The person who is making 100,000,000 a year is already contributing to society. Odds are someone of a wealth of that magnitude is heavily investing in companies, is buying all sorts of crap which helps out the economy, has piles of money in the bank which increases bank liquidity, and odds are employs some workers. Would you not say that that person is contributing to society. By taking his money away from him in taxes means that one of those examples is going to take a hit. Finally there is incentive with a flat tax, with less and less being taken, there is more incentive to produce more as a person becomes more wealthy. As you know, under the extreme example in Russia this did not happen, and we know the rest of the story.

Yours and mine definition of a role the gov't has to play is probably different. People on the right (my) side of thinking want that role as small as possible so that less money is taken. I don't know how big you want that role.

I have already quoted that the 90's had the US greatest economic expansion, and discussing that further is redundant. In Ireland in the late 90's/2000's they slashed taxes and went from a basketcase to an economic powerhouse.

[punked]

There was no marginal income tax rate in the 19th century....and no WW2 either.

Do you want to buy a clue?

Maybe you can pretend you live in America!

Funny the IRS says differently. Although you clearly know nothing on the subject.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

BTW:

It might also interest you to know from 1800-1913 the GDP growth rate averaged was .7%. Not the 50% it was over the time when the top income bracket was 80%+. Weird I know eh?

[bush_cheney2004]

BTW:

It might also interest you to know from 1800-1913 the GDP growth rate averaged was .7%. Not the 50% it was over the time when the top income bracket was 80%+. Weird I know eh?

Not of any interest at all, since your average understanding and limited time horizon misses many details. But how could you know any better without Google?

[punked]

Like I said socialist is subjective, no need to get knickers in a knot.

The beauty of a flat tax is that the more money you make the more money you keep. The person who is making 100,000,000 a year is already contributing to society. Odds are someone of a wealth of that magnitude is heavily investing in companies, is buying all sorts of crap which helps out the economy, has piles of money in the bank which increases bank liquidity, and odds are employs some workers. Would you not say that that person is contributing to society. By taking his money away from him in taxes means that one of those examples is going to take a hit. Finally there is incentive with a flat tax, with less and less being taken, there is more incentive to produce more as a person becomes more wealthy. As you know, under the extreme example in Russia this did not happen, and we know the rest of the story.

Yours and mine definition of a role the gov't has to play is probably different. People on the right (my) side of thinking want that role as small as possible so that less money is taken. I don't know how big you want that role.

I have already quoted that the 90's had the US greatest economic expansion, and discussing that further is redundant. In Ireland in the late 90's/2000's they slashed taxes and went from a basketcase to an economic powerhouse.

But the 90s weren't the greatest economic expansion they had the longest streak of expansion. Meaning it was the most consecutive years with shrinking. Who cares about that because when you compare too 40-60 it wasn't as strong.

The ugly of a flat tax is it punishes the poor and working class. No matter how much the rich think they give to society, the driving forces is the working class. You punish them you better just kiss your country good bye. Remember the 30s? No what happened then? Well in the 20s they cut taxes to nothing and all they got was the great depression.

[punked]

Not of any interest at all, since your average understanding and limited time horizon misses many details. But how could you know any better without Google?

Don't get mad cause you are wrong.

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't get mad cause you are wrong.

Wrong about what? Any idiot can pick a period in US history and declare victory concerning the impact of tariffs and taxes.

Doesn't mean any idiot will be correct.

How's the weather up there?