Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


So a friend of mine is droning on about how the Congressional Research Center (CRC) has proven lower taxes don't result in higher revenues for the government.

First of all, the days of "independent" and "non-partisan" institutions are gone as they have been infiltrated with partisan hacks ... unfortunate because reliable information is worth its weight in gold.

This particular CRC report looks at tax rates over the decades and concludes that lower marginal tax rates, including capital gains taxes, do not correlate to higher levels of economic activity and, at the same time, government "revenue".

In a nutshell this is rather like arguing that CO2 level increase cause global warming. Or, when it comes to abusing statistics ... "figures lie and liars figure."

In fact, comparing 1945 to 1950 to 1960 to 1979 to 1993 to 2002 to 2008 utilizing a single correlative factor like tax rates is beyond naive and borders on stupidity.

Or, more like it ... the "researchers" wanted to find a correlation that supports a political viewpoint and found one. As Obama said in the 2008 debates, raising taxes is not a matter of revenue but fairness.

And isn't it funny how liberals always want to tax and regulate things (and people) they don't like in order to control them ... alcohol, sugar, fat, tobacco, gasoline, coal, automobiles, mobility, homes, speech, etc. but when it comes to ENCOURAGING activity by REDUCING taxes and regulations they manufacture studies like the one previously mentioned to argue that doesn't happen.

Got that?

You see ... if you give your kids smaller and smaller allowances they'll work harder and harder for less and less. Give your wife a smaller and smaller anount of money to run the house and demand from her more and more results. Yeah. Try that argument with them and see what happens.

Liberals believe that by raising taxes on things they can control and hopefully LIMIT their use but they want you to believe that LOWERING taxes will not encourage the opposite behavior.
Why? because they are "smarty pants" who think they know better than you about how to conduct your life and how to utilize the fruits of your labor.

And because they think you're stupid.

Because should Obama get booted out of office and the free market be allowed to crank up its engines you will LAUGH at the liberal argument that the economy does better when the GOVERNMENT takes more and more money out of the private sector and becomes even more bloated than it already is.

Or are you satisfied with watching these elitist nabobs living the "Life of Riley" while you collect the crumbs they toss down to you?

The "geniuses" who hover over us ... tormenting us to no end. Whose lifestyles are subsidized by people making a fraction of what they make, who love to cheat on THEIR taxes.




( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
Sep. 19th, 2012 08:47 pm (UTC)
Sounded like an invitation to me...

"...infiltrated with partisan hacks..." is such a typical red herring... accuse outside influences and partisan motivations...

Proof please.

So here's a detail for you - The wealthy and corporations have amassed the largest overflowing coffers in history... and they sit on it. If they spent a minimal amount of it to employ people, it would create demand as these people will spend their money to buy products that will in turn drive the economy. The PEOPLE who have jobs create the demand for products which determines the need for jobs. These businesses COULD spend the economy out of the current economic morass - but they don't believe in trickle down either.

Vice taxes, I could care less about them. They only tax non-essential items. They are some of the more fair taxes out there.

Vice laws, on the other hand - rubbish.

As a matter of fact I don't think taxing luxury goods (unless it is a massive and punitively high tax) will make major changes in behavior or habit (actually you told me that this was the only way a government should effect people's behavior as I recall - but I admit I have not gone back to look it up - so that is guessing - I admit when I do that). I also don't believe minor tax adjustments up OR down make major changes in behavior - so that argument doesn't work on me.

So Ed - what was the REAL dollar amount, per family,from the Reagan tax cuts? (hint - it wasn't much and he raised taxes more often than he cut them - that was a shell game)

Funny you should say something about the kids...

In my house 3/4 of the people pull in no income. I support them and all their needs and put my own somewhere down the list. The resources are limited (because I am obviously lazy and don't earn in the top 10%) so I have to make sure that the resources are spread as efficiently as possible. 1/4 of the population of my house saw a massive drop in income this year. The payout to the kids was reduced as a result, and everyone has been asked to help keep costs down. I don't accuse the 3/4 of the non-wage owners of being parasites or lazy good for nothings. We are a society - we need to act like one.

It has nothing to do with "smarty pants" thinking they know better than you. It has to do with spreading the limited resources around so that everyone gets the benefits that they need. What was the highway system like prior to the Eisenhower Interstate System? What was the result of a lack of regulation in the markets in the late 20s. What was the condition of the self regulated railroads of the late 30s early 40s. What happened to the workers in unchecked industry in the 1800s - 1930s? What was the general literacy rate in the US prior to public education... Food safety? Child Labor? Workplace Safety? Shall I go on? Scientific advances that were specifically funded by the fed? products that were funded by the fed and became commercially successful? drug safety? More?

but that's all RUBBISH... isn't it?

No - Government is NOT the answer to everything. PEOPLE are. Romney has demonstrated that he has no respect for people. He is a money grubbing "right" wing political and financial opportunist and (IMHO) a complete and utter fraud only marginally better than Junior. And McCain, who fought a bitter battle or two against Romney, is sure stuck firmly in suck up mode now. The patronizing rhetoric he spouts is sickening.

The "right" is all about anxiety, anger, discountenance, and fear.

...and my bomb shelter is unused and empty...
Sep. 19th, 2012 09:57 pm (UTC)
I have stopped feeling obligated to offer you proof for anything I say for over 2 years. It is a waste of effort. You've played that trick on me before and, even when I've supplied links and video and undeniable evidence you simply ignore them, don't even bother to check them out.

For the ideologue nothing matters.

Just a reminder though ... when the "non-partisan" CBO scored ObamaCare and said it came in under budget I said from the beginning it was bogus, accounting tricks and, in the private sector, people would have been put in jail for cooking the books.

I exposed the MediCare subterfuge and even predicted the cost would rise from $900 billion to around $2.5 trillion.

Well, lo and behold, the CBO now confirms I was right.

I was almost EXACTLY correct and those "non-partisan" bean-counters have been shown to be hacks ... however you want to define hack.

I don't need to see a card stamped "hack" because the evidence is in what they say and do.

Mike, my record over 5 years stands on its own. Virtually everything I have predicted has come to pass or is happening now.

On every level.

You, in contrast, have no crediblity ... just repeat the same old talking points ... and yet you demand I back up what I say as if I need your seal of approval.

That's pretty funny! :-D
Sep. 20th, 2012 03:20 am (UTC)
It's a mindless dodge - there is no proof. They are infiltrators simple because they won't preach your line.

Oh - and their government employees, which makes them blood sucking leeches and lazy.

I get it...
Sep. 20th, 2012 03:26 am (UTC)
Hmmm - You are more valued than you think
Ed, my friend... I do actually look up quite a bit of what yuo have suggested. Just because I don't agree with you, it doesn't mean I don't value your opinions. I just question your interpretation, your opinion of what constitutes a valued source, and your ideology - yes you have an ideology. I think your blame is falling short. You only seem to think one side is the issue - which is simply absurd. You believe this so much that anyone that doesn't come aboard unquestioningly is part of the opposition to the point that you begin associating thoughts with them that are not even theirs.

To be fair - with your assistance I have gotten MUCH better arguing my points and I have learned a whole lot about seeing perspectives beyond my own... that doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
Sep. 20th, 2012 03:30 am (UTC)
Hmmm - You are more valued than you think
I think we have a different reality.

You record only seems accurate from your perch.

Mine is not perfect - but has been proven to be fairly accurate for someone who hasn't time to do this all day every day.

The biggest short fall on my record so far is that BHO has not shown near enough spine. He has repeatedly caved to the "right". I think (as I have said so many times before) that he is finding that the job manages the manager some days, He can't always do what he wants... and he faces an RNC that is one of, if not THE, most unreasonably obstructive in history. Will be interesting to see how Nov comes out. Should I start restocking the bomb shelter?
Sep. 20th, 2012 03:40 am (UTC)
Just like living in Paradise
Hmmm... no... I know you can't provide proof of that one. You do that to me ALL THE TIME so it must be a pleasant thing to have it returned. You have nearly NEVER actually answered when called out on some of the more egregious statements.

no you have no obligation to me - I was just hoping you could educate me on my error. It's not like you didn't draw me in with an obvious lead in. Do as you please. I value your opinion - it is your facts and interpretation of those facts that I find ponderously selective and wildly out of balance. It doesn't mean I don't value what you have to say. You have provided me plenty of ammunition in the rest of my e-world.

If you cannot answer for a statement I van ignore it.

So I will wander back to my rock now.
Sep. 19th, 2012 09:10 pm (UTC)
I discussed similar issues in another forum and another person complained about excessive taxes on the rich ...

***** My response:

Those that benefit more from government economic protections, military protections, law enforcement protections, infrastructure investment etc should pay more.

I don't think ANYONE should pay NO tax (and in fact no one in the US pays none); but I can assure you that 27% (my actual income tax rate the last 3 years) will have a substantially larger impact on my life style than 15% will have on the top 1%. In fact, that same 15% would also have a much more significant impact on my net than 40% would have on someone like Romney. Businesses get FAR more direct assistance than people in my tax bracket - and they should pay for it. If businesses were not dodging their tax load the way they are individuals would get a more fair break... oh wait... Corporations ARE people... right... any company that is paying their full load should fire their accountant. Most US corporations don't pay even close to the horrid maximum rate.

Romney got MORE breaks in taxes (I call that subsidy) on the tax returns he disclosed than I earn. That is not welfare for the rich? He pays a LOWER rate than I do and gets MORE stimulus. Make sense of that for me.
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

August 2014


Powered by LiveJournal.com