Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom When only 50% of the population is paying income tax, I call that income redistrubition. And boy has progressive taxes come a long way since Karl Marx created them. I was infact talking about the "Earned income tax credit". Sorry I didn't know the correct term. Being an honest person and not having children I have never taken advantage of them. Unlike Liberals I don't believe in voting to receive a living. "From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs."
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Oh, lets try this phrase, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." LOL... gotta love these buzz statements. What hippocrates.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Face it, 50% of the population rely on the Federal Government to take money away from acheivers and give it to those who have made poor decisions and continue to make poor decisions in their lives. Who coincedentally will ALWAYS vote Democrat.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom These individuals believe that "Government" is there to smooth out ever bump in the road of life. They don't care where the money comes from as long as they can continue their fiscally irresponcible lifestyles. They also expect "Government" to provide they with security, medically and financially. They also believe that "Government" is responcible for providing them with jobs and welfare programs. These individuals are willing to compromise their own Freedoms and Liberty as well as everyone elses for "Government" meeting their security needs. An local example would be; a new High School has just been completed in my county in an area that is overwhelmingly "African-American". The County School System states that they are going to bus white students in from other areas of the county and bus "African-American" students to other nearby High School in an attempt to "equalize" the educational experience. All this despite state laws forbiding interacial busing. These parents are so pathetic, they actually stood up on camera and demanded that EVERYONE allow their child to be a part of this "Social Experiment". They actually used those words.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Next example is the Peace At Any Price crowd. They are the ones demanding that the US pull out of Iraq and Afganistan. Despite the knowlege that radical Muslims around the world have vowed to "Kill Americans where they stand".
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<50% of the population rely on the Federal Government to take money away from acheivers and give it to those who have made poor decisions and continue to make poor decisions in their lives>> Because the only dumb people are poor, right? Medical emergencies never wipe out people's savings accounts. Bankruptcy is always used by dishonest people who want to abuse the system. Hurricanes never affect people who make good decisions. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Got it. Whatever happened to "A rising tide lifts all boats." When you are able to succeed, isn't it a great thing to help those that are below you come up too? As a society, don't we want to be remembered for the great things that we did for our entire nation and not just what we acheived for ourselves? Or is that too "bleeding heart" liberal? BTW, if those 50% always vote Democrat, and people continue to make "poor decisions", then soon we will have a Democrat majority.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>You left out "to form a more perfect union" and "establish tranquility," but considering the tone of the debate lately...I think it's appropriate that you did. << LOL! And cmpaley wins the LP Post of the Day Award!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<History does not tell us this.>> <Again, yes it does. Almost everytime we cut taxes, we get more money coming into the federal treasury than projected, and almost everytime we raise taxes, we get less money coming into the federal treasury than projected.> Stop with the goalpost moving already. You injected this irrelevant "projections" thing when I was talking about the logical fallacy of stating as though it were fact that c.g. receipts went up BECAUSE c.g. rates went down. That does not follow, period. Projections are a whole other matter. <The only reason that would be true is if tax increases were a drag on the economy, and tax cuts spur economic growth.> (TomSawyer): <That or economists really don't know how to project tax revenues in a highly complex economic system, and how to anticipate the impact of world events or public sentiment.> Ding Ding Ding!!! Nailed it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Speaking of bad projections: <But beyond 2007, the budget assumes no military expenditures in Iraq or Afghanistan and no effort to address the unintended effects of the alternative minimum tax, a parallel income tax system that was designed to hit the rich but has instead increasingly pinched the middle class. It also assumes Congress will cut domestic spending every year after 2007. Those factors led Goldman Sachs economists to tell clients yesterday that the deficit forecasts are "unrealistic."<< I can't verify this, but heard on the radio this morning that the numbers ALSO do not include Katrina costs, as though those were over and done with. Shall we call that "less than honest?"
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You injected this irrelevant "projections" thing when I was talking about the logical fallacy of stating as though it were fact that c.g. receipts went up BECAUSE c.g. rates went down. That does not follow, period.> Sure. Just as it doesn't follow that if the sun comes out, the temperature doesn't get warmer. <That or economists really don't know how to project tax revenues in a highly complex economic system, and how to anticipate the impact of world events or public sentiment.> And neither one of you find it odd that they consistently underestimate how much revenue tax increases will bring, and overestimate how much tax cuts will cost, do you?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You injected this irrelevant "projections" thing when I was talking about the logical fallacy of stating as though it were fact that c.g. receipts went up BECAUSE c.g. rates went down. That does not follow, period.>> <Sure. Just as it doesn't follow that if the sun comes out, the temperature doesn't get warmer.> Some things are not logical fallacies. Some things are - like the fallacy that began this thread. Confusing the two is itself a logical fallacy. But nice try. <<That or economists really don't know how to project tax revenues in a highly complex economic system, and how to anticipate the impact of world events or public sentiment.>> <And neither one of you find it odd that they consistently underestimate how much revenue tax increases will bring, and overestimate how much tax cuts will cost, do you?> a). maybe we don't accept how "consistent" this is just on your say-so, and wonder if you aren't cherry picking again; b). Economic estimates are often wildly wrong on all sorts of matters. Bush estimated he'd cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. They estimated that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction. Looks like they've underestimated how much the prescription drug benefit is going to cost. The real world - as Tom put it, "a highly complex economic system, and how to anticipate the impact of world events or public sentiment" - has a nasty way of inpinging on estimates. Estimates are just that - what matters more is reality. And the reality is that the market has done far better the last couple of years than the couple of years before that, and THAT is what has increased c.g. receipts.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Some things are - like the fallacy that began this thread.> When something is an isolated incident, then saying something happened because of something else would be a logical fallacy. When it happens over and over, it no longer is. <maybe we don't accept how "consistent" this is just on your say-so, and wonder if you aren't cherry picking again> You don't have to trust me; you can do the research and find out that I'm right. <And the reality is that the market has done far better the last couple of years than the couple of years before that, and THAT is what has increased c.g. receipts.> And the reality is economies improve when taxes are lowered.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Some things are - like the fallacy that began this thread.>> <When something is an isolated incident, then saying something happened because of something else would be a logical fallacy. When it happens over and over, it no longer is.> No, a logical fallacy is attributing a causal relationship where none exists, even if it happens over and over. It's a classic example of "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" - aka "after the fact, therefore because of the fact - when a temporal relation between two events is assumed to prove that the first one caused the second one. It's Logic 101 stuff. It gets dark every night. I eat dinner every night. Does the fact that it gets dark cause me to eat dinner? No, something else does. The Summer Olympics happen in years divisible by 4. US Presidential elections take place a few months later those same years. Do they take place BECAUSE the Olympics just happened? No. <<maybe we don't accept how "consistent" this is just on your say-so, and wonder if you aren't cherry picking again>> <You don't have to trust me; you can do the research and find out that I'm right.> I have done the research, and you're not right. <<And the reality is that the market has done far better the last couple of years than the couple of years before that, and THAT is what has increased c.g. receipts.>> <And the reality is economies improve when taxes are lowered.> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. We saw those stats months ago. Yet you stay on this absolutist kick.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No, a logical fallacy is attributing a causal relationship where none exists, even if it happens over and over.> Except any economist admits there is a casual relationship between taxes and the economy. That's why people advocated raising taxes on cigarettes to discourage people from smoking. <We saw those stats months ago.> No we didn't. You can deny it all you want, but it's true. When Kennedy cut taxes, when Reagan cut taxes, when Clinton agreed to tax cuts, and when Bush cut taxes, revenues grew faster after the cuts than they did before the cuts. The opposite thing happens when we raise taxes.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<No, a logical fallacy is attributing a causal relationship where none exists, even if it happens over and over.>> <Except any economist admits there is a casual relationship between taxes and the economy. That's why people advocated raising taxes on cigarettes to discourage people from smoking.> That's much broader. The fact is that one can not show a causal relationship between lowering c.g. rates and increased c.g. revenues. The primary reason for the latter was obviously a better stock market in the past two years compared to immediately after 9/11. <<We saw those stats months ago.>> <No we didn't. You can deny it all you want, but it's true. When Kennedy cut taxes, when Reagan cut taxes, when Clinton agreed to tax cuts, and when Bush cut taxes, revenues grew faster after the cuts than they did before the cuts. The opposite thing happens when we raise taxes.> The chart showed that sometimes that was the case, sometimes not. You can deny that all you want, but it's true.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The fact is that one can not show a causal relationship between lowering c.g. rates and increased c.g. revenues.> Sure. I guess it's just magic that they correspond. <The primary reason for the latter was obviously a better stock market in the past two years compared to immediately after 9/11.> The fact that it started climbing right after the capital gains tax cut went into effect is irrelevant, right? Just like the fact that they started climbing in the mid-90's right after a capital gains tax cut, right? <The chart showed that sometimes that was the case, sometimes not.> No, they didn't.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Just a little thought about local taxes- We just passed a prop 2.5 "underride" first of a kind I think? We, the taxpayers of Sandwich Mass, saved about 500,000 or so by getting money back! We were so happy until the front page of the cctimes today indicated we have the worst school system on the cape, and in the high school, kids are forced to take one "no-course" a day i.e. a clerical or study time killing period as they cannot afford the teachers to even give the students a full class schedule. Since we pay over 10 grand a year in property taxes, we were incensed. Moral is sometimes tax cuts may NOT be better as I always thought seeing we have one child with partial special help needs and another child whose drama club will be cut;( Perhaps this can't be extrapolated to be germaine on the state or certainly federal level, but it has opened my mind.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The fact is that one can not show a causal relationship between lowering c.g. rates and increased c.g. revenues.>> <Sure. I guess it's just magic that they correspond.> It's not magic. It's a better stock market. <<The primary reason for the latter was obviously a better stock market in the past two years compared to immediately after 9/11.>> <The fact that it started climbing right after the capital gains tax cut went into effect is irrelevant, right?> Not irrelevant, just can't be shown to be causal. You'd like to BELIEVE it's causal, but you can't show that. And it was hardly magic that the stock market did better in the two most recent years than it did in the two years immediately following 9/11. <Just like the fact that they started climbing in the mid-90's right after a capital gains tax cut, right?> The Clinton economy was also very good for the stock market. <<The chart showed that sometimes that was the case, sometimes not.>> <No, they didn't.> Yes, they did.
