It really comes down to this.

ShilohLady wrote: levying taxes is one thing but if tax rates get too high, there is no incentive to earn more as more will be taken by the government. It's been showing that increasing tax rates often results in LESS revenue.

Show me the point in the last 30 - hell make it 40 or even 50- years where taxes were too high that it resulted in less revenue and a stagnant economy.

Show me the point in the last 30 - hell make it 40 or even 50- years where taxes were too high that it resulted in less revenue and a stagnant economy.

November 2008 - August 2011

Got it?

BearMtnHIB wrote:

Show me the point in the last 30 - hell make it 40 or even 50- years where taxes were too high that it resulted in less revenue and a stagnant economy.

November 2008 - August 2011

Got it?

Oh of course. That is it. How could I possibly forget. You are a flaming nitwit.

poubelle wrote:

ShilohLady wrote: levying taxes is one thing but if tax rates get too high, there is no incentive to earn more as more will be taken by the government. It's been showing that increasing tax rates often results in LESS revenue.

Show me the point in the last 30 - hell make it 40 or even 50- years where taxes were too high that it resulted in less revenue and a stagnant economy.

Kennedy(D) cut tax rates to boost the economy.

AspenValley wrote: Actually, I think what it comes down to is that the only way to rev things up would be for more stimulus spending, but we can't afford it without bankrupting the treasury.

The result is going to be a very painful and likely permanent economic contraction.

More spending would be Insane. That's like drinking more Vodka and expecting to become sober. NO MORE SPENDING !!!

Change the tax codes so companies (GE) and the mega-rich (Hedge Fund Mgrs) actually pay the proper amount.
Pass a balanced budget amendment.
Eliminate the inefficient, unnecessary government programs.
And most importantly - get people back to work - that's where the true 'revenue increase' lies.

There are a ton of companies sitting on enormous amounts of cash, but until Washington becomes more business friendly, most will probably not commit to any capital investments - which basically equates to creating jobs.

OmniScience wrote:

AspenValley wrote: Actually, I think what it comes down to is that the only way to rev things up would be for more stimulus spending, but we can't afford it without bankrupting the treasury.

The result is going to be a very painful and likely permanent economic contraction.

More spending would be Insane. That's like drinking more Vodka and expecting to become sober. NO MORE SPENDING !!!

Did you miss this part?

but we can't afford it without bankrupting the treasury.

The classic (and proven) prescription for a contracting economy IS in fact more spending. But NOT when we're already in a hole so deep you can't see the top of it anymore.

If you take the family parallel.

I make $30k a year and I just found out that beyond my $1000 mortgage that my identity was stolen and I actually have another one for an additional $2000 a month. Called my lawyer and senator and they said tough, you are stuck with it. That is $36,000 a year in payments and my take home is $24k. What do I do.

Should I get another job OR give up my current house OR pretend it is no big deal and go to Applebees?

The answer is all three as it always has been, all that really matters is that I can still do the latter, that is America.

My answer is cut services by 50% and raise taxes, but only after we rewrite the entire tax code so that it fits on one 8.5x11 with 1" margins at 10pt arial. And by all means no more taxing corporations so that I can pay profit on top of tax and raise taxes on financially stable parents who use the public school system (a head tax would work).

Beyond cutting services we can reduce govt employment for things that provide no benefit/support politicians for life at min wage with no other income options, no stock etc after office.

Also come up with a pork test. If a national program only benefits one region, the politician that represents that region must pay 0.0001% of the funding personally. Just 1/10,000 of a percent. See if that fixes pork.

Ahh never mind. America will not vaporize, but we are going down. We have pushed too much into the future, there is no mathematical solution. We should not have bet our past perks on future prosperity. Our leaders have failed, which means we voted wrong and drank the wrong cup.

AspenValley wrote: The result is going to be a very painful and likely permanent economic contraction.

Just like the Roman Empire. Where do they stand in the new world order?

I think the rubber band is stretched too far and will break without drastic action (like the environment). I think we should prepare in the medium term to be divided up between other countries and to think about what that actually looks and feels like. Perhaps think Eastern Europe.

Who would have thought that responding to 9-11 like a bunch of football bullies and buying every social program except good health care we could think of would have lead to this...Oh, I did.

To think that the young people of the world get to watch two amazing things unfold, not only will our environment be decimated in the next few decades, so will our political and economic systems...and the irony is that it was made possible and even demanded by their parents and grandparents, the one's who were supposed to protect and foster them, they just screwed them over in stead. It will be very sad, but extremely interesting to watch, actually it already is.

Mmmm, this Starbucks tastes great. Anyone have any popcorn.

SS109 wrote:

poubelle wrote:

ShilohLady wrote: levying taxes is one thing but if tax rates get too high, there is no incentive to earn more as more will be taken by the government. It's been showing that increasing tax rates often results in LESS revenue.

Show me the point in the last 30 - hell make it 40 or even 50- years where taxes were too high that it resulted in less revenue and a stagnant economy.

Kennedy(D) cut tax rates to boost the economy.

Nice. You did have to go back fifty years. And what were the rates that JFK cut? What was the rate the very wealthy were paying before the cut and then after the cut and yet the country was no where near the pit we are presently in. I agree that there is a point when rates may be too high but we have not even remotely been at that point in a very long time. But there is also a point when taxes on the wealthy are too low and we are there.

When businesses aren't spending, when people aren't spending then it is necessary for the government to spend. And spend big. If government funds large, huge, infrastructure projects-that are now desperately needed-then people are working. If people are working and making a good wage, then they not only have money to spend but they will be paying taxes as well. They will spend money at all those businesses that themselves aren't spending and creating a demand for goods and services that any good business person will be more than happy to provide. Enough of this trickle (tinkle) down nonsense. We have had the evidence that it doesn't work for a good time now.

Wow, how did we ever get through the 40's & 50's & 60's & 70's....?

From 1942 through 1954, it was over 90%, if you made over $250K

From 1956 through 1962, it was 89%, if you made over $250K

1964 it was 76%...

1966 through 1980, it was 70%

Golly, we should have descended into oblivion... And we're suggesting that the TOP marginal rate be adjusted from 36% to 39.6%--ONLY ON THE PORTION OVER $250K...

Oh, the horror....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax ... 930_-_1980