raising tax revenues by raising taxes?

How many people in our country do you think are the "lazy and freeloaders?"

AV8OR wrote: How many people do YOU propose we ROB to take care of the "lazy and freeloaders"?

How long will you continue the circle?

We've just witnessed the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the obscenely-rich in history. The COST of the extending the tax-cuts to the wealthy is $700-750 Billion over 10 years. The amount of money that will mean to the wealthy is negligible, by comparison. And the crap about that group being the "small business generators" is just that--crap. The GAO has determined that roughly 3% of those individuals in that bracket are actually classified as "small businesses." However, it might be enough to go order another one of those limited-edition $75,000 Camaros... Big whoop...

And yes...If you're going to cut heads on the government payroll, let's start with all of the unnecessary military bases we have around the world. We can eliminate a HUGE number of military jobs.

from the article

Why? Higher taxes discourage the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurship. When tax rates are raised, taxpayers are encouraged to shift, hide and underreport income. Taxpayers divert their effort from pro-growth productive investments to seeking tax shelters, tax havens and tax exempt investments. This behavior tends to dampen economic growth and job creation. Lower taxes increase the incentives to work, produce, save and invest, thereby encouraging capital formation and jobs. Taxpayers have less incentive to shelter and shift income.

so if taxpayers of any bracket are inclined to shift income, wouldn't it make more sense to not raise taxes?

AV8OR wrote:

kneb wrote:

AV8OR wrote: Hey LJ,Since you are so concerned about "reducing the deficit", how about we trim 1/3 of the employees of government?

Great idea! Let's put an additional 4.5 million people on unemployment, including 1/3 of our military. :thumbsup:

NO! We'll just leave the fine folks of the military alone. We'll kill the bureacratic government jobs instead. Good to see you understand.

The federal gov't is bloated and that includes our military. If people want cuts they need to give up their personal fed programs etc. Including the military.

What you nincompoops don't get is that tax policy effects investment not job creation. Dumb!

Dummy: You are!!

Scruffy:

it gets harder every day to go from poor to middle to rich

The same opportunity to go to rich has been there since the free market system was created. You have to get off your fat ass and do something besides wait for the government to make you rich by taking it from those who were willing to try to get rich.

It has always been "hard". Learn the basics by reading Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill, instead of the porn you read now. It is only difficult if you make up your mind that it is.

Polly:

With all the unrest in the world why would anybody be stupid enough to think that we should reduce our military and just give up? The gap would be taken up instantly by China and Russia, not to mention Iran or N. Korea, or Pakistan or India.

Can you even envision a world where any of them are the Superpower?

Here's an interesting analysis and projections by Moody's...

Do nothing and let all tax cuts expire

2011 deficit: $732 billion (it's $1.3 trillion now)
2011 economic growth: 0.9% (just above a recession)
2011 unemployment: 10.7% (9.7% now)

Option 1: Let the tax cuts expire for the top 2% (Obama's plan)

Deficit: $904 billion
Economic growth: 2.6%
Unemployment: 10%

Option 2: Extend the tax cuts 1 or 2 years for the top 2% (the compromise)

Deficit: $943 billion
Economic growth: 2.95%
Unemployment: 9.9%

Option 3: Make all tax cuts permanent (the Republican plan)

Deficit: $943 billion
Economic growth: 2.95%
Unemployment: 9.9%

All three are numbers the same as option 2 since we are looking at 2011, but this plan would cost $4 trillion over the next 10 years.


None of the options look attractive, but if I had to pick one I guess I'd go with option #2, which seems to be where we are currently headed anyway.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101128/ap_on_go_co/us_economy_tax_cuts

Kind of interesting how when the Bush cuts went into effect in 1997, the economy rebounded.

Reduce taxes, such as the capital gains taxes, folks start cashing in on their capital gains, reinvest the profits in infrastructure (including goods and services), and voila! America is back on its feet! No need to rob the rich. Just give them a sound reason to invest in America.

Kind of interesting how when the Bush cuts went into effect in 1997, the economy rebounded.

Reduce taxes, such as the capital gains taxes, folks start cashing in on their capital gains, reinvest the profits in infrastructure (including goods and services), and voila! America is back on its feet! No need to rob the rich. Just give them a sound reason to invest in America.

uh....Clinton was the president in 1997