Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


housesub4you -> Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/11/2010 6:34:36 PM)

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) says that tax cuts for wealthy Americans do not have to be paid for, however unemployment benefits have to be paid for.   So much for being a critic about a balanced budget, seems as long as it keeps the donations rolling in, the hell with the national debt.

Hmmm..he has no problem sticking up for the wealthy, but could care less about the people whose jobs he passed laws about, so corporations could get huge tax breaks to send their jobs overseas

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/11/kyl-tax-cuts/




Sanity -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/11/2010 6:36:29 PM)


You understand that thinkprogress isn't a news site don't you?




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/11/2010 6:45:29 PM)

And you do know that tax cuts can be cost neutral or increase total revenues, but they have NEVER resulted in the declines that the CBO predicts using static modeling, right?




Fellow -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/11/2010 8:02:08 PM)

For my taste everything Sen. Jon Kyl says in the video clip is trivially true. The problem was G. Bush did not cut the government size. The Democrats should be honest about what is going to happen: the poor will be hit with significant tax hike. The knowledge the rich will pay more has just a small entertainment value. Bring home the troops Obama and the budget problems are solved.




DomKen -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/11/2010 9:40:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

And you do know that tax cuts can be cost neutral or increase total revenues

No tax cut has ever resulted in equal or higher revenue. The Laffer Curve is a myth.




Brain -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/11/2010 10:24:11 PM)

Tax cuts increase budget deficits not revenues. This is where you guys and Kyl are hypocrites.
Bill




Brain -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/11/2010 10:26:57 PM)

The Laffer Curve is a joke.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/11/2010 11:00:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

And you do know that tax cuts can be cost neutral or increase total revenues

No tax cut has ever resulted in equal or higher revenue. The Laffer Curve is a myth.


Keep telling yourself that Kendoll. And while youre at it tell yourself you have more than half a brain. Both are wrong.




flcouple2009 -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/12/2010 5:40:55 AM)

Then why don't you show something where it actually worked.




Archer -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/12/2010 6:18:49 AM)

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation). According to President John F. Kennedy: Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.
The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).


The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates Published on July 19, 1996 by Daniel Mitchell, Ph.D.




flcouple2009 -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/12/2010 6:58:03 AM)

No, No,  no the Heritage Foundation.  Show something where it actually worked.

If it worked so well Regan didn't leave us in a huge hole and Bush the 1st didn't damage himself to badly for relection by raising taxed to off set the problems created. 

Those pesky detail you know.




mnottertail -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/12/2010 7:02:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


You understand that thinkprogress isn't a news site don't you?



never stopped you from posting innumerable asswipe from fox entertainment.




Sanity -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/12/2010 7:43:03 AM)


FOX is a legitimate news site, just because you're so far out there that you're unwilling to admit that fact doesn't change the reality.

Linking to thinkprogress is more like linking to Rushlimbaugh.com, thinkprogress is more akin to Rush Limbaugh's web site while MSNBC is like FOX News, despite all the laughable far left propaganda you want to sling.


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


You understand that thinkprogress isn't a news site don't you?



never stopped you from posting innumerable asswipe from fox entertainment.




flcouple2009 -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/12/2010 7:48:48 AM)

MSNBC and FOX both masquerade as news.  Anyone who takes either of them seriously  has issues.




Lucylastic -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/12/2010 8:07:25 AM)

Just for those keebler elves who cant seem to understand that the video is also at fox news itself....
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4279492/panel-plus-711?playlist_id=86858#/v/4279554/david-axelrod-sen-kyl-on-fns/?playlist_id=86858
oh and because they  are so bloody lazy, start to  look at the video from 15.00 onwards.
Think Progress may NOT be a news site, it may be left leaning, but its presenting FACT via the video
Bloody hell





willbeurdaddy -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/12/2010 8:38:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation). According to President John F. Kennedy: Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.
The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).


The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates Published on July 19, 1996 by Daniel Mitchell, Ph.D.



Dont confuse them with facts, Archer, their heads might assplode.




Archer -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/12/2010 8:40:08 AM)

flcouple OK one time SLOWLY so you don't miss it.

There is a difference between increasing revenue and decreasing debt.

I can increase revenue by 4,000 % but if I then increase spending by 5,000% I still end up with a deficit.

Tax Cuts have in these 3 cases resulted in increased REVENUE (money coming in from Income Taxes) in all three cases. The fact that they may have also increased spending faster than they increased revenue does not change that INCOME TAXES reduced resulted in REVENUES from INCOME TAXES increased.




flcouple2009 -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/12/2010 9:05:38 AM)

How slowly should I go for you?  Your source is the Heritage Foundation.

How about something to actually show that this has ever worked.




Archer -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/12/2010 9:19:54 AM)

When you can't impeach the fact attack the source.

How about actually responding to the facts presented.

Show how the revenue did not go up after each of those 3 instances cited.

Because otherwise the facts stand as presented.






DomKen -> RE: Kyl says you don;t have to pay for tax cuts (7/12/2010 9:32:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

Tax Revenue went down in 1922 not up.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D00EFD61E3EEE3ABC4F51DFB7678389639EDE

quote:

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation). According to President John F. Kennedy: Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

Tax cut in 1964. Revenue went down 1.5%
quote:


The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

Tax cut in 1981. tax revenue went down in 1982. It is hidden in some pretty scary inflation but convert to constant dollars and its about a 0.5% shrinkage.






Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.515625E-02