Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Nov 21, 2012.
Is he a true Republican if he advocates a tax hike?
Headline from NewsMax: Steve Forbes Surprise: Yes to Higher Tax Rates
The rest of the story.
President Obama, Clinton Prosperity Requires Clinton-Sized Government
If the Republicans were smart, which they are not, they would endorse the Simpson Bowles Plan with certain changes, tax reform and means testing of SS and Mediscare; not ten years from now but now. This would force Obama to at least talk rather than dictate.
Frankly I think Obama could care less about what happens to the economy.
Was either of the Bush's a true Republican if they advocated tax increases? I grossed 3 million last year, and I am not OK with the tax increase.
Was Ronald Reagan a "true Republican" when he signed off on the FICA tax increase in 1983?
I've always respected Steve Forbes, he's a man of principle and wisdom.
I know this isn't in the OP but it is worth exploring: Grover Norquist's pledge is idiotic and, given our terrible situation brought on by the current and last administrations, dangerous.
We have to raise to taxes on everyone. We need to raise taxes on everyone. We need to make sure everyone pays taxes.
Grover had his day where he got uniform adherence to his pledge which is pretty impressive. However, his day has come to an end and the RNC needs to move away from him for a season if they want to remain politically alive.
Tax revenues are higher when the tax rate is lower. We do not have a tax problem we have a spending problem.
Everyone does pay taxes in some form or another.
Could you be more specific? Are you advocating raising tax rates on everyone? Closing loopholes? Eliminating deductions? What?
IMO, tax rates should not be raised on anyone making less than $500,000. I'd go a bit lower but $500,000 is a good starting point.
Generally speaking, this is true.
Amen to that!
So you are saying you are in favor of raising my taxes since I made 3 million last year?
Can I have some?
Yes, but only if it is guaranteed to go to deficit reduction, and not spending.
You got me figured out already. I failed to mention the 3 million was pennies.
1000 trillion is one quadrillion. We will see that figure talked about in our lifetime. When we were young, the government budget was in the millions, then the billions, and recently, trilliions. It is like a frog in slowly boiling water.
The budget reached $1 Trillion for the first time under Reagan. This took almost 200 years.
Fifteen years later it reached $2 trillion under George W. Bush.
Seven years later it reached $3 trillion under George W.
Four years later it is $3.8 trillion under Obama.
I think one of the fallacies being mentioned is that raising taxes will create more revenue for government. Often times the opposite happens. Higher tax rates causes people to invest more often into tax free income sources, slows down economic activity, etc.
Politically it might be good for the GOP to say they will raise taxes or close tax loopholes in exchange for reforms in the entitlement programs, as was mentioned with Obama's ignored Bowles Simpson commission. This way the GOP can say Obama got what he wanted, and yet the economy did not improve. Obama is saying simply raising taxes a little on the wealthy will cure our economic problems. I personally do not believe him. Chances are Obama will be back at a later day once again playing class warfare, demonize others, the middle class likely, looking to raise taxes further.
Thought Investors.com had a nice article on this the other day.
"Give 'Em 39.6%, They'll Take 91%"
Neither have tax cuts always resulted in great amounts of economic growth as confidently predicted by the supply-siders. Instead we just saw the deficit increase-meanwhile the 1950s saw great economic growth despite incredibly high (especially by to-day's standards) tax rates. There are other factors at work clearly such as an aging population and globalization but the idea that tax cuts automatically lead to economic growth has been disproven conclusively by historical evidence.
No it hasn't. Tell me why do they place high taxes on cigaretts?
I remember the 80's very well, and Reagan's two income tax rate cuts. Eight quarters with GDP above 5%; six quarters in a row above 5% immediately following the tax cuts (started to phase in during Jan. 1982)
The U.S. industrial base was undamaged by WWII. Meanwhile all other economies of other major nations were devastated. We basically rebuilt the world via the Marshall Plan and our economic engine. We were sellers, just about everyone else were buyers. Of course economic growth would ensue.
It's shown to work for JFK/Johnson (Revenue Act of 1964), worked for Reagan (ERTA, 1981, and Tax Reform Act, 1986) and George W. Bush, though economic growth for Bush was not "great" but sustained. The reason being, Bush's tax cuts were nowhere near as deep as JFK's or Reagan's.