Dems Set To Raise Taxes, ALREADY!

[Avinash_Tyagi]

So I should be punished for my success in working from being dirt poor in Mississippi to making a great living in Texas in real estate?

your utility of money is lower

[Ashigaru]

Generally rich people want to keep their money so they don't start businesses so that argument is stupid.

[IronGhost]

If the Bush-Reagan "Trickle-Down, Supply Side Economics" is so wonderful, why does it always explode poverty rates -- while the rich get ever richer and richer?

Look at these stats:

Number of People Living in Poverty Increased by 5.4 Million Since 2000. Since 2000, the number of people in poverty has increased by 5.4 million and the poverty rate is up by 1.3 percentage points. [u.S. Census Bureau, 8/29/06; Table B-1; Center for American Progress 8/29/06]

Number of Americans Living in Extreme Poverty Increased by 3.3 Million During the Bush Administration. The percentage of Americans living in extreme poverty, with incomes less than 50 percent of the poverty line, was the highest on record (43 percent). The number of Americans living in extreme poverty - 15.9 million - has grown by 3.3 million since 2000, and is now at its highest level since 1993. Census data also show a trend of deepening poverty among those who are poor.

The Republican idea of giving massive tax breaks to the richest rich is not only stupid -- it's cruel. "Let them eat cake" shoudl be the Republican slogan.

Edited January 9, 2007 by IronGhost

[Mattshark]

So I should be punished for my success in working from being dirt poor in Mississippi to making a great living in Texas in real estate?

Depends on how you treat your staff imo, most major companies treat them like dirt. But those who have more should not complain if they have to pay a little more either imo.

Edited January 9, 2007 by Mattshark

[AROCES]

Depends on how you treat your staff imo, most major companies treat them like dirt. But those who have more should not complain if they have to pay a little more either imo.

Most major companies treat their employee like dirt??? If most companies do that then there will be few companies that will survive.

You probaly just one of those who been fired many times.

And what about those who treats their company like dirt and abuse them? It can go both ways you know.

[AROCES]

If the Bush-Reagan "Trickle-Down, Supply Side Economics" is so wonderful, why does it always explode poverty rates -- while the rich get ever richer and richer?

Look at these stats:

Number of People Living in Poverty Increased by 5.4 Million Since 2000. Since 2000, the number of people in poverty has increased by 5.4 million and the poverty rate is up by 1.3 percentage points. [u.S. Census Bureau, 8/29/06; Table B-1; Center for American Progress 8/29/06]

Number of Americans Living in Extreme Poverty Increased by 3.3 Million During the Bush Administration. The percentage of Americans living in extreme poverty, with incomes less than 50 percent of the poverty line, was the highest on record (43 percent). The number of Americans living in extreme poverty - 15.9 million - has grown by 3.3 million since 2000, and is now at its highest level since 1993. Census data also show a trend of deepening poverty among those who are poor.

The Republican idea of giving massive tax breaks to the richest rich is not only stupid -- it's cruel. "Let them eat cake" shoudl be the Republican slogan.

Who was considered then to be at poverty? Those who have shelter and have food to eat but can't afford what the rich has?

Those who don't have a brand new SUV, a cell phone or Flat screen TV?

[Mattshark]

Most major companies treat their employee like dirt??? If most companies do that then there will be few companies that will survive.

You probaly just one of those who been fired many times.

And what about those who treats their company like dirt and abuse them? It can go both ways you know.

Yes most major companies treat employees like dirt, far more so than the other way round.

[Shinedown]

Democrats suck.

[Reincarnated]

White trash sucks.

[Pinky Floyd]

Raising the taxes on the very rich will do little to generate taxes. It will kill whatever investment that they do have going on, however. There is alot of countries vying for this investment money, so deals are often made up in the shadows, to coax the money out of the worlds' billionaires and multi-multi-millionaires.

Being that rich has it's advantages in that you can move giant amounts of money to another economy in an instant (individuals controlling enough money to generate interest from a major country enough to bend local tax laws to accomodate Mr. US investment dollars), actually removing money from the economy that is trying to tax the rich dude and leaving (legally) the very same government in their tax legislative dust.

I read somewhere (at least a couple years ago) that Bill Gates has over 1,000 personal tax specialists on retainer. If the Dems do raise taxes, do you really think he's going to be hit? Maybe for one year. After that, not a chance. I suspect the same from most of the very rich. One year pay taxes, get angry, spend the next 12 months finding shelters, and then pay little or none the next year. They have the money to wait it out (10 years or more) until a more tax-friendly congress is in session. Meanwhile, the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese governments (among many others), who are falling all over themselves with investment routines for the average multi-millionaire, offering the opportunity to make plently of international money, often US tax-deferred or even tax exempt. The bottom line is that once the rich get to a certain level of wealth, they stop playing by our rules and start playing by thiers. They can afford it, and they get away with it through lawyers and accountants. Raising taxes on the upper middle and middle class to make up for the rich investment cash withdraw will probably result in economic stagnation. Don't think the very rich are going to just stand around and let the US government take thier money. They will legally bury it in low yield, high secure mutual funds or inverst in another country to make money there, so get ready; it's probably gonna happen.

The rich got rich by being ruthless and smart. And they're alot smarter than the one's in either party.

Edited January 9, 2007 by Pinky Floyd

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Raising the taxes on the very rich will do little to generate taxes. It will kill whatever investment that they do have going on, however. There is alot of countries vying for this investment money, so deals are often made up in the shadows, to coax the money out of the worlds' billionaires and multi-multi-millionaires.

Actually that depends on which point on the laffer curve the taxes are currently set.

The very rich aren't usually hit hard on taxes anyways, since CG taxes are lower than income tax to begin with for the rich

[Aztec Warrior]

If the Bush-Reagan "Trickle-Down, Supply Side Economics" is so wonderful, why does it always explode poverty rates -- while the rich get ever richer and richer?

Look at these stats:

Number of People Living in Poverty Increased by 5.4 Million Since 2000. Since 2000, the number of people in poverty has increased by 5.4 million and the poverty rate is up by 1.3 percentage points. [u.S. Census Bureau, 8/29/06; Table B-1; Center for American Progress 8/29/06]

Number of Americans Living in Extreme Poverty Increased by 3.3 Million During the Bush Administration. The percentage of Americans living in extreme poverty, with incomes less than 50 percent of the poverty line, was the highest on record (43 percent). The number of Americans living in extreme poverty - 15.9 million - has grown by 3.3 million since 2000, and is now at its highest level since 1993. Census data also show a trend of deepening poverty among those who are poor.

The Republican idea of giving massive tax breaks to the richest rich is not only stupid -- it's cruel. "Let them eat cake" shoudl be the Republican slogan.

Now, Avin...Expl...and Rein could all learn something form Iron's posts. He always includes substantial information backed up with SOURCES. Keep up the good work Iron.

Who was considered then to be at poverty? Those who have shelter and have food to eat but can't afford what the rich has?

Those who don't have a brand new SUV, a cell phone or Flat screen TV?

Poverty is defined in the 2005 HHS guildlines as a family of 4 earning $19,350 and $22-$24K in Ak/HI.

Raising the taxes on the very rich will do little to generate taxes. It will kill whatever investment that they do have going on, however. There is alot of countries vying for this investment money, so deals are often made up in the shadows, to coax the money out of the worlds' billionaires and multi-multi-millionaires.

Being that rich has it's advantages in that you can move giant amounts of money to another economy in an instant (individuals controlling enough money to generate interest from a major country enough to bend local tax laws to accomodate Mr. US investment dollars), actually removing money from the economy that is trying to tax the rich dude and leaving (legally) the very same government in their tax legislative dust.

I read somewhere (at least a couple years ago) that Bill Gates has over 1,000 personal tax specialists on retainer. If the Dems do raise taxes, do you really think he's going to be hit? Maybe for one year. After that, not a chance. I suspect the same from most of the very rich. One year pay taxes, get angry, spend the next 12 months finding shelters, and then pay little or none the next year. They have the money to wait it out (10 years or more) until a more tax-friendly congress is in session. Meanwhile, the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese governments (among many others), who are falling all over themselves with investment routines for the average multi-millionaire, offering the opportunity to make plently of international money, often US tax-deferred or even tax exempt. The bottom line is that once the rich get to a certain level of wealth, they stop playing by our rules and start playing by thiers. They can afford it, and they get away with it through lawyers and accountants. Raising taxes on the upper middle and middle class to make up for the rich investment cash withdraw will probably result in economic stagnation. Don't think the very rich are going to just stand around and let the US government take thier money. They will legally bury it in low yield, high secure mutual funds or inverst in another country to make money there, so get ready; it's probably gonna happen.

The rich got rich by being ruthless and smart. And they're alot smarter than the one's in either party.

Just look at those google people. I enjoyed your analysis Pinky. In the news today, China Life had their IPO and doubled their initial stock price in a day.

[+joc]

Who else thinks raising taxes is Cruel? Or Cruella as the case may be?

[Aztec Warrior]

Middle class spendig is a greater driver of the economy than investment by the rich, not to mention we need to bring the debt under control

Reagan's economy was not the greatest peacetime economy, not even close

Is that still your final answer....sigh.

Actually if you look at the joint economic commitee's report, they only measured until 1999 for the Clinton economy, when in fact the boom continued until well into 2000 (I saw the information on the heritage.org page that you took it from), next time check your facts instead of just blindly following what others tell you

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1110165.stm

Longest boom in US history

$4,000bn budget surplus

During the eight years of the presidency, the economy expanded by 50% in real terms, and by the end of his tenure the US had a gross national product of $10,000bn - one quarter of the entire world economic output

Sure, but a lot of people have jobs, which means that the tax cuts will help them to spend even more

This is the only source I have ever seen you post. Too bad it's from the left leaning BBC and not some bipartisan objective source. In fact, the source is so weak they only mention as a fact (4% unemployment rate and 15 million new jobs, US Dept Labor stat). No mention of GDP.

I actually like Bill Clinton. It's Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Howard Dean etc. that I have a problem with.

May I please ask what on earth are you talking about? All my threads and posts are based off of facts and I provide sources in every thread. I don't post a source in every one of my posts but neither does anyone else. So, please show me where I did not post a source and show me a post which you think is not true and I will be more than happy to help you out. Don't ignore this post because I'm sick of people like you on these forums that have hissy fits and make up random claims and think they can get away with it.

I have never seen you post a source for anything.

Just a thought. He might have you on ignore like I do. In which case he does not see your posts without an extra step.

I don't need a filter to ignore someone. Mostly, it's just a function of limited time on my part.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Is that still your final answer....sigh.

This is the only source I have ever seen you post. Too bad it's from the left leaning BBC and not some bipartisan objective source. In fact, the source is so weak they only mention as a fact (4% unemployment rate and 15 million new jobs, US Dept Labor stat). No mention of GDP.

That's your best argument, trust me pal the BBC is a lot more respected than most of your conservative rags. Also they do mention the GDP right at the top of the page from the US dept. of commerce.

[Pinky Floyd]

Mostly, it's just a function of limited time on my part.

Give it up dude. You can type and type and type (with solid reasoning and sources liberally sprinkled in your writings) and their replys will be "no, you're wrong" and that's it.

No reasoning, no sources...just nothing except "you're wrong.." Or even worse, the typical argument dilution ('the car bomb only killed 210 not 211..'), redirection (but at the same time the so and so's), or just plain make crap up ('Fred was doing Betty')...Instead of directly addressing what you have just posted.

I ignore them for the most part anymore.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Pinky Floyd

[Aztec Warrior]

That's your best argument, trust me pal the BBC is a lot more respected than most of your conservative rags. Also they do mention the GDP right at the top of the page from the US dept. of commerce.

For you to stick with the statement that Ronald Reagan's Presidency "wasn't even close" to the best economic boom in US history, despite the non-partisan sources I showed you is kinda silly. The do not mention GDP growth, but simple post a chart for the period of 1987-1999.

From 1973 to 1982, GDP averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.

At the end of the Reagan administration, the U.S. economy had experienced the longest peacetime expansion ever. The "stagflation" and "malaise" that plagued the U.S. economy from 1973 through 1980 were transformed by the Reagan economic program into a sustained period of higher growth and lower inflation. Reaganomics by William A. Niskanen

The library of Economics and Liberty

Give it up dude. You can type and type and type (with solid reasoning and sources liberally sprinkled in your writings) and their replys will be "no, you're wrong" and that's it.

No reasoning, no sources...just nothing except "you're wrong.." Or even worse, the typical argument dilution ('the car bomb only killed 210 not 211..'), redirection (but at the same time the so and so's), or just plain make crap up ('Fred was doing Betty')...Instead of directly addressing what you have just posted.

I ignore them for the most part anymore.

Sigh, you are correct sir. Wasting my time with these guys... but I want to set the record straight for other viewers.

[Reincarnated]

I have never seen you post a source for anything.

Grow up Aztec! Once again, tell me what you want a source for, and I will give it to you! Please stop with the immature games, you are not fooling anyone except the very few acquaintances you have here.

Any and every time I post something copied from a site, I ALWAYS post a source. I can't post a source for every one of my posts, get over yourself and again, GROW UP!

Edited January 11, 2007 by Reincarnated

[Avinash_Tyagi]

For you to stick with the statement that Ronald Reagan's Presidency "wasn't even close" to the best economic boom in US history, despite the non-partisan sources I showed you is kinda silly. The do not mention GDP growth, but simple post a chart for the period of 1987-1999.

From 1973 to 1982, GDP averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.

At the end of the Reagan administration, the U.S. economy had experienced the longest peacetime expansion ever. The "stagflation" and "malaise" that plagued the U.S. economy from 1973 through 1980 were transformed by the Reagan economic program into a sustained period of higher growth and lower inflation. Reaganomics by William A. Niskanen

The library of Economics and Liberty

Yeah, you compare it to Carter, but no one is talking Carter(what is with you and Carter, its like every other post you fall into a Carter Bash, no one cares, he hasn't been president for about 30 years ), i'm comparing it to Clinton and the truth is Reagans' economy was not as strong as Clinton's

http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720presidents.html

Postwar Presidencies Ranked By Six Measures Of Economic Performance, Where 1 Is Best.

President Term Years In Office GDP Rank Real Disposable Personal Income Rank Employment Rank Unemployment Rank Inflation Rank Deficit Reduction Rank Average Rank

Bill Clinton 1993-2001 8 3 5 2 2 6 1 3.2

Lyndon B. Johnson November 1963-1969 5.1 1 1 5 3 8 4 3.7

John F. Kennedy 1961-November 1963 2.9 2 2 8 1 5 6 4.0

Ronald Reagan 1981-1989 8 5 4 3 4 2 8 4.3

Gerald R. Ford August 1974-1977 2.4 6 6 6 10 1 2 5.2

Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 4 4 8 1 5 10 7 5.8

Harry S. Truman April 1945-1953 7.8 9 9 7 6 3 3 6.2

Richard M. Nixon 1969-August 1974 5.6 7 3 4 8 9 9 6.7

Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953-1961 8 8 7 9 9 7 5 7.5

George H.W. Bush 1989-1993 4 10 10 10 7 4 10 8.5

Since you don't like BBC, here's Forbes, and again Clinton is ranked higher than Reagan (what is Forbes also a liberal source? )

[Pinky Floyd]

Since you don't like BBC, here's Forbes, and again Clinton is ranked higher than Reagan (what is Forbes also a liberal source? )

Clinton had Republican help in congress with successful economic policies-he also inherited a much better economy. Reagan didn't have those luxuries. Ronnie had Tip O'Neill at his throat every second. And, to top it all off, he had to undo all the damage Carter did in the first four years and then launch economic reform in the 2nd four years of his presidency.

[AROCES]

Postwar Presidencies Ranked By Six Measures Of Economic Performance, Where 1 Is Best.

President Term Years In Office GDP Rank Real Disposable Personal Income Rank Employment Rank Unemployment Rank Inflation Rank Deficit Reduction Rank Average Rank

Bill Clinton 1993-2001 8 3 5 2 2 6 1 3.2

Lyndon B. Johnson November 1963-1969 5.1 1 1 5 3 8 4 3.7

John F. Kennedy 1961-November 1963 2.9 2 2 8 1 5 6 4.0

Ronald Reagan 1981-1989 8 5 4 3 4 2 8 4.3

Gerald R. Ford August 1974-1977 2.4 6 6 6 10 1 2 5.2

Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 4 4 8 1 5 10 7 5.8

Harry S. Truman April 1945-1953 7.8 9 9 7 6 3 3 6.2

Richard M. Nixon 1969-August 1974 5.6 7 3 4 8 9 9 6.7

Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953-1961 8 8 7 9 9 7 5 7.5

George H.W. Bush 1989-1993 4 10 10 10 7 4 10 8.5

Since you don't like BBC, here's Forbes, and again Clinton is ranked higher than Reagan (what is Forbes also a liberal source? )

YES! 1994 is when the GOP took control of Congress, Clinton then had a good partner for good economic Policies.

Edited January 12, 2007 by AROCES

[Avinash_Tyagi]

YES! 1994 is when the GOP took control of Congress, Clinton then had a good partner for good economic Policies.

And reagan had a democratic congress, so what you've shown is mixed government is best.

Clinton had Republican help in congress with successful economic policies-he also inherited a much better economy. Reagan didn't have those luxuries. Ronnie had Tip O'Neill at his throat every second. And, to top it all off, he had to undo all the damage Carter did in the first four years and then launch economic reform in the 2nd four years of his presidency.

Oh, please, Reagan drove the country into debt with his programs, he had the luxury of massive spending, Clinton on the other hand had a surplus at the end of his term, and stronger GDP growth and employment, etc. all without raising the debt.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Avinash_Tyagi

[Aztec Warrior]

Yeah, you compare it to Carter, but no one is talking Carter(what is with you and Carter, its like every other post you fall into a Carter Bash, no one cares, he hasn't been president for about 30 years ), i'm comparing it to Clinton and the truth is Reagans' economy was not as strong as Clinton's

http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720presidents.html

Postwar Presidencies Ranked By Six Measures Of Economic Performance, Where 1 Is Best.

President Term Years In Office GDP Rank Real Disposable Personal Income Rank Employment Rank Unemployment Rank Inflation Rank Deficit Reduction Rank Average Rank

Bill Clinton 1993-2001 8 3 5 2 2 6 1 3.2

Lyndon B. Johnson November 1963-1969 5.1 1 1 5 3 8 4 3.7

John F. Kennedy 1961-November 1963 2.9 2 2 8 1 5 6 4.0

Ronald Reagan 1981-1989 8 5 4 3 4 2 8 4.3

Gerald R. Ford August 1974-1977 2.4 6 6 6 10 1 2 5.2

Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 4 4 8 1 5 10 7 5.8

Harry S. Truman April 1945-1953 7.8 9 9 7 6 3 3 6.2

Richard M. Nixon 1969-August 1974 5.6 7 3 4 8 9 9 6.7

Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953-1961 8 8 7 9 9 7 5 7.5

George H.W. Bush 1989-1993 4 10 10 10 7 4 10 8.5

Since you don't like BBC, here's Forbes, and again Clinton is ranked higher than Reagan (what is Forbes also a liberal source? )

Forbes is a reputable source, and I'm glad you finally posted something with a source. The question was never "who is better...Reagan v. Clinton," but rather that Ronald Reagan was "not even close" to being one of the best presidents. That is what you said and what I'm am taking issue with. As I mentioned before, I rather liked Clinton.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Forbes is a reputable source, and I'm glad you finally posted something with a source. The question was never "who is better...Reagan v. Clinton," but rather that Ronald Reagan was "not even close" to being one of the best presidents. That is what you said and what I'm am taking issue with. As I mentioned before, I rather liked Clinton.

Well the thing is he came in fourth, behind Clinton, Johnson and Kennedy

[Aztec Warrior]

Well the thing is he came in fourth, behind Clinton, Johnson and Kennedy

In that particular ranking, yes he came in 4th. However, then one needs to debate which exact factors define a "strong economy?"

I don't have time this moment (I try tomorrow), but many economists s(supply-side for example) don't lump spending into the mix of factors. The continuing debate over supply-side policies tends to focus on the massive federal and current account deficits that have accumulated in the U.S. since 1980, although the Laffer Curve only predicts revenue increases and has nothing to do with government spending.