Mitt Romney: ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor’

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by hilbert, Feb 1, 2012.

  1. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope, the laws of economics did not change, through the various conditions the results were the same. Revenues were 4 times higher at half the rate.
     
  2. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When you use accurate numbers let me know. When their profit will be taxed at 15% instead of 29%, yes they will risk more money in the markets.
     
  3. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ROFL....taking out both sides of your mouth now.

    On the one hand you say higher tax rates will produce less revenue but when shown how that has actually occurred you deny that to be the case.
     
  4. expatriate

    expatriate Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2012
    Messages:
    5,891
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and...as I have said ad nauseam, the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is impacted by many other economic factors which make your simple "lower taxes and revenues always go up" aphorism inaccurate.
     
  5. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The history clearly shows rates are the primary factor.
     
  6. expatriate

    expatriate Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2012
    Messages:
    5,891
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    0
    oddly enough, I disagree with your interpretation of history.

    go figure.
     
  7. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then prove history wrong.
     
  8. expatriate

    expatriate Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2012
    Messages:
    5,891
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just need to point out the inadequate nature of your analysis. Attempting to suggest that a complex variable like federal tax receipts is the result of only one other variable is, on its face, ridiculous. There. That's all the proof I need.
     
  9. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This one has wandered off into the ditch.
     
  10. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I just need to point out your lack of any analysis or data to refute the empirical data posted which clearly shows during times of lower rates revenues soared.

    Lower Rate, Higher Revenue

    Capital gains tax revenues have increased in the three years since President Bush cut the capital gains tax rate, proving free-market economists right, and bureaucrats wrong. As Nobel laureate Milton Friedman often says, when you tax something you get less of it, and when you tax something less you get more of it. The "it" in this case is capital gains, which are the amount of money you make when you sell something for more than you paid for it.

    Capital gains have jumped because the rate reduction boosted the after-tax return on capital, reviving the stock market as well as unlocking longer-term gains that can now be realized with a smaller tax bite.

    The numbers tell an impressive story: In 2003, prior to the capital gains cut, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting capital gains tax revenues of $51 billion, $56 billion, and $62 billion respectively for the years 2003-2005, on capital gains realizations of $294 billion, $322 billion, and $350 billion. After the rate cut, the CBO predicted that realizations would be basically unaffected, and that therefore revenues would decline because of the lower rate.

    The actual numbers for those years were re leased by the CBO last week, and the opposite happened - revenues were significantly higher than predicted before the capital gains tax rate cut - in other words, it more than paid for itself. In 2003, the year the rate was cut, realizations jumped from a projected $294 billion to an actual $323 billion. In 2004 and 2005, realizations skyrocketed to $479 billion and $539 billion, versus pre-rate cut projections of only $322 billion and $350 billion.

    The dramatic rise in capital gains realizations fueled a corresponding increase in capital gains tax revenues - confounding the CBO model predictions. Cap gains revenues totaled $50 billion, $60 billion, and $75 billion in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Over those three years, revenues totaled $185 billion, $16 billion more than the CBO projected before the tax cuts even passed and a whopping $47 billion more than the CBO projected after the rate cut.
    http://www.nysun.com/opinion/lower-rate-higher-revenue/26951/
     
  11. expatriate

    expatriate Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2012
    Messages:
    5,891
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    0
    logical fallacy:

    cum hoc ergo propter hoc
     
  12. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Prove it.


    Why 70% Tax Rates Won't Work

    Memo to Robert Reich: The income tax brought in less revenue when the highest rate was 70% to 91% than it did when the highest rate was 28%.

    "In short, reductions in top tax rates under Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, and reductions in capital gains tax rates under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, not only "paid for themselves" but also provided enough extra revenue to finance negative income taxes for the bottom 40% and record-low income taxes at middle incomes."

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375951025762400.html

    And then tell do you support Obama's call for higher tax rates and why?
     
  13. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And where do you specifically disagree, what happened when rates were lowered and what happened when rates were raise. And was it repetitive?
     
  14. expatriate

    expatriate Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2012
    Messages:
    5,891
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    0

    who cares? correlation does not equal causation. capiche?
     
  15. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It does when they are directly related and repeatable.

    If I work longer hours and get paid more is just correlation or causation?

    Prove otherwise.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

    The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates


    "There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy's growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and "rich" taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden - a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.

    Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to "soak the rich," the rest of us take a bath. Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions can prove useful lessons."
     
  16. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And again do you support Obama's desire to raise tax rates? If so why?
     
  17. expatriate

    expatriate Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2012
    Messages:
    5,891
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yes. because I believe that the government needs to add tax increases along with spending cuts as part of an overall deficit reduction package. simple math tells us that, barring unforeseen economic conditions, raising tax rates will raise revenues. Do you have any knowledge of any unforeseen economic conditions on the horizon that would work against that mathematical truism? If so... why aren't you sharing that information with the Obama administration? are you a traitor or a spy?
     
  18. Independent77

    Independent77 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
  19. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well there went you whole argument, it declare the history showing that lower rates bring in more revenues a logical fallacy then so is your assertion higher rates will bring in higher revenues. You just defeated your own argument. And you can't even show that they do with any empirical data, all you have is conjecture.

    What happened to the increasing growth in revenues when Clinton raised tax rates with his tax increase?

    And it is not a mathematics theory that applies, it is an economic theory that applies.
     
  20. expatriate

    expatriate Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2012
    Messages:
    5,891
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and again... we have a difference of opinion. your rudimentary two dimensional "analysis" of an inherently complex multi-variable equation is unconvincing. again. correlation does not equal causation.

    Even those who espouse the Laffer curve must inherently admit that, on the left side of the curve, revenue increases when rates increase. The theoretical point in the middle is where revenues begin to decrease... yet even Laffer himself could not pinpoint the center of his curve nor could he say that the center of that curve was a static percentage that did not move according to other variables in the economic equation.
     
  21. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Except it is not just a correlation when the two factors are dependent on each other and the effects are repeatable.

    But you blew your whole argument for tax increases since you claim there is no correlation.
     

Share This Page