I've never got that either and that is one of those things that really shows that their interests are aligned with the wealthy.
Probably just has to do with their thought process about not having a few pay the lion's share of federal income tax. I don't agree with it and I think it is dumb, but that is my opinion. On a total side note Sam....Do you remember that study that was done on state and local tax rates by some journalist from the WSJ or Washington Post or some major newspaper? He was on CNBC like 6 weeks ago or so talking about it. They basically had to create a database of local tax rates because no database existed as crazy as that sounds. His group ended up discovering that any federal tax cuts were met by local tax increases which hurts non-rich people more. Does anyone know what I am talking about?
But of course, the primary government-related reason why the rich pay "the lion's share" of tax revenues is because of republican giveaways that have helped encourage the ridiculously unequal income distribution. You can't logically have a policy that knowingly or unknowingly tilts the playing field in favor of the uppermost, and then complain when they have everything in the end. Back to the payroll tax issue - I really don't understand how Biden or whoever let them get away with this - this is a major fail on their part.
Right, and revenue as a percentage of GDP increased at the same time that taxes were raised. It shows the exact opposite behavior that you claim. Here is a link to a chart that shows total direct revenue (inflation adjusted). Revenue started climbing just after Clinton raised taxes. This behavior is the same even when accounting for GDP (as your chart did), so once again, your chart showed the exact OPPOSITE behavior from what you claim. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1980_2015USk_13s1li011mcn_F0t
No. The chart shows that revenue as a percent of GDP has remained constant despite wide fluctuations in tax rate over the past 70 years. Economic growth after the Clinton tax hike was ok, nothing spectacular (the economic growth before that tax hike was very impressive. We were coming out of a recession). It wasn't until the tax cuts in 97 that the economy really took off. Here are some nice charts comparing the years after the tax hike ('93-'96) and the tax cut ('97-'00). Spoiler
Tax cuts on the rich, or increases hasn't shown to impact the economy the way tax changes on the middle and lower classes has - obviously because it affects spending. Tax changes on the rich doesn't impact them as much. Regardless, Republicans got a pretty good deal here and there is very little increase in tax revenue. We're going to have to reform entitlement spending regardless, might as well do it now.
Here is a statistical analysis that clearly shows absolutely ZERO improvement in GDP when taxes are cut. In fact, if there IS a relationship, it is in the exact opposite direction that you are claiming. https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3E7IZf1pxPeMXpCY3JVakktTHM BTW, '97 wasn't when taxes were cut, they weren't cut in any major way until 2000. I wonder why you don't want to look at the GDP numbers following the Bush tax cuts, actually, no I don't. You don't want to look at them because, once again, they would go directly against what you are claiming is true.
I didn't see it but would be interested to read - lots of discussion of "G" is always distorted because we only focus on one side of the tax/spending equation and ignore the net.
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 it did the following reductions in the capital gains tax encouraged businesses to grow/expand and thus increased GDP. Is it your contention that the recent recession was due to tax cuts? really?
I think the underlying disagreement is that think moving from 15% to 21% of GDP is a sign of "remaining constant". In reality, that's a difference of $900B in today's economy, which is the entirety of the annual deficit.
Right there in your quoted text, it specifically said that the tax change (a relatively minor tax cut compared to the Bush tax cuts) was NOT the major driver of that GDP growth, it was "technological advances" which drove that growth. Of course not, I haven't said one word about causation. What I have said (and shown to be true with statistical analysis) is that tax cuts are NOT correlated with higher rates of GDP growth, whether you look at GDP growth in the year that taxes are cut or whether you look at the GDP growth years later. What I am saying is that your contention, that "tax hikes do not necessarily result in increased revenue" is simply false. In every single instance where we have raised taxes in this country, one result has been higher revenues. Every. Single. Time. It isn't even that difficult to predict, it is simple mathematics. Obviously, this might not hold true if we were talking about raising the tax rate to 100%, but that is an absurd position, much like yours.
Perhaps the senators were focusing more on the $76 billion in tax credits for major US corporations so that they can continue their active financing exceptions while throwing the middle class they swore to protect publicly somewhat under the bus. Criminal
Yup. Can't wait to read that GE in FY2012 is getting another $8 billion treasury refund on $15 billion in profits among the many other winners this govt chooses. It's feudalism. Not a single politician talking about it. Bought punk b****es.
Bottom line is Obama extended 84% to 90% of the Bush tax breaks. It will lead to another $ 4 trillion in deficits which will enshrine Bush and Norquest's wet dream of crushing the ability of government to spend on the poor and middle class. We can only hope that sooner or later we wiill have a real Democrat who will then be able to ovecome the permanent debilitating now rightly named OBAMA TAX CUT FOR THE WEALTHY so that we will not have to cut education, infrastructure and other discretionary non-defense spending. After awhile you wonder Obama can't really be that stupid, Maybr he really just wants to cut social programs.
Out of curiosity, do you actually know what's in the bill? If you did, I don't think you'd be nearly as disappointed - assuming you wanted taxes raised on $250k+.
Interesting outrage notice here. I would say bigtaxxx was in San Francisco, except that this gentleman was in a couple. http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/2013/01/10/customer-makes-a-political-point-with-his-lack-of-tip-at-cupola/ What a complete jackass. :grin: Wow, you really showed Obama! You went to a fancy spot for lunch and shorted your near-minimum-wage waiter! Devastating move, gramps.
