Okay stew and DM I'll play your game. But before I answer your question, answer this question: is it "fair" for people who pay ZERO taxes get a refund check from the govt?
LOL. Actually, I'm not playing any game. I said earlier that I don't pretend to know the answers to this or be an expert. I don't think it's wrong to ask a genuine question like this.
The answer to your question seems pretty easy to me with my limited knowledge. No, that doesn't seem fair to me and I cannot even imagine the scenario in which that happens.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
LOL. Actually, I'm not playing any game. I said earlier that I don't pretend to know the answers to this or be an expert. I don't think it's wrong to ask a genuine question like this.
The answer to your question seems pretty easy to me with my limited knowledge. No, that doesn't seem fair to me and I cannot even imagine the scenario in which that happens.
It does happen for millions... it is very common. I'll let the Deacon take it from there.
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
po. I am not a financial expert, but this claim sounds totally bogus. if the stock market goes down because capital gains taxes go up, then stock prices are artificially high and less wealthy investors are being prevented from owning more stock. the value of stock has nothing to do with whether rich people have more money to invest. (just thinking without knowing) whaddya respond to that?
My response is that you need to think about knowing first.
As far as less than wealthy individuals being adamantly against taxing the rich is concerned it's because we understand basic economics. We understand that wealth is created by wealth and their wealth creates more opportunities for more people to earn money and create more wealth. I earn a living because people in my church have good jobs and give their tithes to the Lord. I in turn hired more people which in turn gave them the ability to earn a living and we all spend our money at businesses all over that are owned by wealthy people and entrepreneurs who hire more people. The rich are the job creators in this country. Do you work for a poor man? Does a $50K a year guy own the business you work for? Has a lower income person ever hired you to work for him? You tax the rich and you know what he does? He maintains his lifestyle, he just stops hiring, expanding, investing, promoting, giving raises, providing insurance, benefits. It's a stupid proven to be worthless endeavor to burden the rich with more taxes.
And you can't say, "forget about govt waste for a moment". That's the whole point! The richest man in the world is worth less than $100 billion dollars. Do you know how far that much money lasts in the world of the federal govt? Less than 18 days!
The Feds take in over a TRILLION dollars every year and it's NEVER enough!
So, you tell me, what would be more FAIR? Rich people having less of THEIR OWN MONEY that they've EARNED? Or a FAT, BLOATED, OVERINDULGED federal government CUTTING back so they try to operate on less and allowing Americans to live with more freedom?
Trickle-down economics, although castigated by the left, actually works. Only Reagan implemented it as it should be, George W. didn't. The record shows the second greatest expansion of the American economy in peacetime history began under Reagan's policies. In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%. The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987. The Federal deficit in Reagan's final budget fell to 2.9% of GDP. The rate of growth in Federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan. The unemployment rate declined from 7% in 1980 to 5.4% in 1988. The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988. During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988. A net job increase of about 21 million also occurred through mid-1990. Reagan’s administration is the only one not to have raised the minimum wage.
During the Reagan administration, federal receipts grew at an average rate of 8.2% (2.5% attributed to higher Social Security receipts, 4.5% inflation, 1.0% population growth), and federal outlays grew at an annual rate of 7.1%. According to a 1996 report of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress, during Reagan's two terms, and through 1993, the top 10% of taxpayers paid an increased share of tax revenue to the Federal government, while the lowest 50% of taxpayers paid a reduced share of the tax revenue. Personal income tax revenues declined from 9.4% GDP in 1981 to 8.3% GDP in 1989, while payroll tax revenues increased from 6.0% GDP to 6.7% GDP during the same period.
The American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
The statistics and the history are undeniable. What was the formula for economic success?
1. Reduce the growth of government spending (Obama is increasing it).
2. Reduce income tax and capital gains tax (Obama wants to increase taxes).
3. Reduce government regulation of economy (Obama has increased regulations).
4. Control money supply to reduce inflation (Obama has been printing money like it's Monopoly money).
My other question is this: why the defense of and support of Obama when he has made ZERO progress on unemployment, deficit reduction, debt reduction, gas prices, etc.? Are you a fair-minded voter and can you admit he has and is failing to help fix this economy? And what has he done to EARN your vote and support?
__________________
When a newspaper posed the question, "What's Wrong with the World?" G. K. Chesterton reputedly wrote a brief letter in response: "Dear Sirs: I am. Sincerely Yours, G. K. Chesterton." That is the attitude of someone who has grasped the message of Jesus.
LOL. Actually, I'm not playing any game. I said earlier that I don't pretend to know the answers to this or be an expert. I don't think it's wrong to ask a genuine question like this.
The answer to your question seems pretty easy to me with my limited knowledge. No, that doesn't seem fair to me and I cannot even imagine the scenario in which that happens.
Sorry Stew, I sometimes get kind of passionate about politics. I don't really believe you're playing a game. That was something a friend of mine used to say when you'd ask him a question, "Hey Michael, where has Joe Schmoe been? I haven't seen him at church in a while." Mike would say, "I'll play your game, where HAS he been?"
The Earned Income Credit portion of the tax code allows for people who pay no taxes to get a refund every year. A lady here in Memphis got arrested recently for gaming the system for herself and her friends so that they were receiving thousands in refund checks that they weren't supposed to be receiving using the EIC.
__________________
When a newspaper posed the question, "What's Wrong with the World?" G. K. Chesterton reputedly wrote a brief letter in response: "Dear Sirs: I am. Sincerely Yours, G. K. Chesterton." That is the attitude of someone who has grasped the message of Jesus.
My response is that you need to think about knowing first.
__________________
When a newspaper posed the question, "What's Wrong with the World?" G. K. Chesterton reputedly wrote a brief letter in response: "Dear Sirs: I am. Sincerely Yours, G. K. Chesterton." That is the attitude of someone who has grasped the message of Jesus.
As far as less than wealthy individuals being adamantly against taxing the rich is concerned it's because we understand basic economics. We understand that wealth is created by wealth and their wealth creates more opportunities for more people to earn money and create more wealth. I earn a living because people in my church have good jobs and give their tithes to the Lord. I in turn hired more people which in turn gave them the ability to earn a living and we all spend our money at businesses all over that are owned by wealthy people and entrepreneurs who hire more people. The rich are the job creators in this country. Do you work for a poor man? Does a $50K a year guy own the business you work for? Has a lower income person ever hired you to work for him? You tax the rich and you know what he does? He maintains his lifestyle, he just stops hiring, expanding, investing, promoting, giving raises, providing insurance, benefits. It's a stupid proven to be worthless endeavor to burden the rich with more taxes.
And you can't say, "forget about govt waste for a moment". That's the whole point! The richest man in the world is worth less than $100 billion dollars. Do you know how far that much money lasts in the world of the federal govt? Less than 18 days!
The Feds take in over a TRILLION dollars every year and it's NEVER enough!
So, you tell me, what would be more FAIR? Rich people having less of THEIR OWN MONEY that they've EARNED? Or a FAT, BLOATED, OVERINDULGED federal government CUTTING back so they try to operate on less and allowing Americans to live with more freedom?
Trickle-down economics, although castigated by the left, actually works. Only Reagan implemented it as it should be, George W. didn't. The record shows the second greatest expansion of the American economy in peacetime history began under Reagan's policies. In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%. The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987. The Federal deficit in Reagan's final budget fell to 2.9% of GDP. The rate of growth in Federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan. The unemployment rate declined from 7% in 1980 to 5.4% in 1988. The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988. During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988. A net job increase of about 21 million also occurred through mid-1990. Reagan’s administration is the only one not to have raised the minimum wage.
During the Reagan administration, federal receipts grew at an average rate of 8.2% (2.5% attributed to higher Social Security receipts, 4.5% inflation, 1.0% population growth), and federal outlays grew at an annual rate of 7.1%. According to a 1996 report of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress, during Reagan's two terms, and through 1993, the top 10% of taxpayers paid an increased share of tax revenue to the Federal government, while the lowest 50% of taxpayers paid a reduced share of the tax revenue. Personal income tax revenues declined from 9.4% GDP in 1981 to 8.3% GDP in 1989, while payroll tax revenues increased from 6.0% GDP to 6.7% GDP during the same period.
The American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
The statistics and the history are undeniable. What was the formula for economic success?
1. Reduce the growth of government spending (Obama is increasing it).
2. Reduce income tax and capital gains tax (Obama wants to increase taxes).
3. Reduce government regulation of economy (Obama has increased regulations).
4. Control money supply to reduce inflation (Obama has been printing money like it's Monopoly money).
My other question is this: why the defense of and support of Obama when he has made ZERO progress on unemployment, deficit reduction, debt reduction, gas prices, etc.? Are you a fair-minded voter and can you admit he has and is failing to help fix this economy? And what has he done to EARN your vote and support?
Thanks for the info. My statement about forgetting how money is squandered for a minute is not me saying that squandering money is not a huge problem, I'm just saying that in the context of this conversation it was not my question.
I've read equally compelling arguments about how trickle down does not work and how much the economy thrived under Clinton's approach. It all becomes confusing and seems like slant and propaganda at some point. It's difficult to tell what from what.
As to the end of your post, I'm not sure there is a politician alive who has done enough to earn my support.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Thanks for the info. My statement about forgetting how money is squandered for a minute is not me saying that squandering money is not a huge problem, I'm just saying that in the context of this conversation it was not my question.
I've read equally compelling arguments about how trickle down does not work and how much the economy thrived under Clinton's approach. It all becomes confusing and seems like slant and propaganda at some point. It's difficult to tell what from what.
As to the end of your post, I'm not sure there is a politician alive who has done enough to earn my support.
The numbers are the numbers and one can't deny them. Reagan became president when the economy under Carter was a mess. By the time he left office the economy was roaring. It peaked into the mid 90s with only a few years of Clinton as president. Eight years of Reagan and four years of Bush I should be given the lion's share of credit.
And Clinton continued Regean's fundamentals. He cut taxes, he trimmed spending, he revamped Welfare and other government programs. After leaning to the left in 1993-1994 and summarily getting his butt kicked in the '94 midterms, he spent the rest of his presidency leaning back to the right and worked with the Republican led Congress to further promote supply side economics. Under his administration however the seedbed for the 2008 banking collapse took place.
In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas. Additionally, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans.
In 1999, The New York Times reported that with the corporation's move towards the subprime market "Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s." Alex Berenson of The New York Times reported in 2003 that Fannie Mae's risk is much larger than is commonly held. Nassim Taleb wrote in The Black Swan: "The government-sponsored institution Fannie Mae, when I look at its risks, seems to be sitting on a barrel of dynamite, vulnerable to the slightest hiccup. But not to worry: their large staff of scientists deem these events 'unlikely'". In his 2006 book, America's Financial Apocalypse, Mike Stathis also warned about the risk of Fannie Mae helping to trigger the financial crisis: “With close to $2 trillion in debt between Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae alone, as well as several trillion held by commercial banks, failure of just one GSE or related entity could create a huge disaster that would easily eclipse the Savings & Loan Crisis of the late 1980s. This would certainly devastate the stock, bond and real estate markets. Most likely, there would also be an even bigger mess in the derivatives market, leading to a global sell-off in the capital markets. Not only would investors get crushed, but taxpayers would have to bail them out since the GSEs are backed by the government. Everyone would feel the effects. At its bottom, I would estimate a 30 to 35 percent correction for the average home. And in ‘hot spots’ such as Las Vegas, selected areas of Northern and Southern California and Florida, home prices could plummet by 55 to 60 percent from peak values.”
The critics of Reaganomics are Keynesian economists like Paul Krugman who criticizes Obama for NOT SPENDING MORE MONEY! Krugman believes deeper debt and higher deficit spending would fix this economy. He touted the wonderful European socialist governments for years. Countries that in some places tax people as high as 70% of their income and where the average taxpayer pays 35-45% of their income all of the many government social programs. Now that Europe is on the verge of financial ruin, Krugman spends a lot of his time writing in the NY Times criticizing the Europeans for cutting spending on government programs. AND THE WORLD GIVES GUYS LIKE KRUGMAN NOBEL PRIZES FOR ECONOMICS! Insane.
You can't argue with the results, even if you have critics. The Patriots may win lots of Super Bowls, but a lot of people still don't like Belichick or Brady and they still get criticized. But you can't deny they are winners. Like Reagan or not, the facts are the facts, America's economy THRIVED under his policies.
__________________
When a newspaper posed the question, "What's Wrong with the World?" G. K. Chesterton reputedly wrote a brief letter in response: "Dear Sirs: I am. Sincerely Yours, G. K. Chesterton." That is the attitude of someone who has grasped the message of Jesus.
That was a good one. My Buffet Rule is don't go to them. The food is usually awful.
__________________
When a newspaper posed the question, "What's Wrong with the World?" G. K. Chesterton reputedly wrote a brief letter in response: "Dear Sirs: I am. Sincerely Yours, G. K. Chesterton." That is the attitude of someone who has grasped the message of Jesus.
Linear Mode
