Jul 18th 2011, 3:06:32
Originally posted by qzjul:
Originally posted by CKHustler:
So, now that we have confirmed that keeping capital gains taxes low will increase tax revenues for capital gains
We haven't confirmed that at all!
http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/...ital_gains_tax_cuts_incr/
You know what's so funny about your source? He claims it doesn't, yet his graph shows it does. Did you see when it was cut to 15% in 2003 what happened? From going down it jumped back up...so what more is it going to take Qz for you to see what is staring you back in the face?
Originally posted by qzjul:
Fine, why don't we just legalize slavery, that would make everybody's lives so much better. Or maybe you should just shoot everybody who doesn't make $100k, to put them out of their misery.
Slavery? Q, stop making up arguments against the straw man in the room. Prosperity would involve political and economic freedom. The freedom to choose what you would like to do with your life and live with the consequences and rewards. The freedom to fail and succeed. Freedom period. Slavery has nothing to do with it and actually stifles economies, just ask Alexis de Tocqueville and the south before our civil war here.
Originally posted by qzjul:
Yes, I agree -- It's the fault of Washington for loosening regulations on the banks, and the fault of the banks for being goddamned greedy.
Really, you have no idea of the regulations they put on the banks do you? Lets see, imagine you are the owner of a bank. What do you do to make money? Make loans right? Ok, so we have to major events now that have happened. 1) You are forced to make loans to minorities and high risk individuals in an attempt by the government to make sure everyone has a fair chance to own a home. 2) The government in Fannie Mad and Freddie Mac now insure all your loans. So what does this mean to you? It means that you will make more risky loans no matter what because...1) you are forced to make a certain amount and 2) you have a blank check by the government for making any loans you wish. What happened? The banks made any loans they could no matter what because it was all insured and they had nothing to lose. Would you call that private enterprise? No, I would call that government collusion with business. The governments interference in the banking industry caused this mess 100%. Did they directly do it all? No, but they are the culprit.
Originally posted by qzjul:
Why is it Republicans seem to have no problem with socialism as long as it's "socializing the losses" of a private firm; as soon as it's to help the average person, suddenly it's evil? (admittedly whats-her-name Bachman voted against that, but not very many others did)
Republicans voted like Democrats, not my problem. I am 100% against all bailouts. Always was. It wouldn't have caused a meltdown as assets would have been sold off and the banking industry would have realized they aren't given a blank check by the government. Instead we are back to square one just creating another bubble.
Originally posted by Pang:
and my point was not that raising taxes and leaving spending intact is the answer -- the US is overspending and that needs to be taken care of, but it also is undertaxing (ie. the Bush tax cuts, the point of this thread :p) compared to the 90's when thing were balanced. You need more revenue and less expenditures. That's realistically the only way to balance the budget without absolutely gutting every social program imaginable.
Yes, Newt did a great job basically shutting down the government. I don't care what party does it either, but realistically democrats are not going to do it. Votes are politicians only concerns and I am starting to believe Republicans won't do it either at the federal level. I should really post up a spreadsheet I have on another computer of mine about federal revenues and outlays since WW2, it would really shine some light on the fact that federal revenues are pretty flat no matter the tax rates(as a % of GDP). Spending literally is the only problem. Tax rates go up and down all the time over the decades and revenues were fairly flat, why is that? When taxes are high, people will spend more time avoiding them, when they are low, they won't spend as much. Sort of proportional to the rate I would think to remain so flat. Revenues have remained around 18-19% through the years with spending just above that and thus the deficit. As of the last 2 years we are now at 23% of GDP I believe. And unless Republicans hold back Democrats, it isn't coming down...