Reagan-Lovers: Stop the Bull

And I guess my view is who the tax is assesed upon?

All taxes...even personal income taxes...affect the supply/demand curve for products and services. So ultimately, I guess all taxes are borne by some ultimate purchaser. But by the same token then...all employee costs...or raw material costs...or litigation expenses...or rents and royalties...are borne by the ultimate purchaser of the goods and services. If that is the case then we really don't need to talk about lowering or raising income tax rates...because it is all borne by the consumer anyway. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

we, the people do bear all taxes, some disporprotionately.

there are four points to remember:

1. taxes, the raising of them, retards economic growth, thus hurting the WORKING poorest among us the most.

2. the really rich can escape any tax increase, therefore you cannot punish the rich, however much some want, no matter what you do short of confiscation.

3. it is important; psychologically, morally, for feelings of self-worth and for a sense of common enterprise, to subject everyone to the income tax, if we subject anyone. allowing 50% of workers to escape that tax, no matter the smallness of amount some may owe, is a travesty that will cause us ruin.

4. if there were no poor people, there would be no rich people. without rich people, there would be nothing to aspire to, no growth of economy, no american dream, small progress in all fields, no medical advancements, no one to hire for there would be no one hiring. to demonize the rich, to skew taxes upon them as if deserving of punishment, merely diminshes us all

we, the people do bear all taxes, some disporprotionately.

there are four points to remember:

1. taxes, the raising of them, retards economic growth, thus hurting the WORKING poorest among us the most.

2. the really rich can escape any tax increase, therefore you cannot punish the rich, however much some want, no matter what you do short of confiscation.

3. it is important; psychologically, morally, for feelings of self-worth and for a sense of common enterprise, to subject everyone to the income tax, if we subject anyone. allowing 50% of workers to escape that tax, no matter the smallness of amount some may owe, is a travesty that will cause us ruin.

4. if there were no poor people, there would be no rich people. without rich people, there would be nothing to aspire to, no growth of economy, no american dream, small progress in all fields, no medical advancements, no one to hire for there would be no one hiring. to demonize the rich, to skew taxes upon them as if deserving of punishment, merely diminshes us all Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I agree. Let me expand a bit on 3.

Anyone who is a net tax recipient has zero motivation to impose any limitations on taxation. While people seldom vote for "higher taxes" they quite often vote for freebies (to them) that will necessitate higher taxes (on others).

EVERYBODY needs to be a stake-holder! Otherwise, those who are not stake-holders will ultimately outvote the stake-holders in an orgy of freebies that will kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

we, the people do bear all taxes, some disporprotionately.

there are four points to remember:

1. taxes, the raising of them, retards economic growth, thus hurting the WORKING poorest among us the most.

2. the really rich can escape any tax increase, therefore you cannot punish the rich, however much some want, no matter what you do short of confiscation.

3. it is important; psychologically, morally, for feelings of self-worth and for a sense of common enterprise, to subject everyone to the income tax, if we subject anyone. allowing 50% of workers to escape that tax, no matter the smallness of amount some may owe, is a travesty that will cause us ruin.

4. if there were no poor people, there would be no rich people. without rich people, there would be nothing to aspire to, no growth of economy, no american dream, small progress in all fields, no medical advancements, no one to hire for there would be no one hiring. to demonize the rich, to skew taxes upon them as if deserving of punishment, merely diminshes us all Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

1) That is half correct, if it was completely correct we would have no tax and a booming economy along with a huge national debt. Where do you no tax folks think roads get built with. The God Damn Fucking Road Fairy? building free roads and sewers for fucking free so nobody has to pay a dime in taxes!


2) And why is that? Because the rich have bought government. Great reason not to tax the rich.

3) ok, tax the poor muther fuckers scrimping by a dollar fo their share of Federal income tax. That make you feel good? That about as stupid no solution statement as your #2 was.

4)Nobody should demonize either the rich or poor. But we sure the fuc should aspire to be a better run country than Mexico. That is where we are headed with our piss poor tax system.


We have a PROGRESSIVE and REGRESSIVE tax system. You have to at least be able to understand that concept when talking about taxes to have a level headed discussion on the matter. Now if all you are wanting to do is talk polotics then that is a different story. That is just a huge lie from start to finish. Be like us telling fish story.

1) That is half correct, if it was completely correct we would have no tax and a booming economy along with a huge national debt. Where do you no tax folks think roads get built with. The God Damn Fucking Road Fairy? building free roads and sewers for fucking free so nobody has to pay a dime in taxes!


2) And why is that? Because the rich have bought government. Great reason not to tax the rich.

3) ok, tax the poor muther fuckers scrimping by a dollar fo their share of Federal income tax. That make you feel good? That about as stupid no solution statement as your #2 was.

4)Nobody should demonize either the rich or poor. But we sure the fuc should aspire to be a better run country than Mexico. That is where we are headed with our piss poor tax system.


We have a PROGRESSIVE and REGRESSIVE tax system. You have to at least be able to understand that concept when talking about taxes to have a level headed discussion on the matter. Now if all you are wanting to do is talk polotics then that is a different story. That is just a huge lie from start to finish. Be like us telling fish story. Originally Posted by WTF

you need a course in economics one-oh-one taught by a level-headed prof

you need a course in human nature

you need to put on your thinking cap ala tom terrific, pet your mighty dog manfred, and think.

Without taking the time to go back and do the research, I'll comment just from memory.
Reagan put thru quite a few conservative programs but like Bush I he had to deal with one house of Congress or another in Democrat hands. This forced compromise that was more in the Democrat mode. Thus, so many years later, lazy or duplicitous writers such as Ms. Sahadi can now blame him for deficits that were at the very least caused by those compromises.
RIP Ronaldo Maximus Originally Posted by John Bull

Oh please. Reagan never once submitted a balanced budget...so he did not even try. As for Poppy Bush...the only thing he ever got right was calling Reagan's supply side enconomics "vodoo economics". So what did Poppy Bush get wrong...well for one thing Neal Bush cost the tax payers about $3B and Jeb cost us about $2B...both in the S&L scandals brought on by Reagan's deregulation. Thank god George W was too drunk and high to cost us much...at that time. Put this in your pipe and smoke it...of the $14T of national debt...75% has been run up by 3 GOP presidents.

of the $14T of national debt...75% has been run up by 3 GOP presidents. Originally Posted by cuckold4u

They only care about debt that Democrats run up.

Oh they give it some lip service, drink some tea but at the end of the day can not see the forest because of the trees.

yawn!

yawn! Originally Posted by pjorourke

Pay no attention tp PJ cuckold4u he believes in to big to fail in finance but not manufacturing. A strange conundrum.

One final time. The banks were illiquid, not insolvent. Government Motors hasn't made any fucking money in 30 years (and less if they kept the books fair) because they make boring overpriced cars due to excessive labor costs. The banks are a case of protecting the public from their own panic, the cars are throwing good money after bad. You'll note that the bank side of TARP worked better than anyone expected and made a ton of money.

One final time. The banks were illiquid, not insolvent. Government Motors hasn't made any fucking money in 30 years (and less if they kept the books fair) because they make boring overpriced cars due to excessive labor costs. The banks are a case of protecting the public from their own panic, the cars are throwing good money after bad. You'll note that the bank side of TARP worked better than anyone expected and made a ton of money. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Do you not understand what any of this means? Please tell me you are just playing dumb. This is all smoke and mirrors. You talk about one portion of TARP as if they were not all interconnected. Yes the banks have done a number on your head and dumped assets in the taxpayers lap. What would those assets be worth if you weren't propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...........

What you are admitting to is that the market does not work without government intervention. Selective government intervention at that, one that has privatized the profits and socialized the losses. Italy did that in the thirties. Is that who you want to emulate?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43064.html

But critics say the reform clearly hasn’t ended the presumption that banks are “too big to fail.”
Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute noted that there is now nearly one-half a percentage point difference in the costs of borrowing for small and large banks. A report by Warren’s panel noted that Citibank said that government guarantees had raised its debt rating five notches over what it would otherwise have been.
Furthermore, TARP was only one part of the government’s rescue of the financial system, and the full picture is not so positive. In fact, at the same time that banks and auto companies have been steadily paying back Uncle Sam for money they borrowed under TARP, the government has been lending more money to prop up the financial system — in a big way.
In the past year, the government’s overall commitment to the financial rescue has risen from $3 trillion to $3.7 trillion — an increase nearly as large as the controversial $750 billion commitment to TARP in 2008.
Barofsky, whom Congress put in charge of overseeing the government’s financial rescue, made that estimate in July in a 282-page report that generally sustained the Obama administration’s version of TARP’s success at recouping investments. Barofsky pointed out that TARP, based at the Treasury Department, was only a fraction of the government’s lending through other Treasury programs and parts of the government.
However, other government commitments grew sharply. The largest increase, according to Barofsky’s report, was the $500 billion jump in the past year of government money committed to propping up the housing market, most of it through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the formerly private government-chartered home lenders that were seized by regulators in 2008.
This commitment could get even larger. While Congress put deadlines on TARP repayment and eventually lowered the program’s size to $475 billion, there are no limits on Treasury commitments to Fannie and Freddie. After initially setting a $400 billion limit on outstanding commitments to the two housing companies, Treasury unilaterally lifted the limitation a few days before last Christmas, when Congress was in recess

yawn!!!!

PJ's "final time" is like a Brett Favre Retirement

btw I think reading this shit is making me dumber

PJ's "final time" is like a Brett Favre Retirement

btw I think reading this shit is making me dumber Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Stop reading!!!

[BTW, does that make you Dumb & Dumber?]

PJ's "final time" is like a Brett Favre Retirement
Originally Posted by atlcomedy

PJ , you gotta admit that was pretty damn funny!

btw I think reading this shit is making me dumber Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Impossible!

Impossible! Originally Posted by WTF

Oh c'mon WTF. It's not impossible. It worked for you didn't it?