Where the "deficits do not matter" mentality came. RR

wtf has several fixations

one is ronald reagan Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I'm fixated on educating a few poorcsouls who still believe in the Tooth Fairy and that Reagan's tax cuts did not cause huge deficits.

“This debt explosion,” Stockman writes, “has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.”

They might increase revenue, or decrease it, or have it stay about the same. The end results are far to complicated to try to predict, because factoring in human responses to paying more (or less) is essentially impossible.

Democrats (Obama said it out loud) have admitted that taxes aren’t about revenue, they’re about punishing those that the government finds too successful.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c48307...s-tax-fairness

They might increase revenue, or decrease it, or have it stay about the same. The end results are far to complicated to try to predict, because factoring in human responses to paying more (or less) is essentially impossible.

Democrats (Obama said it out loud) have admitted that taxes aren’t about revenue, they’re about punishing those that the government finds too successful.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c48307...s-tax-fairness Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Yes, if raising the capital gains tax decreases government revenues, do it anyway, in the name of equality. In other words, making us all poorer is laudable, as long as it makes us more equal. There are lessons that people should have learned from the Communist experiment but did not.

They might increase revenue, or decrease it, or have it stay about the same. The end results are far to complicated to try to predict, because factoring in human responses to paying more (or less) is essentially impossible.

Democrats (Obama said it out loud) have admitted that taxes aren’t about revenue, they’re about punishing those that the government finds too successful.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c48307...s-tax-fairness Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

One other thing, in that video clip Charlie Gibson points out when we lowered capital gains tax rates, revenues from the tax increased. When we raised the rate, revenues decreased. Obama's reply is, well we need to do it in the name of fairness. Then he goes onto to say we need revenues to pay to expand health care to all Americans, and for infrastructure and schools. How the hell would lowering government revenues, with a sharply higher capital gains tax, help pay for those things?

WTF is certainly right that usually raising tax rates on ordinary income, within reason, will increase revenues. But the capital gains tax is a different beast. You raise the tax too high, and people just stop selling capital assets. That's not only going to reduce government revenues, but it's going to throw a wrench into the economy. If we'd had that in place in the early 1900's, people would have hung onto their shares in buggy whip manufacturers instead of investing in Ford Motor Company.

Thanks for posting the link. I've seen it before, but the quality of the video was much poorer.

One other thing, in that video clip Charlie Gibson points out when we lowered capital gains tax rates, revenues from the tax increased. When we raised the rate, revenues decreased. Obama's reply is, well we need to do it in the name of fairness. Then he goes onto to say we need revenues to pay to expand health care to all Americans, and for infrastructure and schools. How the hell would lowering government revenues, with a sharply higher capital gains tax, help pay for those things?

WTF is certainly right that usually raising tax rates on ordinary income, within reason, will increase revenues. But the capital gains tax is a different beast. You raise the tax too high, and people just stop selling capital assets. That's not only going to reduce government revenues, but it's going to throw a wrench into the economy. If we'd had that in place in the early 1900's, people would have hung onto their shares in buggy whip manufacturers instead of investing in Ford Motor Company.

Thanks for posting the link. I've seen it before, but the quality of the video was much poorer. Originally Posted by Tiny

Thanks for the lesson on the Laffer Curve!

....in 1986, Reagan agreed to some tax increases, but mostly in the Social Security payroll tax, meaning on the middle and lower classes. Originally Posted by WTF

I don't understand your problem with raising peoples' contributions to social security, to ensure there will be enough money to pay for retirement. You've defended social security more than anyone here. You don't think it's a Ponzi scheme and have repeatedly said it's not in danger of going bankrupt. Well, if it's a legitimate pension for retirement, then why shouldn't people pay into it what they're going to take out, including a reasonable return on what they contributed? Why should you add the social security tax to the income tax, sales tax, and property tax to determine the effective tax rate when you're looking at the fairness of the tax system?

I believe what it boils down to is that you think the top 1% should pay for 40% of the cost of social security and Medicare, like they do for the income tax. And you don't realize they don't have enough money to do that.

Thanks for the lesson on the Laffer Curve! Originally Posted by Ducbutter

The effect does exist, especially for capital gains. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have historically assumed that a rate around 28% would maximize government revenues. So why did Biden propose a 43.4% tax on long term capital gains when he came out with his original Build Back Better bill? Insane!

I don't understand your problem with raising peoples' contributions to social security, to ensure there will be enough money to pay for retirement. You've defended social security more than anyone here. You don't think it's a Ponzi scheme and have repeatedly said it's not in danger of going bankrupt. Well, if it's a legitimate pension for retirement, then why shouldn't people pay into it what they're going to take out, including a reasonable return on what they contributed? Why should you add the social security tax to the income tax, sales tax, and property tax to determine the effective tax rate when you're looking at the fairness of the tax system?

I believe what it boils down to is that you think the top 1% should pay for 40% of the cost of social security and Medicare, like they do for the income tax. And you don't realize they don't have enough money to do that. Originally Posted by Tiny

You only post partially what I've said.

SS has not contributed one cent to our current debt. I have said SS should have actuaries who adjust the taxes every 5 years. That way you do not wind up with what we have now....which is the large group of older folks who are living longer yet did not have to foresight to adjust their taxes( contributions) along the way and expect younger taxpayers to make up the difference.

To your second point...excess SS and Medicare should not have been mixed into the accounting of the discretionary side of government, that way it would not fool future economic guru's into believing that we did not need to either increase taxes (if the rate was low enough where a rate increase would produce more tax revenue) or decrease spending.

I can tell you what will happen from a Realpolitik pov. We will do exactly what Reagan did....we will wait until SS and Medicare are going to have to reduce their output and then we will increase the tax rate on the poor and middle class and to be fair the high income earners too. This windfall regressive tax will then hide the discretionary side of the ledger where the rich are not paying for the wars and foriegn policies that benefit them much more so than the middle class and poor.

That is a much more accurate description of how I view SS and our tax system than that silly ass distortion you posted!

That’s malarkey that wars and foreign policy benefit the rich. The wars are another example of our tax dollars at work. The federal government takes our money and often flushes it down the toilet or does more harm than good. You unknowingly support that, with your enthusiasm for higher taxes

What! You’re saying our social security contributions don’t go into a lockbox? Those bastards!

And interestingly you say you’d do exactly what Reagan and a Democratic House did, raise social security contributions to keep the program solvent.

That’s malarkey that wars and foreign policy benefit the rich. The wars are another example of our tax dollars at work. The federal government takes our money and often flushes it down the toilet or does more harm than good. You unknowingly support that, with your enthusiasm for higher taxes Originally Posted by Tiny

My enthusiasm for higher taxes is to combat the neve
R ending increased debt and deficits that your spending causes. Before Reagan....that used to be the reality of at least the GOP....before Ronnie kidnapped yall and took ya to Stockholm!

And interestingly you say you’d do exactly what Reagan and a Democratic House did, raise social security contributions to keep the program solvent. Originally Posted by Tiny

That or inform folks their benefits would be reduced.

But what you can't seem to grasp is that I'd separate the two accounts so as no to confuse the slower economic guru's to actually reality.

For example would your wife let you borrow from her 401k so you could go fuck a bunch of hookers or buy a car?

That is basically what Ronnie did and you still seem to sanction!

What! You’re saying our social security contributions don’t go into a lockbox? Those bastards! Originally Posted by Tiny

Well maybe now you know why I count the increase in public debt as disastrous. Something you and lustylad have dismissed as no big deal.