how fair taxing of billionaires reaps rewards for communities... Mass. seeing over $800M more than expected with 3 months still to go

[JohnEngelman]

Yup, revenues went up and congress figured out a way to spend even more.

So what do the Communist "Progressives" intend to do with all the money they dream they're going to collect?

Much of the money was spent on the military. That was unnecessary. The United States was at peace.

Calling progressives "Communist" does not describe them. It is name calling, and an effort to suppress the discussion.

 

[Chobham]

Much of the money was spent on the military. That was unnecessary. The United States was at peace.

Calling progressives "Communist" does not describe them. It is name calling, and an effort to suppress the discussion.

No it isn't. It's an accurate description of what their agenda and goals are. "A rose by any other name..."

 

[JohnEngelman]

No it isn't. It's an accurate description of what their agenda and goals are. "A rose by any other name..."

Hardly anyone in the United States wants to create a Communist dictatorship. Many prefer democratic socialism or social democracy to the present system.

 

[wizzard426]

 

[RobDownSouth]

No it isn't. It's an accurate description of what their agenda and goals are. "A rose by any other name..."

Nope. Try harder.

 

[Chobham]

Hardly anyone in the United States wants to create a Communist dictatorship. Many prefer democratic socialism or social democracy to the present system.

Really? I suggest to you that you aren't paying attention.

 

[policywank]

Gonna need a link to proof that higher taxes on the top earners result in less revenue collected and reduced economic activity.

Reagan, Bush and Trump reduced the top marginal tax rates and the result was big budget deficits in each instance.

https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...ly-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/

Reduced budget deficits and reduced economic activity are two totally separate things. Yes reduced taxes in those cases led to less government revenue and therefore bigger deficits. I am not saying that was the most desirable outcome. But the philosophy of those governments was that the greater economic good was for the government to intervene as little as possible in the economy. Therefore they wanted to reduce government revenue.

Any argument around maximizing government revenue implies a totally different politically philosophy than that of Bush and Trump which was that government should leave the markets alone and only do the things that they must do.

 

[policywank]

Beyond a certain point I see little moral significance in the distribution of wealth and income. What matters is being born with rich parents, rare and valuable talents, and a few lucky breaks.

There is no evidence for that. It is a baseless assertion that is no more or less valid than the pulling yourself up by your bootstraps narrative. It is rooted in belief and faith in a desired narrative, not fact or observable evidence.

This is part of the whole fatuous equality of outcomes argument. We can observe inequalities in society. That doesn't mean that absent those inequalities everyone would have equal outcomes. Frankly that assertion is absurd. But we have grabbed on to that idea anyway and now made the irrational leap of logic that unequal outcomes is proof of inequality and therefore proof of equality can only exist in equal outcomes. As a result the system is broken until everyone is the same and has the same outcomes which is pure nonsense.

 

[policywank]

Yup, revenues went up and congress figured out a way to spend even more.

So what do the Communist "Progressives" intend to do with all the money they dream they're going to collect? You can bet your ass that not a single dime is going to go to reduce the debt. They'll figure out a way to send super freighters loaded with cash to foreign nations we really don't care about. Truckloads to the illegal cockroaches infesting every corner of this nation, and God only knows what else they'll waste the money on. And even then they'll demand more because the money grubbing little bastards can NEVER get their hands on enough of other peoples money.

On of the wisest summation of taxes was written by P J O'Rourke, "Giving a politician more money is like handing your teenage son a bottle of whiskey and the keys to the family car."

Hence the conservative inclination to reduce taxes. It doesn't mean the situation will fix itself. It is just taking the bottle of whisky away from the teenager when that is all you can do.

 

[policywank]

In 1936 the top tax rate rose from 63% to 79%. Income tax receipts rose from $527.0 million to 719.0 million.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/federal-tax-revenue-source-1934-2018/

These numbers are not adjusted for inflation, or deflation - which occurred during the Great Depression - so they are only meaningful on a year to year basis.

In 1940 the top tax rate rose from 79% to 81%. Income tax receipts declined from $1,029 million to 892.0, but grew to $1,314.0 million in in 1941.

In 1942 the top tax rate rose from 81% to 88%. Income tax receipts rose from $1,314,0 million to $3,263.0 million.

In 1944 the top tax rate rose from 88% to 94%. Income tax receipts rose from $6,505.0 million to $19,705 million.

Republican economic beliefs are more frequently based on what Republicans want to believe, than on what can be proved.

Again the underpinning of all this is the premise of maximizing government revenues. In other words maximizing revenues to the most irrational, unaccountable, corrupt bunch of populists dirt bags in the system so that they can pursue policies that will get them re-elected by pandering to the least informed members of society.

I agree that Republicans tend to base their policies on what they believe versus what they can prove. And so do Democrats. It is a big government versus small government debate. The fact the Republicans generated less revenue isn't the trump (no pun intended) card at all. That was their plan. All you are proving is that it worked.

Whether or not that was the right plan is a different matter.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Again the underpinning of all this is the premise of maximizing government revenues. In other words maximizing revenues to the most irrational, unaccountable, corrupt bunch of populists dirt bags in the system so that they can pursue policies that will get them re-elected by pandering to the least informed members of society.

I agree that Republicans tend to base their policies on what they believe versus what they can prove. And so do Democrats. It is a big government versus small government debate. The fact the Republicans generated less revenue isn't the trump (no pun intended) card at all. That was their plan. All you are proving is that it worked.

Whether or not that was the right plan is a different matter.

Chobham asserted "It's been proven time and time again, higher tax rates result in less revenue collected." I proved that assertion wrong.

 

[JohnEngelman]

View attachment 2351832

That is not quite what Karl Marx said. This is what he said,

"These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable...2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

Because the graduated income tax is overwhelmingly popular with the voters, indeed most voters want the income tax to be heavier on the rich, it cannot be said that the income tax is an aspect of a Communist dictatorship.

 

[MajorRewrite]

It is a big government versus small government debate. The fact the Republicans generated less revenue isn't the trump (no pun intended) card at all. That was their plan. All you are proving is that it worked.

Incorrect. The Republicans are not in favor of smaller government. Government spending has increased under every Republican administration.

The truth is the Republicans pretend they want smaller government, and gullible people believe them.

The only real goal of Republicans, as proven by their actions, is to cut the top marginal tax rate for the rich who give Republicans “campaign donations” (wink wink). Republicans couldn’t care less about the resulting budget deficits or about actually governing the nation.

 

[Chobham]

Incorrect. The Republicans are not in favor of smaller government. Government spending has increased under every Republican administration.

The truth is the Republicans pretend they want smaller government, and gullible people believe them.

The only real goal of Republicans, as proven by their actions, is to cut the top marginal tax rate for the rich who give Republicans “campaign donations” (wink wink). Republicans couldn’t care less about the resulting budget deficits or about actually governing the nation.

This is true and it's exactly why you're seeing a rebellion within the Republican party.

Long ago I opined that both parties were frog marching us off a cliff. The only difference was the direction and the rate of advance.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yup, revenues went up and congress figured out a way to spend even more.

So what do the Communist "Progressives" intend to do with all the money they dream they're going to collect? You can bet your ass that not a single dime is going to go to reduce the debt. They'll figure out a way to send super freighters loaded with cash to foreign nations we really don't care about. Truckloads to the illegal cockroaches infesting every corner of this nation, and God only knows what else they'll waste the money on. And even then they'll demand more because the money grubbing little bastards can NEVER get their hands on enough of other peoples money.

On of the wisest summation of taxes was written by P J O'Rourke, "Giving a politician more money is like handing your teenage son a bottle of whiskey and the keys to the family car."

Well the debt doesn't actually matter so that would be a pretty dumb way to spend the money. Not that the rich would ever allow the money to be spent eliminating debt for obvious reasons. There is zero reason to think the progressives would spent any significant amount of money on foreigners, or immigrants.

I know you're racist but could you at least pretend not to be?

Well PJ was apparenty dropped on his head as a child.

 

[policywank]

Incorrect. The Republicans are not in favor of smaller government. Government spending has increased under every Republican administration.

The truth is the Republicans pretend they want smaller government, and gullible people believe them.

The only real goal of Republicans, as proven by their actions, is to cut the top marginal tax rate for the rich who give Republicans “campaign donations” (wink wink). Republicans couldn’t care less about the resulting budget deficits or about actually governing the nation.

Well I suppose it is safe to say that no political party is consistent in terms of what they want versus what they say they want. There are certainly things that Republicans like to spend money on even though they try to say otherwise. But the point wasn’t whether they are true to their stated philosophy. The point was that the whole argument about what tax structure maximizes revenue hinges on the spurious assumption that the purpose should be to get max revenue to the government as opposed to max benefit to the people and the economy.

 

[JohnEngelman]

The point was that the whole argument about what tax structure maximizes revenue hinges on the spurious assumption that the purpose should be to get max revenue to the government as opposed to max benefit to the people and the economy.

I disproved the Republican claim that raising taxes does not increase tax revenue.

From 1921 to 2000 the United States had Republican presidents for 40 years, and Democrat presidents for 40 years. If you look at the following chart, provided by the United State Department of Commerce, you will see that there has been over twice as much economic growth under Democrat presidents during this time.

https://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

Democrat presidents also have a better record on job ceation.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x416274

 

[SlutAddicted]

Incorrect. The Republicans are not in favor of smaller government. Government spending has increased under every Republican administration.

The truth is the Republicans pretend they want smaller government, and gullible people believe them.

The only real goal of Republicans, as proven by their actions, is to cut the top marginal tax rate for the rich who give Republicans “campaign donations” (wink wink). Republicans couldn’t care less about the resulting budget deficits or about actually governing the nation.

Well I suppose it is safe to say that no political party is consistent in terms of what they want versus what they say they want. There are certainly things that Republicans like to spend money on even though they try to say otherwise. But the point wasn’t whether they are true to their stated philosophy. The point was that the whole argument about what tax structure maximizes revenue hinges on the spurious assumption that the purpose should be to get max revenue to the government as opposed to max benefit to the people and the economy.

Nuh uh. Lol. It is comical how threads like this attract people who debate like 8 year olds. Ignore the totality of a person's argument, pick the one thing with which to disagree then claim an absolute right or wrong. Grown-ups debate by looking at the full picture then using language that promotes dialogue like "I disagree with you on this point" rather than declaring themselves right or wrong when their minds are obviously closed to any alternative.

 

[SlutAddicted]

I disproved the Republican claim that raising taxes does not increase tax revenue.

From 1921 to 2000 the United States had Republican presidents for 40 years, and Democrat presidents for 40 years. If you look at the following chart, provided by the United State Department of Commerce, you will see that there has been over twice as much economic growth under Democrat presidents during this time.

https://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

Democrat presidents also have a better record on job ceation.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x416274

You aren't even addressing the point you quoted. Nothing in what you quoted from PW suggest that raising taxes does not increase revenue. Nor did she claim that Republicans do a better job on the economy. She simply stated that maximizing government revenues is not synonymous with max benefit to the economy and the people.

These types of charts are exactly the kind of things that politicians like to use to make spurious arguments. They state definitely based upon historical data that economic growth was higher under democratic presidents. But then you infer two obviously spurious conclusions: 1) that the president alone is responsible for economic growth (as opposed to Congress, Senate, the Fed, geopolitical factors, worldwide trade); and 2) that economic performance results instantaneously from the policies of that same all powerful president. Reality is that there are many factors at play and as every Econ 101 student knows policies take a long time to have an effect on the economy such that at least the first half of any administration's economic performance was more than likely due to the policies of the previous administration or factors beyond the control of any administration.

The point I am making (largely in agreement with PW) is that the arguments being made are simplistic. Not that there aren't good points being made because there are. What is spurious is the definitive conclusions on matters that are obviously much more complicated and involve a lot more intersecting factors.

 

[JohnEngelman]

You aren't even addressing the point you quoted. Nothing in what you quoted from PW suggest that raising taxes does not increase revenue. Nor did she claim that Republicans do a better job on the economy. She simply stated that maximizing government revenues is not synonymous with max benefit to the economy and the people.

These types of charts are exactly the kind of things that politicians like to use to make spurious arguments. They state definitely based upon historical data that economic growth was higher under democratic presidents. But then you infer two obviously spurious conclusions: 1) that the president alone is responsible for economic growth (as opposed to Congress, Senate, the Fed, geopolitical factors, worldwide trade); and 2) that economic performance results instantaneously from the policies of that same all powerful president. Reality is that there are many factors at play and as every Econ 101 student knows policies take a long time to have an effect on the economy such that at least the first half of any administration's economic performance was more than likely due to the policies of the previous administration or factors beyond the control of any administration.

The point I am making (largely in agreement with PW) is that the arguments being made are simplistic. Not that there aren't good points being made because there are. What is spurious is the definitive conclusions on matters that are obviously much more complicated and involve a lot more intersecting factors.

Republicans give Republican presidents for good economic numbers and avoid responsibility for the bad economic numbers, especially the rise in the national debt, and the increase in economic inequality.

 

[JohnEngelman]

You aren't even addressing the point you quoted. Nothing in what you quoted from PW suggest that raising taxes does not increase revenue.

I quoted the following assertion by Chobham, "It's been proven time and time again, higher tax rates result in less revenue collected," and I refuted it.

 

[SlutAddicted]

I quoted the following assertion by Chobham, "It's been proven time and time again, higher tax rates result in less revenue collected," and I refuted it.

No you didn't. Scroll up to your own point. You quoted Policywank.

 

[SlutAddicted]

Republicans give Republican presidents for good economic numbers and avoid responsibility for the bad economic numbers, especially the rise in the national debt, and the increase in economic inequality.

All parties claim credit for the good stuff that happens while they are in office and blame the bad stuff on previous administrations. That isn't exclusive to Republicans. As with everything else you just make baseless statements with nothing to back it up or some spuriously misconstrued piece of data.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Money talks, tax rates walk. It's been proven time and time again, higher tax rates result in less revenue collected and reduces economic activity.

"I want you should kill Igor's goat." Envy is ugly no matter what is used as a justification.

No you didn't. Scroll up to your own point. You quoted Policywank.

I responded to Chobham's comment, number 45.

 

[SlutAddicted]

I responded to Chobham's comment, number 45.

No my comment was in response to your comment made to Policywank #67