Interesting response on U Tube debate

[scrapperdog]

I dont follow politics much and was just flipping through the stations and saw this on the utube debate.

Question- Are democrats going to raise taxes.

Partial answer- We plan on getting rid of NAFTA and the WTO.

This was quite suprising to me to say the least. Bill Clinton was big supportor of NAFTA and it would really suprise me if Hillary would kill it. I am not going to say anything more cause I dont follow politics, but thought it was worth a post here. Im not sure of the name of the person who answered the question (ya I am that dumb when it comes to politics, I planned on voting for whoever the engineer endorses).

[jkpoker]

Answer one democrats like to raise taxes at some point im sure they will.

But really i have no idea wtf your talking about

LINK or explain what your asking pls

[Jerry D]

Democrats will raise taxes on the rich, Republicans cut taxes for the rich and raise them for the poor. Republicans were/are behind the push to outlaw all online poker. Democrats are the ones (with a few Republicans) who are fighting for freedom and trying to let adults do what they want to with their own money. Republicans say you can only spend your money on things they morally aprove of.

[scrapperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
Answer one democrats like to raise taxes at some point im sure they will.

But really i have no idea wtf your talking about

LINK or explain what your asking pls

[/ QUOTE ]

I will try and make this more clear. I saw 1 minute of the utube presidential debate tonight. A question was asked about democrats raising taxes. The democrat candidate answered by saying they will get rid of NAFTA and the WTO.

I am not a political genius but my take is that they are doing this as a way to ease taxes they want to get rid of these organizations so they can tax imports/exports at will. I am not sure how many of the candidates support this but the one that answered the question def does. He also answered like he was defending the democratic position not just answering for himeself. Part of this may have been the way the question was asked.

I am not asking any question just putting this out there and maybe someone with political knowledge will comment on it, as I dont have a lot of knowledge on the subject.

[TheEngineer]

Many Democrats blame free trade on job losses here in America. Many would like the U.S. to adopt protectionist trade practices.

[dlk9s]

Are you talking about YouTube, or is there something else out there called Utube?

[ATrebek]

[ QUOTE ]
...Democrats are the ones (with a few Republicans) who are fighting for freedom and trying to let adults do what they want to with their own money....

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ludicrous in reference to anything other than online poker. DUCY?

[jasonfish11]

[ QUOTE ]
Democrats will raise taxes on the rich, Republicans cut taxes for the rich and raise them for the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show laws passed in the last 8 years that increase taxes on the poor. I dont know of any but who knows Im only a tax accountant. Good thing the republicans cut taxes so much, and the funny thing is when they do cut taxes they wind up increaseing the revenue for the govt. Hmmm wonder how that happens? Oh well maybe I can just be the mind tool of the democratic biased media that everyone else is.

[jasonfish11]

"The United States federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a refundable tax credit that reduces or eliminates the taxes that low-income working people pay (such as payroll taxes) and also frequently operates as a wage subsidy for low-income workers. Enacted in 1975, the then very small EITC was expanded in 1986, 1990, 1993, and 2001 with each major tax bill, regardless of whether the tax bill in general raised taxes (1990), lowered taxes (2001) or eliminated other deductions and credits (1986). Today, the EITC is one of the largest anti-poverty tools in the United States (despite the fact that income measures, including the poverty rate, generally do not account for the credit), and enjoys broad bipartisan support."

Good thing the EITC has nothing to do with the poor. Because as you said republicans only give tax breaks to the rich and make the poor pay more taxes.

Oh one more question how do you give a tax break to someone who doesnt pay taxes?

[jkpoker]

guess I'm just ignorant but the last tax breaks where a standardized amount for everyone??

[justin]

1. Yeah definitely not the democratic position to get rid of NAFTA considering half the candidates are owned by Wallstreet.
2. Bill Clinton huge (censored) was a supporter of NAFTA he's no better then conservatives. Economically speaking he sold out his poltiical base and people are to stupid to realize it
3. Obviously noone raised taxes on the poor but when you give tax cuts to the rich so that you can claim all the social programs in this country are failing when in reality they are underfunded well that kinda acts as a "tax".

[ATrebek]

[ QUOTE ]
guess I'm just ignorant but the last tax breaks where a standardized amount for everyone??

[/ QUOTE ]

Standard dollar amount for everyone but a much, much, much larger percentage for the poor. What is $300 to a millionaire anyway?

[ QUOTE ]
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this. The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.

But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a
bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.

But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, Congressman and Senators, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.{/quote]

[jasonfish11]

[ QUOTE ]
3. Obviously noone raised taxes on the poor but when you give tax cuts to the rich so that you can claim all the social programs in this country are failing when in reality they are underfunded well that kinda acts as a "tax".

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious on how everyone would go about giving a tax break to the "poor"? Most people that we would think of as "poor" dont pay taxes they get money back. I should know I do about 40 returns a year for them. Back to my question how do you cut taxes for someone who doesnt pay them?

[Teemoney]

Remind me to never go to you for tax advice.

The 'poor' don't get money back. They overpaid into the system and the money is refunded to them because it is THEIR money. The poor pay taxes. The money is NOT a windfall. You don't think Social Security is a tax? Medicare?

Tax codes are changed so that the % of your income that is taxed changes. Most payroll divisions know enough to adjust your income to reflect changes, some don't, hence why you get refunds (and deductions that payroll wouldn't know about). There was a big stink a few years ago because the government wanted companies to estimate taxes more closely so that there wouldn't be so many refunds/taxes due on people.

If you want to know the difference between Republicans and Democrats (traditional policy) on taxes here it is...

Republicans and Democrats spend as much as they want. The difference is that Republicans will take the money from social programs to cover their expanses and try to toe the line with new taxes. Democrates raise taxes to cover their expanses to leave the social programs alone. Democrates tend to want to tax big business and the rich. Republicans also have the tendency to 'borrow' money to pay for their programs.

[jasonfish11]

Ok ill agree that if you sum up ALL of the taxes that they pay they dont get money back. But I was just talking about income tax. Many people that have a 0 tax liability and still add credits on to that like EITC ect. If you include sales taxes, sin taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, ss, Medicare, ect. ect... they wind up paying the govt. But when most people talk about taxes they are talking about income taxes. And no matter what you believe due to the many credits out there many "poor" people get more back than was taken out of their paychecks (not including ss and Medicare taken out)

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
The 'poor' don't get money back. They overpaid into the system and the money is refunded to them because it is THEIR money. The poor pay taxes. The money is NOT a windfall. You don't think Social Security is a tax? Medicare?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of the 'poor' get back far in excess of taxes paid in from paycheck with holding.

Even the 'poor' who have no children and can use a standard deduction for a 100% refund can get extra money as well above and beyond what they had with held.

Is SS a tax, no, they will get that as well and guess what, if it is below a certain level, they get a Supplemental Social Security check to make up the difference.

obg

[Skallagrim]

Some thoughts before this gets moved to the politics forum:

A pure capitalist/republican might be quite happy with a total free-market system that maximizes success in a competitive market by allowing and protecting for huge rewards at the top. This system is the best for growth, invention, and productivity. At times, however, the system will get way out of whack and the "losers" at the bottom (a sizable majority) may take steps very unpleasant for those formerly on top. Remember the French revolution?

A real socialist/democrat is quite happy with a system where everything is centrally controlled to produce the greatest common good for all. Such a system really does a good job of ensuring equality of services when dividing up the economic pie. However, the lack of incentive to do better, and the inherent stifling of creativity usually leads to negative growth which then slowly reduces the gains of the majority "losers." Think every communist country.

Of course the secret of true success is finding the right balance between distributing for the common good and reward for individual merit.

Sometimes republicans push things to far one way, then later the democrats will push things to far the other way.

Right now I think things are a little too skewed towards benefiting the wealthy, primarily because of all the corporate welfare and the failure to address in some way the overpriced health care system (which really should be a "right" of some kind in an advanced nation).

But even assuming I vote based on the above philosophy, its also true that both political parties are so beholden to their sources of big money that any real change either way is very unlikely.

So I will vote for anyone who A) has a viable plan to end the Iraq fiasco and B) will not veto online poker legalization. If a candidate meets those 2 criteria, I'd forgive just about anything else.

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
Some thoughts before this gets moved to the politics forum:

A pure capitalist/republican might be quite happy with a total free-market system that maximizes success in a competitive market by allowing and protecting for huge rewards at the top. This system is the best for growth, invention, and productivity. At times, however, the system will get way out of whack and the "losers" at the bottom (a sizable majority) may take steps very unpleasant for those formerly on top. Remember the French revolution?

A real socialist/democrat is quite happy with a system where everything is centrally controlled to produce the greatest common good for all. Such a system really does a good job of ensuring equality of services when dividing up the economic pie. However, the lack of incentive to do better, and the inherent stifling of creativity usually leads to negative growth which then slowly reduces the gains of the majority "losers." Think every communist country.

Of course the secret of true success is finding the right balance between distributing for the common good and reward for individual merit.

Sometimes republicans push things to far one way, then later the democrats will push things to far the other way.

Right now I think things are a little too skewed towards benefiting the wealthy, primarily because of all the corporate welfare and the failure to address in some way the overpriced health care system (which really should be a "right" of some kind in an advanced nation).

But even assuming I vote based on the above philosophy, its also true that both political parties are so beholden to their sources of big money that any real change either way is very unlikely.

So I will vote for anyone who A) has a viable plan to end the Iraq fiasco and B) will not veto online poker legalization. If a candidate meets those 2 criteria, I'd forgive just about anything else.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that nothing will change until a crises occurs. However, I think that US is tilted too much toward the socialism/communist end. Ironically, this causes wealth to tilt to the few rich who can take advantage or protect themselves from big government regulation and taxation. Truth is that going to either extreme causes a few winners and lots of losers. Maybe the socialism/communist end produces fewer destitute poor, but at the cost of lots of lower middle class and less middle to upper-middle class than the independent capitalist end.
Pure capitalism worked so long as the US had a frontier for the destitute poor to start over or make a living farming. By the 1920's, the frontier was all settled and that was a big cause of the Great Depression which lead to the start of the tilt to bigger government socialism.
I think that early 1970's before Carter was the best balance. Since the Republicans have shown that they will not cause a correction to capitalist end, I decline to vote.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
Just curious on how everyone would go about giving a tax break to the "poor"? Most people that we would think of as "poor" dont pay taxes they get money back. I should know I do about 40 returns a year for them. Back to my question how do you cut taxes for someone who doesnt pay them?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can have negative Income Tax. If you are in low paid work but with kids etc you can have a minimum income system where you get money back from government that is greater than your income tax. It is a way to make sure that work pays better than out of work benefits. In the UK it is primarily used to combat child poverty.

[disjunction]

I like poker. I hope it stays legal.

[2easy]

[ QUOTE ]
Pure capitalism worked so long as the US had a frontier for the destitute poor to start over or make a living farming. By the 1920's, the frontier was all settled and that was a big cause of the Great Depression which lead to the start of the tilt to bigger government socialism.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow! I trust that your political perspective is as clear as your historical perspective.

Inflated stock market due to margin buying, margin calls and bank runs all not withstanding, it was the lack of frontier to start over on?

Learn something new every day.

[JavaNut]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that US is tilted too much toward the socialism/communist end.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not even close, in Europe Democrats in US are considered right wing politicians. Republicans would be considered far right and those republicans who mix politics and religion would be considered as far right extremists.

Communism is when a private person is not allowed to own the means of production, ie. factories, farms, stores etc. All that has to be owned by the state.

Socialism is actually the same (the former soviet union called itself socialistic as did the other eastern block countries), though in many European countries there are political parties going for a socialistic, democratic approach, where you are allowed to own the means of production but are taxed heavily. Currently the record is 65 cent of the last earned dollar.

Oh and a previous poster stated that US is getting more taxes in due to a tax cut to the rich. How very Reaganistic. Please explain the gigantic US budget deficit.

And the notion of leaving NAFTA and WTO, without them US would go broke in 10 years. How would the US economy look like if say Microsoft, Apple, Boeing and others moved to Europe? They'd have to, because it is where the money is and they'd be taxed out from any market outside the US if US left WTO.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I like poker. I hope it stays legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pure capitalism worked so long as the US had a frontier for the destitute poor to start over or make a living farming. By the 1920's, the frontier was all settled and that was a big cause of the Great Depression which lead to the start of the tilt to bigger government socialism.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow! I trust that your political perspective is as clear as your historical perspective.

Inflated stock market due to margin buying, margin calls and bank runs all not withstanding, it was the lack of frontier to start over on?

Learn something new every day.

[/ QUOTE ]

The stock market crash was a symptom of the Great Depression not the cause. It started with a collapse of farm prices. However, not having a frontier lead to a large surplus of labor in the cities, which caused rapid deflation. With a frontier, recessions and depressions were common, but did not cause the deep changes in America because the frontier deflected social pressures and reduced surplus of labor in the cities.
Government spending takes up surplus labor and reduces or eliminates deflation. So far it has worked. But too much government stifles growth and innovation.

[cheddarthief]

[ QUOTE ]
Democrats will raise taxes on the rich, Republicans cut taxes for the rich and raise them for the poor. Republicans were/are behind the push to outlaw all online poker. Democrats are the ones (with a few Republicans) who are fighting for freedom and trying to let adults do what they want to with their own money. Republicans say you can only spend your money on things they morally aprove of.

[/ QUOTE ]


Okay, you must be high. While I have recently re-examined my own political stance since the Republicans force fed this law through Congress, I have to tell you that you are dead wrong. Republicans are all about freedoms. They feel that people need to be more responsible for their own actions and only let government take care of things such as defense, infrastructure and foreign policy. They do not tax the poor more than the rich either. This is what is so surprising to me about the resent legislation that was passed. They give tax "relief" to the rich that invest their wealth to create more businesses and thus produce more paying jobs. Those whole make millions and then do nothing with it but hoard it pay very high taxes on their gains. Democrats on the other hand, want the mass of people to be lower income and thus require them to do more for them. They want you to say, "help me, I cannot do it for myself". They can then in turn, raise taxes as a justification so that they can take care of their people. I am not a loyal Bush supporter but I will tell you that no president, even your beloved Clinton, would have been able to survive in the post 9-11 area any better than Bush. Take any major tax consumer in government today and it is traced back to a democratically controlled government, the welfare program being a prime example. You really need to do your homework before taking what the media feeds to you as truth before making such vague statements. Remember, if they own the information, they can get you to believe whatever they want. Take control and make your own conclusions. Don't just digest what they feed you and regurgitate it when you want to be angry about something.

[Jerry D]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Democrats will raise taxes on the rich, Republicans cut taxes for the rich and raise them for the poor. Republicans were/are behind the push to outlaw all online poker. Democrats are the ones (with a few Republicans) who are fighting for freedom and trying to let adults do what they want to with their own money. Republicans say you can only spend your money on things they morally aprove of.

[/ QUOTE ]


Okay, you must be high. While I have recently re-examined my own political stance since the Republicans force fed this law through Congress, I have to tell you that you are dead wrong. Republicans are all about freedoms. They feel that people need to be more responsible for their own actions and only let government take care of things such as defense, infrastructure and foreign policy. They do not tax the poor more than the rich either. This is what is so surprising to me about the resent legislation that was passed. They give tax "relief" to the rich that invest their wealth to create more businesses and thus produce more paying jobs. Those whole make millions and then do nothing with it but hoard it pay very high taxes on their gains. Democrats on the other hand, want the mass of people to be lower income and thus require them to do more for them. They want you to say, "help me, I cannot do it for myself". They can then in turn, raise taxes as a justification so that they can take care of their people. I am not a loyal Bush supporter but I will tell you that no president, even your beloved Clinton, would have been able to survive in the post 9-11 area any better than Bush. Take any major tax consumer in government today and it is traced back to a democratically controlled government, the welfare program being a prime example. You really need to do your homework before taking what the media feeds to you as truth before making such vague statements. Remember, if they own the information, they can get you to believe whatever they want. Take control and make your own conclusions. Don't just digest what they feed you and regurgitate it when you want to be angry about something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Republicans: Bill Frist, Jon Kyl, George Bush etc, say I can't play poker.

Democrats: Robert Wexler, Barney Frank, Shelly Berkley say I should be able to play poker.

Result: Like Doyle Brunson, a former life long Republican said, "I will never, ever, vote for another Republican."

[justin]

For you cheddar thief: go read Al Gore's new book if you really think their is a liberal media bias. Also the idea that people will spend thier money if you give the rich tax breaks; How many washing machines can a millionaire buy and how many washing machines can 20 people making 50k dollars a year buy......... /images/graemlins/shocked.gif.

As for you JP the irony of all these companies is they say dont regulate us but they all go begging and bribing every politicaian they can for government handouts and subsidies.

P.S. God bless Ron paul and Barney Frank

[dfan]

There is an interesting economic process that is almost always left out of the liberal/conservative debate regarding taxes/distribution of wealth, etc. It is what I have termed the Monopoly Effect.

Remember how in the game if you were lucky enough to get some good properties early, you would start getting money from all the other players in the form of rent, and collecting this rent allowed you to buy more property, which meant other players had to pay you more and more often. Barring a miracle, a snowball effect occurs and you end up with all the money and everyone else is broke.

The Monopoly effect is great for a game because it ensures the game will end, even if it does take hours to do so.

But while the same effect can be good for a economy at first (concentrating wealth so businesses get started, etc), in the long run -- spanning several generations -- it is a problem for real world, non-game economies. That is, it is a problem unless you have as a desired goal a society where a tiny few are enormously rich and the vast majority are struggling to get by.

Reasonable arguments can be made for and against the "best" shape for a country's wealth distribution. If it is completely flat there is no incentive to work harder, take risks, etc. If it is so skewed that a very few have all the money, then you have a society where most are poor and the rich few have more money than they know what to do with, and beyond the ethical issues there are incentive problems with that as well. But obviously people will disagree about the proper level of skew in the wealth distribution.

But this isn't what I'm talking about when I mention the Monopoly Effect. The ME says that the wealth distribution becomes progressively more skewed to the upper end as time passes, even if tax policy stays the same.

This is clear if you look at long term US wealth distribution charts. You will see that over the past several decades more and more of the nations wealth has become concentrated into the hands of a smaller and smaller percentage of the US population. This effect has held across both Democrats and Republicans adminitrations (although it tends to slow when Dems are in power). That is because money begats money which begats even more money and so on, especially in the form of capital income. And if tax policy stays pretty much the same as it has been this effect will eventually lead to almost all of the wealth in the hands of a very small % of Americans.

Whether you are conservative or liberal you should see that while disparities in income are necessary to incentivize an economy, there is a point where this process becomes counterproductive. Currently we are already seeing these untoward effects. In 2007 the US middle class is poorer in real dollars than their parents were even though the real dollar GDP in 2007 is much higher than it was a generation ago. Where did the extra GDP go? Due to "safety net" social programs a tiny bit went to our poorest, who have been holding their own, meager as that is. But most went to the wealthiest Americans.

The monopoly effect is actually a trickle-up effect that is seldom considered in these discussions. Sorry for writing a book but it is a very real and significant economic process that shouldn't be ignored.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
poor pay taxes. .... You don't think Social Security is a tax? Medicare?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of the 'poor' get back far in excess of taxes paid in from paycheck with holding.

Even the 'poor' who have no children and can use a standard deduction for a 100% refund can get extra money as well above and beyond what they had with held.

Is SS a tax, no, they will get that as well and guess what, if it is below a certain level, they get a Supplemental Social Security check to make up the difference.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Medicare in NYC is the best, gold-plated health insurance you can get. You can't even buy a policy to give you the same coverage as Medicare gives for $40k, $50k per year.

Regardless, lowering tax rates has the effect of raising tax revenues, as demonstrated by Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush.

Supply-side theory predicts that tax hikes will not result in commensurate gains in tax revenues. The Clinton tax hike of 1993 sharply increased rates on personal incomes. As supply-side theory would predict, compared with revenues expected by the Congressional Budget Office in 1992 before the hikes were enacted, actual tax receipts were lower in 1993 and 1994, the same in 1995, and only 3% higher in 1996.

Supply-side theory also predicts that tax cuts will not result in commensurate losses in tax revenues, and may even result in gains thanks to increased economic activity. In 1997, the tax rate on capital-gains income was cut by the Republican Congress. As supply-side theory would predict, compared with revenues expected by CBO in 1996 before the cuts were enacted, actual tax receipts were 5% higher in 1997, 10% higher in 1998, and 12% higher in 1999.

'Last year the Congressional Budget Office released its annual Budget and Economic Outlook, and buried in one of its nearly impenetrable tables of numbers is a remarkable story that has gone entirely unreported by the mainstream media:

The 2003 tax cut on capital gains has entirely paid for itself. More than paid for itself. Way more.

To appreciate this story, we have to go back in time to January 2003, before the tax cut was enacted. Table 3-5 on page 60 in CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook published in 2003 estimated that capital-gains tax liabilities would be $60 billion in 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $125 billion.

Now let's move forward a year, to January 2004, after the capital-gains tax cut had been enacted. Table 4-4 on page 82 in CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook of that year shows that the estimates for capital-gains tax liabilities had been lowered to $46 billion in 2004 and $52 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $98 billion. Compare the original $125 billion total to the new $98 billion total, and we can infer that CBO was forecasting that the tax cut would cost the government $27 billion in revenues.

Those are the estimates. Now let's see how things really turned out. Take a look at Table 4-4 on page 92 of the Budget and Economic Outlook released this week. You'll see that actual liabilities from capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004, and $80 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $151 billion. So let's do the math one more time: Subtract the originally estimated two-year liability of $125 billion from the actual liability of $151 billion, and you get a $26 billion upside surprise for the government. Yes, instead of costing the government $27 billion in revenues, the tax cuts actually earned the government $26 billion extra.
http://www.americanshareholders.com/blog/uploaded_images/image002-782484.gif

This should come as no surprise since the same effect occurred following the 1981 and 1997 capital gains tax reductions. Following the 1997 capital gains tax cut revenues increased $24 billion above the forecast in 1998 and $36 billion above forecast in 1999 due to higher levels of economic growth ...' ~ Dan Clifton

This trend continued in 2006, making the numbers even more dramatic.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]

This is clear if you look at long term US wealth distribution charts. You will see that over the past several decades more and more of the nations wealth has become concentrated into the hands of a smaller and smaller percentage of the US population.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is blatantly false, you can go to the Fed and CBO websites and pull up the actual charts, which I see you haven't.


[ QUOTE ]
That is because money begats money which begats even more money and so on, especially in the form of capital income. And if tax policy stays pretty much the same as it has been this effect will eventually lead to almost all of the wealth in the hands of a very small % of Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also wildly incorrect. 94% of millionaires are self-made according to the two latest studies [it was 90% 10 years ago.]

Secondly, most family fortunes [those that pay the Death Tax] are reduced to less than $1mm per descendant by the third generation due to taxes, divorce, and over-spending/ under-investing.

[ QUOTE ]

In 2007 the US middle class is poorer in real dollars than their parents were even though the real dollar GDP in 2007 is much higher than it was a generation ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are 100% false yet again, why are you so ignorant and lazy to actually pull up the data? Your campaign is misinformation is laughable. Here's the actual data from the FRB, CBO, and IRS websites:

Real, after-tax, per-capita disposable income is up approximately 91% or more since 1972. Over the past two years, real disposable income is up 4% or so.
[This, of course, includes the tens of millions of immigrants who have arrived on the scene recently, and have not had the full benefit of all of those decades to climb the economic ladder. ]

1972 - Real, disposable income per capita, chained 2000 dollars: $14,512
1987 - Real, disposable income per capita, chained 2000 dollars: $20,072
1995 - Real, disposable income per capita, chained 2000 dollars: $22,153
2006 - Real, disposable income per capita, chained 2000 dollars: $27,789

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. You'd think the 'society imploding' doom-and-gloomers would not need to resort to disinformation to make their point.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, lowering tax rates has the effect of raising tax revenues, as demonstrated by Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, you can't seriously believe this. Do you think you can keep lowering tax rates to zero, and revenues will keep going up and up?

Bruce Bartlett, one of the principal authors of Reagan's tax cut, wrote an op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/opinion/06bartlett.html?ex=1333512000&en=e1edba097b4845f7& ei=5090) recently in which he decried the mindless propaganda of the very claim you are making - that tax cuts somehow INCREASE revenues.

He notes that studies of Kennedy's tax cut demonstrate that about one-third of the lost revenue was recouped. One-third, not "more than 100%," as your theory would have it.

Please, enough already with the ridiculous claim that tax cuts raise revenues. I know it's a popular line among demagoguing politicians, but it's really a self-discrediting thing to say.

[JPFisher55]

Lowering tax rates can temporarily increase tax revenues if they increase economic growth. Visa versa for tax increases. However, increased government spending also can cause some economic growth so the process is complex.
Tax revenues are up during recent years due to decent economic growth. Hard to say if the Bush tax cuts caused this growth.

[JavaNut]

Budget explorer (http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/)

So do you need to lower taxes, or do you need to get the very rich to actually pay tax or what?

Let us just see, Reagan elected in 1980 started as president in 1981 and lasted 8 years, and then it was Bush. Then the debt just started rising and rising, is that good?

A debt of US $8.000.000.000.000, wow.

[JPFisher55]

Less government spending LOL!

[dfan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is clear if you look at long term US wealth distribution charts. You will see that over the past several decades more and more of the nations wealth has become concentrated into the hands of a smaller and smaller percentage of the US population.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is blatantly false, you can go to the Fed and CBO websites and pull up the actual charts, which I see you haven't.


[ QUOTE ]
That is because money begats money which begats even more money and so on, especially in the form of capital income. And if tax policy stays pretty much the same as it has been this effect will eventually lead to almost all of the wealth in the hands of a very small % of Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also wildly incorrect. 94% of millionaires are self-made according to the two latest studies

Secondly, most family fortunes [those that pay the Death Tax] are reduced to less than $1mm per descendant by the third generation due to taxes, divorce, and over-spending/ under-investing.
...
...
[ QUOTE ]

In 2007 the US middle class is poorer in real dollars than their parents were even though the real dollar GDP in 2007 is much higher than it was a generation ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are 100% false yet again, why are you so ignorant and lazy to actually pull up the data? Your campaign is misinformation is laughable. Here's the actual data from the FRB, CBO, and IRS websites:

Real, after-tax, per-capita disposable income is up approximately 91% or more since 1972. Over the past two years, real disposable income is up 4% or so.
[This, of course, includes the tens of millions of immigrants who have arrived on the scene recently, and have not had the full benefit of all of those decades to climb the economic ladder. ]

1972 - Real, disposable income per capita, chained 2000 dollars: $14,512
1987 - Real, disposable income per capita, chained 2000 dollars: $20,072
1995 - Real, disposable income per capita, chained 2000 dollars: $22,153
2006 - Real, disposable income per capita, chained 2000 dollars: $27,789

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. You'd think the 'society imploding' doom-and-gloomers would not need to resort to disinformation to make their point.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]
I find your tone blatantly rude on so many levels, not the least of which is that you accuse me of ignoring CBO stats, etc, but put up NO wealth distribution stats of your own. Rather you resort to attacking and name-calling and then throw in some income stats that aren't really germane to the topic. Not helpful.

As we all know from looking at our pokertracker stats - our beliefs often are sobered up by real numbers. So if anyone really is interested in whether the "Monopoly Effect" as I call it really exists, some actually relevant data follows.

From wikipedia, here is the change in the GINI index of income equality for the US since '67. Higher numbers indicate more skewed distributions (100 = one person has all of the nation's income):

# 1967: 0.397 (first year reported)
# 1968: 0.386 (lowest coefficient reported)
# 1970: 0.394
# 1980: 0.403
# 1990: 0.428
# 2000: 0.462
# 2005: 0.469

Income distribution has become more and more skewed as time has passed. For a chart showing all the countries, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient . You will note that the US has the largest Gini coefficient of any of the wealthy countries. Also see http://www.eoearth.org/image/Income_Shares_of_Households_graph.gif for a nice graph of the changes in the share of income for the bottom 20% vs top 5% over time.

For wealth (as opposed to income) the data is harder to come by. We know income numbers going way back, but not wealth numbers that precisely. (That's the reason you won't be posting any longterm Fed numbers on this I bet). The best data appears to be from the Survey of Consumer Finances, which has been in place since 1983:

Year / %wealth for top 20% / %wealth for 20-40th pctl
'83 81.3 17.8
'89 83.5 17.1
'92 83.8 15.9
'95 83.9 15.9
'98 83.4 16.4
'01 84.4 15.2

In less than two decades the richest 20% of Americans have increased their proportion of the US wealth pie from approx. 81% to 84%. That may not sound like much, but when you realize that the next 40% are splitting up what is left, their drop of 3 percentage points from approx 18% to 15%, is a real drop of 17% ((18-15)/18). As you undoubtedly know, the bottom 40% of the US population possesses less than 1% of US wealth.

So you are wrong - the data DO show that both the wealth and income distributions are getting more and more skewed over time.


Your next "rebuttal" of changes in the distribution of wealth consisted of you posting per capita income?! If you gave it a moments thought you would realize that per capita income is obviously irrelevant to the discussion at hand. DUCY?

In any case, I was referring to the phenomenon discussed in recent articles such as this:
<ul type="square"> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- American men in their 30s are earning less than their father's generation did, challenging a long-held belief that each generation will be better off than the one that preceded it, according to a new study published Friday.

The report, the first in an ongoing 18-month study on economic mobility in the United States, also revealed that the income growth of the median American household is declining.


The study was produced by a handful of politically diverse think tanks including the Pew Charitable Trusts, the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Urban Institute. It looked at income levels of American men in their 30s, which can be a good indicator of lifetime income.
...
Relying on Census Bureau figures, the study's authors found that after adjusting for inflation, men in their 30s in 2004 had a median income of about $35,000 per year, for a 12 percent drop compared with $40,000 per year for men in the same age group in 1974.

That stood in stark contrast to men in their 30s in 1994, who earned 5 percent more than their fathers did.
...
[/list]

Do you homework and please quit spouting from the "right-wing/Reagan-trickle-down/cut-taxes-to-increase-revenue/disagree- with-me-so-you're-ignorant" mantra. Amaze me by being open-minded to the possibility that "reaganomics" is flawed. Look at the data I presented and think about it and then, if you don't think it supports my point, explain logically why. Feel free to show me some [i]real evidence that both wealth and income are not generally becoming more skewed over time. Whatever you do - don't come back with more O'Reilly Factor debating tricks like calling someone who disagrees with you uninformed. Anyone can make that accusation without providing a single logical counter point. If you can't do that, then die already.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, lowering tax rates has the effect of raising tax revenues, as demonstrated by Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think you can keep lowering tax rates to zero, and revenues will keep going up and up?



[/ QUOTE ]

To zero? No. If you make tax rates 100% will tax revenues go up and up and up?


[ QUOTE ]
the very claim you are making - that tax cuts somehow INCREASE revenues.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from the ridiculous assertions you point to of someone else's opinion, I see the actual facts don't seem to faze you since they totally discredit your knee-jerk, fact-free response.

But don't take my word for it, look at the CBO data unless you're afraid to admit you're 100% wrong, it seems you were either too scared or ignorant to simply check the data.

In 1997, the tax rate on capital-gains income was cut by the Republican Congress. As supply-side theory would predict, compared with revenues expected by CBO in 1996 before the cuts were enacted, actual tax receipts were 5% higher in 1997, 10% higher in 1998, and 12% higher in 1999.

'Last year the Congressional Budget Office released its annual Budget and Economic Outlook, and buried in one of its nearly impenetrable tables of numbers is a remarkable story that has gone entirely unreported by the mainstream media:

The 2003 tax cut on capital gains has entirely paid for itself. More than paid for itself. Way more.

To appreciate this story, we have to go back in time to January 2003, before the tax cut was enacted. Table 3-5 on page 60 in CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook published in 2003 estimated that capital-gains tax liabilities would be $60 billion in 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $125 billion.

Now let's move forward a year, to January 2004, after the capital-gains tax cut had been enacted. Table 4-4 on page 82 in CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook of that year shows that the estimates for capital-gains tax liabilities had been lowered to $46 billion in 2004 and $52 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $98 billion. Compare the original $125 billion total to the new $98 billion total, and we can infer that CBO was forecasting that the tax cut would cost the government $27 billion in revenues.

Those are the estimates. Now let's see how things really turned out. Take a look at Table 4-4 on page 92 of the Budget and Economic Outlook released this week. You'll see that actual liabilities from capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004, and $80 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $151 billion. So let's do the math one more time: Subtract the originally estimated two-year liability of $125 billion from the actual liability of $151 billion, and you get a $26 billion upside surprise for the government. Yes, instead of costing the government $27 billion in revenues, the tax cuts actually earned the government $26 billion extra.
http://www.americanshareholders.com/blog/uploaded_images/image002-782484.gif

This should come as no surprise since the same effect occurred following the 1981 and 1997 capital gains tax reductions. Following the 1997 capital gains tax cut revenues increased $24 billion above the forecast in 1998 and $36 billion above forecast in 1999 due to higher levels of economic growth ...' ~ Dan Clifton

This trend continued in 2006, making the numbers even more dramatic, well over $100bn extra in tax dollars collected than originally forecast in just 3 years.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf

Seriously, your data-free reply was hilarious. Your closed-minded opinion doesn't refute the facts no matter how hard you wish for it to come true.

[jkpoker]

tax cuts have earned extra government revenue the problem is government is to big and spends far to much.

Say what you will about Bush ( i like him for the most part)

he spends WAY WAY to much money

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, your data-free reply was hilarious. Your closed-minded opinion doesn't refute the facts no matter how hard you wish for it to come true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like the data showing that the Kennedy-Johnson tax cut, which you yourself cited, recouped only one-third of the lost revenue? Which one of us ignored that, exactly?

If Bruce Bartlett, one of the foremost advocates of supply-side theory, says that it's a ridiculous exaggeration to claim that tax cuts magically make revenues go up, I'm going to go with his verdict, thanks.

You've cited a few examples of narrowly-targeted capital gains cuts and are attempting to generalize from that to a statement about tax cuts in general. I can't tell if you're being deliberately dishonest or are merely cutting and pasting someone else's disingenuous argument.

Anyway, I apologize for getting lured into a discussion that truly belongs in the politics forum, and I won't go any further down this road.

[TheEngineer]

UIGEA reduced my income (net and gross). I hope we can improve the situation for online poker.