How do people get so partisan?

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by woot

So did revenue increase over what it would have been without the tax cuts?

I believe this guy documents his findings pretty well...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm

* The tax cuts have not substantially reduced current tax revenues, which were in fact not far from the 2000 pre–tax cut baseline and over the 2003 pre–tax cut baseline in 2006;
* The increased child tax credit, 10 percent tax bracket, and fix of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) reduced tax revenues much more than most of the "tax cuts for the rich";
* Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts; and
* The tax cuts shifted even more of the income tax burden toward the rich.

[woot]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

I believe this guy documents his findings pretty well...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm

That's interesting. So is Bush an economic genius of unprecedented proportions? I'm just wondering why no one in the history of the world has ever cut taxes during a war.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by woot

That's interesting. So is Bush an economic genius of unprecedented proportions? I'm just wondering why no one in the history of the world has ever cut taxes during a war.

Dunno about "an economic genius of unprecedented proportions". Just saying that the arguments the dude presents seem fairly well supported (NOTE: you have to scroll all the way down where he goes into detail on each argument and provides links to his sources - mostly GAO stuff).

I find it ironic that in a thread about how partisan people are, your rhetoric appears to have the most partisan tone:

"an economic genius of unprecedented proportions" (I'm assuming you were intending sarcasm here)
"Bush's ludicrous wartime tax cuts for the wealthy"
"Your post is just another example of the results of mindless partisanship"

[woot]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

Dunno about "an economic genius of unprecedented proportions". Just saying that the arguments the dude presents seem fairly well supported (NOTE: you have to scroll all the way down where he goes into detail on each argument and provides links to his sources - mostly GAO stuff).

I find it ironic that in a thread about how partisan people are, your rhetoric appears to have the most partisan tone:

"an economic genius of unprecedented proportions" (I'm assuming you were intending sarcasm here)
"Bush's ludicrous wartime tax cuts for the wealthy"
"Your post is just another example of the results of mindless partisanship"

I actually wasn't intended sarcasm there. I'm truly interested to know whether cutting taxes is actually more effective than raising taxes at increasing revenue, and if so, why Bush was the first one to employ such a strategy during wartime. Bush isn't exactly known for his intellect, so I'm curious as to how that all worked out. It's just very counterintuitive to me, having had very little economic training.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by woot

I actually wasn't intended sarcasm there. I'm truly interested to know whether cutting taxes is actually more effective than raising taxes at increasing revenue, and if so, why Bush was the first one to employ such a strategy during wartime. Bush isn't exactly known for his intellect, so I'm curious as to how that all worked out. It's just very counterintuitive to me, having had very little economic training.

Look up "Laffer Curve" on wikipedia - that should get you started. The basic idea is that taxes depend not only on tax rate but also on the size of the tax base. The theory is that if you increase the tax rate too high you'll eventually shrink the tax base. If you decrease the tax rate too low you'll eventually collect no taxes. If we are on the right side of the Laffer Curve then reducing taxes will theoretically increase revenue.

Obviously there are both proponents and opponents of the ideas of supply-side economics. Ideas like the Laffer Curve are largely impossible to mathematically prove either true or false because there are so many interdependent variables. While one may legitimately disagree with the Bush tax cuts (one can argue that we're already on the left side of the curve, for example), there are plenty of sound arguments made in their favor that are not easy to prove or refute. Thus, in my opinion, using rhetoric such as "ludicrous wartime tax cuts for the wealthy" marks one as a partisan rather than as one who gives thoughtful consideration to the issues.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BYU71

I am actually for keeping the current tax rates in effect except, once someone makes $1,000,000 and over we start taxing the hell out of them.

I would especially carve out a special rate for Entertainers, liability lawyers, athletes and corp. CEO's. They would pay the increased rate, plus a 20% surcharge. I have no problem with them being taxed at a cummulative rate of 70% on income over $3,000,000.

I believe anthropologists should be taxed at a rate of eighty percent for anything over ten thousand with no deductions. They obviously make too much money.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

I actually wasn't intended sarcasm there. I'm truly interested to know whether cutting taxes is actually more effective than raising taxes at increasing revenue, and if so, why Bush was the first one to employ such a strategy during wartime. Bush isn't exactly known for his intellect, so I'm curious as to how that all worked out. It's just very counterintuitive to me, having had very little economic training.

Your economic assumptions lay clear for all to see you lack any economic sensibilities. Meanie presents the clear case for Laugher curve discussions as well as the Heritage Foundation arguments.

I suppose Al Gore invented the Economy as well. Or was that Hillary Clinton who first created the Economy when she rose out of Purgatory to make our lives living hells.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Your economic assumptions lay clear for all to see you lack any economic sensibilities. Meanie presents the clear case for Laugher curve discussions as well as the Heritage Foundation arguments.

I suppose Al Gore invented the Economy as well. Or was that Hillary Clinton who first created the Economy when she rose out of Purgatory to make our lives living hells.

Yes, good job adding so much to the conversation. I appreciate Big Meanie's willingness to provide information, rather than just pat himself on the back. Your invocation of Al Gore (with accompanying lies) demonstrates your thoughtlessness on these matters.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

Look up "Laffer Curve" on wikipedia - that should get you started. The basic idea is that taxes depend not only on tax rate but also on the size of the tax base. The theory is that if you increase the tax rate too high you'll eventually shrink the tax base. If you decrease the tax rate too low you'll eventually collect no taxes. If we are on the right side of the Laffer Curve then reducing taxes will theoretically increase revenue.

Obviously there are both proponents and opponents of the ideas of supply-side economics. Ideas like the Laffer Curve are largely impossible to mathematically prove either true or false because there are so many interdependent variables. While one may legitimately disagree with the Bush tax cuts (one can argue that we're already on the left side of the curve, for example), there are plenty of sound arguments made in their favor that are not easy to prove or refute. Thus, in my opinion, using rhetoric such as "ludicrous wartime tax cuts for the wealthy" marks one as a partisan rather than as one who gives thoughtful consideration to the issues.

I don't think there are any credible economists that believe in Laffer curve anymore. It's a true principle, but tax rates would have to be much higher to put us on the right hand side of the curve and make it so that tax cuts would increase revenue. This is true for both now and the Reagan era.

Pelagius, what's your view?

[ute4ever]

Of all of the LDS members who plan on voting for Romney, how many of them do you think would vote for him if he were to run again in 2012, but as a democrat? I think about >95% would. Being partisan runs deeper than the party.