Sen. Graham: Republicans Should Accept Tax Revenue Increase

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I guess we'll find out when the revenues are updated for the next couple years....Cause they have 2010 heading UPWARD with Bush Tax Cuts expiring....Since they didn't expire (right?) we will see if revenues went down....If they did then that will be sufficient evidence (right?)!

Revenues are dependent on many factors, including tax law. Legislation generally has a lagging effect, since they usually go into effect sometime after the legislation is signed into law, with the notable exception of the 1993 tax increase which retroactively raised certain taxes in the previous tax period.

[웃 910]

Revenues are dependent on many factors, including tax law. Legislation generally has a lagging effect, since they usually go into effect sometime after the legislation is signed into law, with the notable exception of the 1993 tax increase which retroactively raised certain taxes in the previous tax period.

Tax cuts for the rich make the rich get exponentially richer while nothing happens to the middle class and poor. Oh, from the charts I have seen (maybe biased?) it appears as though there is a strong correlation between cutting taxes on the rich and an ABSOLUTE EXPLOSION in the federal debt starting with RR.

[luckytxn 2,263]

There are 8 million Americans out of 310 million that are mega rich millionaires. Are you one of them? Probably not so why do you care?

What is wrong with after, say, $15 or $20 million earned in a single year (just an absurd amount of cash), to start taxing the rich bastards at 70%?

So after $15 or $20 million they can keep $300,000 out of every $1,000,000.....

YOU KNOW, BACK WHEN THE FEDERAL DEBT WAS $1 TRILLION IN 1980 AND TAX RATES WERE AT 70%?

It should be crystal clear why our debt is so high (start at Ronald Reagan)...

http://www.google.co...Sjm79A04XiT1QDg

Yes and I remember when Kennedy asked for the tax to be cut so revenues will rise. he died soon after but eventually they did get cut then revenues rose. Why is this?

When taxes are raised then ways are sought to get compensated in other ways so a prohibitive tax is avoided. Back when there was a 90% tax on income over a certain amount there were ways to avoid that tax and it was used extensively so the revenue was not there. It will be that way again.

Now just as an example only. Here is a luxury tax that ruined an industry. Carter proposed and got a extra 10% tax on yachts over a certain amount. There at that time was a industry that had craftsman employed and even other businesses that catered to that industry. Well people that could afford that luxury didn't want to get hit by that extra tax and within 2 years that industry was almost non existent. There was a program I saw years ago that traced a town that had businesses that kept that town pretty much employed and that tax base made the town nice to live in. They came in with cameras and interviewer and they showed the town devastated. Eventually the tax was withdrawn but the damage was done. Anyone after that wanted a yacht had to go out of the country to buy one.

Usually when taxes are raised it usually means little new revenue except on certain consumer goods that have to be consumed. (especially paper products) Even then as the price increases the demand lessens. With the demand being less it means that labor suffers as they have to have a reduction in force. So yes there was an increase in revenue in that consumable but there is now less in taxes in other ways such as payroll tax and other products that were taxed before that makes paper products possible. It then becomes a snowball effect as the products that were used to make that paper are now lessened and that industry now suffers and less incentive to retain or hire workers. This also means unemployment benefits that cost us money.

Now some taxes is actually good and needed but too much is even worse. The best thing to do is to find a balance.

Now since you used a figure of 8 million to 310 million that means the rich are the minority and we can pretty much confiscate any part of their wealth we want. So instead of them having a certain amount we confiscate more. They are now going to shield themselves and lessen their whatever is being taxed. This now means that locally there will be less spent as Washington is now getting this. Not counting on what they are going to make sure they get compensation that isn't taxable at the prohibitive rate. We of course can just stay on their azz and find the other ways they are finding to be compensated and go after that next and so on but why do all this. It is now a war footing against the rich.

You may think we are getting more revenue but history has shown always that we lose by over taxing. Why not if we want the Feds to be our caretaker then we just not pay our fair share? If people opened their paychecks and saw more taxes being taken out then they can decide if they want that program. As it stands now we do not pay enough or we wouldn't have a huge deficit. Us arguing that we should take the rich for a bath shows we are unwisely passing on a problem. The rich pay now already most of the taxes. eventually we will take more than what will we do after the rich are soaked thoroughly? It will be us middle class stiffs next in line. Why don't we try and take a look at everything and be honest with ourselves before we get to that point?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Tax cuts for the rich make the rich get exponentially richer while nothing happens to the middle class and poor. Oh, from the charts I have seen (maybe biased?) it appears as though there is a strong correlation between cutting taxes on the rich and an ABSOLUTE EXPLOSION in the federal debt starting with RR.

Maybe you need new charts?

The path for this looming disaster started with the New Deal, when a country with left with no money after the Great Depression, decided they could solve all their problems by mortgaging their future. The Greatest Generation benefited from the greatest scam of all time, and left the rest of us holding bag.

[luckytxn 2,263]

Tax cuts for the rich make the rich get exponentially richer while nothing happens to the middle class and poor. Oh, from the charts I have seen (maybe biased?) it appears as though there is a strong correlation between cutting taxes on the rich and an ABSOLUTE EXPLOSION in the federal debt starting with RR.

You are right. After RR the Feds have taken any and all increase in revenues and spent even more. I have seen many years when we were having record revenue and to me I would think that we should be cautious and maybe spend a tad more maybe but the Feds go and spend even more and have record deficits even in the good years. Republicans are even more deceitful in my eyes because they use the name of conservative bur are not that way. They are right to an extent that a tax decrease does increase revenue because then there is more to spend and us as a people tend to then go out and spend that money and not save it. This means more revenue is being generated and revenue is taxed so thus we get more tax revenues. If most people just took that extra money and put it in savings then the tax revenue increase would be negated. Luckily for business we as a nation are not savers but die hard consumers.

[luckytxn 2,263]

Maybe you need new charts?

The path for this looming disaster started with the New Deal, when a country with left with no money after the Great Depression, decided they could solve all their problems by mortgaging their future. The Greatest Generation benefited from the greatest scam of all time, and left the rest of us holding bag.

Great society didn't help either.

[웃 910]

Maybe you need new charts?

The path for this looming disaster started with the New Deal, when a country with left with no money after the Great Depression, decided they could solve all their problems by mortgaging their future. The Greatest Generation benefited from the greatest scam of all time, and left the rest of us holding bag.

Federal Debt was $1 trillion when Ronald got his hands on it. He tripled it in 8 years. Since then there have been 23 years (since 1988).

8 years Clinton = added $1.2 trillion

4 years Bush 1 = added $1.5 trillion <------this guy added more to the debt in 4 years than Clinton in 8!

3 years Obama = added $3.x trillion

8 years Bush 2 = added a staggering $6 trillion....That's worse than Clinton, Bush 1, and Obama combined!!!! Did it have anything to do with carrying on Reagan's "legacy" of more unnecessary tax cuts for the rich?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Federal Debt was $1 trillion when Ronald got his hands on it. He tripled it in 8 years. Since then there have been 23 years (since 1988).

8 years Clinton = added $1.2 trillion

4 years Bush 1 = added $1.5 trillion <------this guy added more to the debt in 4 years than Clinton in 8!

3 years Obama = added $3.x trillion

8 years Bush 2 = added a staggering $6 trillion....That's worse than Clinton, Bush 1, and Obama combined!!!! Did it have anything to do with carrying on Reagan's "legacy" of more unnecessary tax cuts for the rich?

I am not going to defend Ronnie Reagan, or Tip O'Neill, for their economic polices. I did have a PoliSci instructor at the time, that stated that whoever followed Reagan would have hell to pay, for both, "...stepping on the gas and the brake at the same time, probably smoking the clutch as well."

[luckytxn 2,263]

Federal Debt was $1 trillion when Ronald got his hands on it. He tripled it in 8 years. Since then there have been 23 years (since 1988).

8 years Clinton = added $1.2 trillion

4 years Bush 1 = added $1.5 trillion <------this guy added more to the debt in 4 years than Clinton in 8!

3 years Obama = added $3.x trillion

8 years Bush 2 = added a staggering $6 trillion....That's worse than Clinton, Bush 1, and Obama combined!!!! Did it have anything to do with carrying on Reagan's "legacy" of more unnecessary tax cuts for the rich?

No it has to do with spending. It makes no difference if we went after every last cent that the rich have. The Feds will spend that and more. Just think about it. If we had a tax at 100% of anything over any amount then the Feds will spend all of it and more. It is all spending and nothing else. You must think I am pro GOP or something. The GOP has not only spent a lot but they have also in my opinion given us a more intrusive Government to boot. Both major parties are evil.

Do you think since I vote for Ron Paul as my Congressman that I vote GOP?

[웃 910]

No it has to do with spending. It makes no difference if we went after every last cent that the rich have. The Feds will spend that and more. Just think about it. If we had a tax at 100% of anything over any amount then the Feds will spend all of it and more. It is all spending and nothing else. You must think I am pro GOP or something. The GOP has not only spent a lot but they have also in my opinion given us a more intrusive Government to boot. Both major parties are evil.

Do you think since I vote for Ron Paul as my Congressman that I vote GOP?

You are closer to the GOP than the Dems imo because you are a DIE HARD RADICAL OBAMA HATER!

He's not a socialist.

[luckytxn 2,263]

You are closer to the GOP than the Dems imo because you are a DIE HARD RADICAL OBAMA HATER!

He's not a socialist.

I don't hate Obama the Socialist at all. I think he is probably a good guy but a moron and inept.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Desperate Posts, by a small boy! Moist towelette comin yo way.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't see why not - works for every other country in the world.

But it runs counter to the RWN theology. They have it gotten hammered into their skulls that higher tax rates do not produce but rather eliminate tax revenue while lower tax rates produce rather than eliminate revenue. So they are promoting the idea that lower taxes will let you keep more of your money and at the same time let Uncle Sam at least keep what he's got coming to him if not actually increase his take. Makes no sense but that's the story they've been sold.

[SMR 368]

There are 8 million Americans out of 310 million that are mega rich millionaires. Are you one of them? Probably not so why do you care?

What is wrong with after, say, $15 or $20 million earned in a single year (just an absurd amount of cash), to start taxing the rich bastards at 70%?

So after $15 or $20 million they can keep $300,000 out of every $1,000,000.....

YOU KNOW, BACK WHEN THE FEDERAL DEBT WAS $1 TRILLION IN 1980 AND TAX RATES WERE AT 70%?

It should be crystal clear why our debt is so high (start at Ronald Reagan)...

http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/top%2520tax%2520rate%2520national%2520debt.jpg&sa=X&ei=gqUfToHhB-Hl0QHz8sDeAw&ved=0CAQQ8wc4AQ&usg=AFQjCNFy00pJHHU7BLeSjm79A04XiT1QDg

8 million mega-rich millionaires? What's your source? I don't know what your definition of mega-rich is, but Wikipedia says that there are less than 3 million American millionaires, total. Considering that is net worth and not income, only a small fraction of those are making even $1 million a year. And if you are only going to increases taxes on income above $15 million, the effect is going to be very minimal. Basically, the income in the $15 million plus bracket is in the tens of billions, rough order of magnitude. Even if you take it all, it's hardly going to be a footnote on the national debt or even deficit.

And that is assuming that taxing this money is going to effect neither their motivation to earn, their ability to earn based on capital availability, nor their methods of manipulating this income so that it is exposed to taxes. And that assumption is flat out wrong.

Point is, you're not going to get there by just taxing people that supposedly aren't going to feel it. And those people that supposedly wouldn't feel it are going to fight it anyways.

[SMR 368]

But it runs counter to the RWN theology. They have it gotten hammered into their skulls that higher tax rates do not produce but rather eliminate tax revenue while lower tax rates produce rather than eliminate revenue. So they are promoting the idea that lower taxes will let you keep more of your money and at the same time let Uncle Sam at least keep what he's got coming to him if not actually increase his take. Makes no sense but that's the story they've been sold.

It's complicated macroeconomics and impossible to determine definitively due to the inability to run alternate realities in parallel and compare them. However, it's not reasonable to assume that raising taxes is not going to affect the amount of taxable income. The wealthy, in particular, have an income that is greatly dependent on the amount of capital that is available to them. Taxing some of last years profits/earnings away will mean less capital going into the next year. That means less earnings and less taxes next year.

I'm not going to argue that raising taxes lowers government revenue (it probably doesn't and it's impossible to prove one way or the other). The point is just that raising taxes weakens the economy and does not raise revenue by a commensurate amount.