• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Lets the fiscal cliff happen! It'll be better for America!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Ausm said:
If we cut Welfare then your constituents who vote in lockstep for you party would be really pissed off...
Click to expand...

We have to cut welfare since it costs way too much money, I really dont care dont if they get pissed off that they dont have access to MY money
 
buckshot24 said:
The best way to get more revenue is to grow the economy. What is going to grow the economy? Raising taxes won't help the economy so it shouldn't be considered. Also raising rates can actually create less revenue. Are we sure that going to 40% on the "rich" isn't going to end up giving us less revenue?
Click to expand...

Yes, we are certain that raising taxes to 40% on the rich will give us more revenue. What you are basically arguing is the Laffer Curve combined with the old 'tax cuts pay for themselves' argument. The tax cuts argument is simply wrong, and has been proved hilariously wrong repeatedly. The Laffer Curve is a real thing, but it does not apply to such low rates.

I'm unaware of a single credible economist that thinks raising taxes on the rich to 40% will result in less revenue. Can you provide links to any? You don't really swallow that crap, do you?

Regardless of all that, 'going over the fiscal cliff' is a terrible idea, it's bad economics 101. As best as I can tell people think that if something leads to suffering it must be good for you long term, like eating your fiscal broccoli. There's really no evidence to support the idea that austerity measures now would lead to a better outcome down the road, but there's lots of evidence that shows that austerity measures now will lead to much worse outcomes now.
 
Your crazy Taxing both the middle and rich at higher rates is the only way out along with cuts to military spending and Welfare Medicare and SS. When Clinton was president there were far fewer people recieving entitlements . Now 50% of americans recieve entitlements . They don't care . They just tring to put off the coming civil war.
 
buckshot24 said:
Didn't the Dems have this in 2009 and 2010? They did jack squat about this, instead they pushed a health care bill through.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't have a supermajority. 59 including one independent. One guy died within 6 months as well.. and lieberman isn't even close to a democrat.
 
Incorruptible said:
People like you ought to be ashamed of yourself, you want to cut military but not welfare, pathetic but that is expected from you

Let the fiscal cliff happen, eventually those people on welfare wont be getting welfare since there is nothing left along with all the other idiots on the government dole watching them get nothing will be so sweet!
Click to expand...

HAHAHA. We spend 48% of the entire WORLD'S military with only 4% of the population and surrounded by 2 oceans and 2 friendly countries... yes, let's gut welfare first! Makes total sense!
 
eskimospy said:
Yes, we are certain that raising taxes to 40% on the rich will give us more revenue. What you are basically arguing is the Laffer Curve combined with the old 'tax cuts pay for themselves' argument. The tax cuts argument is simply wrong, and has been proved hilariously wrong repeatedly. The Laffer Curve is a real thing, but it does not apply to such low rates.
Click to expand...
Like in the UK when they raised the top rate to 50% and it actually dropped revenue collected instead of increased it? Were they "certain" as well?
I'm unaware of a single credible economist that thinks raising taxes on the rich to 40% will result in less revenue. Can you provide links to any? You don't really swallow that crap, do you?
Click to expand...
Who are these "credible" economists you're talking about? Those who agree with you?
 
shadow9d9 said:
HAHAHA. We spend 48% of the entire WORLD'S military with only 4% of the population and surrounded by 2 oceans and 2 friendly countries... yes, let's gut welfare first! Makes total sense!
Click to expand...

Typical idiot, doesn't want to cut welfare when it consumes a lot of money, the wars cost a lot too and should be cut but only a total moron would suggest cutting the defense and leaving welfare alone
 
buckshot24 said:
Like in the UK when they raised the top rate to 50% and it actually dropped revenue collected instead of increased it? Were they "certain" as well?

Who are these "credible" economists you're talking about? Those who agree with you?
Click to expand...

Did any economic analysis show that revenues dropped due to the increase in the top rate or did revenues drop for other reasons? From this thread and your other thread you don't appear to understand anything... like... anything about economics. Where are you getting these crazy ideas?

As for what credible economists, stop trying to paint me as being like you. I challenge you to go find a reasonably recent economics publication that says raising tax rates from where they are now to 40% will result in reduced revenue. (or something close to these numbers) Find someone who will back you up.
 
eskimospy said:
Did any economic analysis show that revenues dropped due to the increase in the top rate or did revenues drop for other reasons?
Click to expand...
The goal was to raise revenue by raising taxes. It didn't work, they received lower revenue, period. If there is another explanation I'm sure you could come up with it. However, the UK government didn't come up with one so they lowered the rate to 45% because they thought it was the rate that caused it.
As for what credible economists, stop trying to paint me as being like you. I challenge you to go find a reasonably recent economics publication that says raising tax rates from where they are now to 40% will result in reduced revenue. (or something close to these numbers) Find someone who will back you up.
Click to expand...
The problem is that I never fucking said that. In some cases raising rates will increase revenue, I'm not disputing that. The only one showing religious certainty about it is you. We may get higher levels of revenue by raising that top rate. For the UK the rates they used didn't work. They may work in our case.
 
buckshot24 said:
The goal was to raise revenue by raising taxes. It didn't work, they received lower revenue, period. If there is another explanation I'm sure you could come up with it. However, the UK government didn't come up with one so they lowered the rate to 45% because they thought it was the rate that caused it.

The problem is that I never fucking said that. In some cases raising rates will increase revenue, I'm not disputing that. The only one showing religious certainty about it is you. We may get higher levels of revenue by raising that top rate. For the UK the rates they used didn't work. They may work in our case.
Click to expand...

If raising taxes won't raise any revenue then why don't we eliminate all taxes then?
 
Ausm said:
Or the Bush tax cuts or Medicare part D which ALL added TRILLIONS to our deficit. I love how Rightists just kind of conviently forget this....

Oh I agree let's go over the Fiscal cliff and then the Republicants in Congress will take the hit. 😀
Click to expand...

Because it was only those DAMN republicans that wanted those. Who the fuck is defending Medicare/Medicaid right now? :whiste:
 
Ausm said:
If raising taxes won't raise any revenue then why don't we eliminate all taxes then?
Click to expand...
0 multiplied by any number is 0

But I'm not saying raising taxes rates won't raise money. The fact is that in some cases it doesn't raise revenue. The brits 50% rate is a case where this happened. Sometimes it does.
 
buckshot24 said:
0 multiplied by any number is 0

But I'm not saying raising taxes rates won't raise money. The fact is that in some cases it doesn't raise revenue. The brits 50% rate is a case where this happened. Sometimes it does.
Click to expand...

So basically we shouldn't do it here then because supposedly didn't work for the Brits?
 
buckshot24 said:
The goal was to raise revenue by raising taxes. It didn't work, they received lower revenue, period. If there is another explanation I'm sure you could come up with it. However, the UK government didn't come up with one so they lowered the rate to 45% because they thought it was the rate that caused it.

The problem is that I never fucking said that. In some cases raising rates will increase revenue, I'm not disputing that. The only one showing religious certainty about it is you. We may get higher levels of revenue by raising that top rate. For the UK the rates they used didn't work. They may work in our case.
Click to expand...

I don't know buck. 300,000 thousand retire every month now . Thats 300,000 more SS checks every month day in day out for next 10 years at least. The welfare types aren't going to work its a family tradition now . Live a life and do nothing with it . What A waste of human resources. The only way out is A 1 world monitary scheme. And I sure nothing will work until they have there one world gooberment that will stand less than a year. Befor that which doesn't exist proves his existance . Than I get to witness . You are so screwed
 
Incorruptible said:
Cut down the size of government and replace the income tax with a national sales/consumption tax
Click to expand...

Standard right wing tripe - shift the tax burden down the scale away from the pitiful rich... who spend a much smaller % of their enormous incomes on taxable items than middle class or working class people.

Not to mention that taxing consumption directly at 20% plus will obliterate demand, which is what's wrong with the economy already, lack of demand...
 
Incorruptible said:
Typical idiot, doesn't want to cut welfare when it consumes a lot of money, the wars cost a lot too and should be cut but only a total moron would suggest cutting the defense and leaving welfare alone
Click to expand...

It is like you didn't read your own post or my response...

And when the second word is a petty insult... you can't expect to be taken seriously.. but then again, your grammar and spelling is beyond atrocious. Surely a bot could do better than that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top