• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

That's not what the conservatives on this board said.

searcher

Senior member
Oct 14, 1999
290
0
0
<a target=new href="http://web.cetlink.net/~kellycm/taxes.html">1993 Deficit Reduction: A lesson on
taxes, economic growth, and jobs?as
reported by America?s premier
CONSERVATIVE financial daily news
publication:The Wall Street Journal</a>


Conservative politicians always threaten the public that, if Congress or the President raises taxes on the wealthy, the economy will slow down, unemployment will go up, and workers'wages will go down.

Conservatives? hidden agenda: we want to allow our wealthy
supporters?the ones who benefited most from the economic policies that forced huge sacrifices onto American workers during the 1980s and 90s?to be able to keep more of their money.

Reality: Raising taxes on the wealthy is just as likely to reduce the deficit and make more money available to proactively solve America?s problems?and save money in the long run. In addition, it may have absolutely no negative effect on economic growth, jobs or wages.

Here?s what conservative politicians actually said about the 1993 deficit reduction legislation that raised taxes on the top 1.2% of our wealthiest citizens:

&quot;Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating.&quot;

?Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)

&quot;The tax increase will?lead to a recession?and will actually increase the deficit.&quot;

?Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)

&quot;I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it?the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up.&quot;

?Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)

&quot;The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower.&quot;

?Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)

&quot;The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited? Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction.&quot;

?Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)

So, what was the Wall Street Journal?s take on the subject?

A Vote for Clinton?s Economic Program Becomes
The Platform for Often-Misleading GOP Attacks


Contrary to Republican claims, the 1993 package with a $240 billion tax increase is not &quot;the largest tax increase in history.&quot;

The 1982 deficit-reduction package of President Reagan and Sen. Robert Dole in a GOP-controlled Senate was a bigger tax bill, both in 1993-adjusted dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy; and both recent laws are dwarfed by the tax bills of World War II.

Moreover, except for a small gasoline-tax boost and an increase for the best-off Social Security recipients, the tax increases in last years bill mostly didn?t touch the middle class but hit the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.

GOP candidates also ignore the bill?s tax cuts for individuals and businesses, and nowhere do they describe the plan as a $433 billion, five-year deficit-reduction package.

&quot;It?s the silly season. People are running for office, and people who run for office say silly things,&quot; says Carol Cox Wait, a former top GOP aide on the Senate Budget Committee who now heads the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget?

In all but 11 of the 435 House districts, more taxpayers were eligible for an income-tax cut than got a tax boost? Even in those 11 districts? more than three-quarters of the people saw no change at all in income taxes.

--WALL STREET JOURNAL, October 26, 1994, A22.



And what was the Journal?s take on the subject three years later?

Scary Deficit Forecasts For Clinton Years
Fade As Tax Revenue Grows

It Rises Faster Than Outlays, Thanks to ?93 Budget Bill
And a Steady Economy


Where has the federal deficit gone?

When Bill Clinton was elected president four years ago, the government was hemorrhaging red ink at a rate of almost $300 billion a year, and forecasters saw little improvement in the offing. Today, his budget office estimates the fiscal 1996 deficit at just $117 billion?the lowest in dollar terms since 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office.

Measured as a share of the total economy, the U.S. deficit this year will run only about 1.6%?smaller than the deficits of Japan, Germany, Britain or, indeed, any of the world?s advanced nations except Norway.

Clearly, a stronger-than-expected economy has a lot to do with it. The tax increases in the 1993 deficit-reduction package that Mr. Clinton pushed through get credit as well. And, to a lesser extent, so do the spending cuts engineered by the Republican Congress?

For the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30,collections now are expected to be $97 billion higher than the $1.356 trillion the Congressional Budget Office projected 3 ½ years ago as Mr. Clinton was taking office. That is about 7% more.

By the CBO?s analysis, just over half of the $97 billion increase beyond projections is due to tax boosts in Mr. Clinton?s 1993 antideficit plan. The rest is due to a variety of factors.

--WALL STREET JOURNAL, August 1, 1996, A1.



(Note: For the deficit reduction, the Journal gives more credit to
Clinton?s tax increases than to the cost-cutting Republican Congress.)

And another year later?the Journal is still giving credit to
&quot;tax-on-wealthy&quot; for the deficit reduction:

Tax on Wealthy Is Boosting U.S. Revenue

Treasury Says 1993 Increase Is Helping Cut the Deficit


President Clinton sold the 1993 income-tax increase as a way to shrink the budget deficit at the expense of the rich.

Republican adversaries predicted it wouldn?t generate much revenue because the rich would work less and take bigger deductions. Now there?s growing, if still tentative, evidence that Mr. Clinton may have been right after all.

The recent flood of revenue pouring into Treasury coffers?enough to push the federal budget to a record $93.94 billion surplus for the month of April?appears to have come mostly from the nation?s biggest earners, indicating that the controversial tax increase may indeed be taking from the rich.
&quot;The available data suggest the surge in tax collections has come from the taxpayers with high incomes, who were the only ones affected by the 1993 changes,&quot; says Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.

Corporate taxes, which were increased modestly under the 1993 law, also have brought in more revenue, but at about the level the Treasury had been predicting?

The package, part of the 1993 budget agreement, drew harsh criticism from the right. Texas GOP Rep. Dick Armey, who is now the House majority leader, predicted dire results, &quot;Who can blame many second-earner families for deciding that the sacrifice of a second job is no longer worth it?&quot; he wrote...

&quot;The basic fact is that people looked at the 1993 budget
agreement and said there?d be a recession, the deficit would go way up and that tax collections would go way down,&quot; says Mr. Summers. &quot;What has happened is there has been a boom, the deficit has gone way down and tax collections have gone way up.&quot;

--WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 22, 1997, A2.



Not only did the deficit go down after raising taxes on the wealthy, but the economy grew so fast that many conservative economists thought that the prime interest rate should be increased in order to slow it down.

This is another of conservatives? hidden agendas: they keep promising workers that if we cut taxes on the wealthy and the economy grows, their wages will go up. But when wages even start to go up, conservatives do everything they can to slow down the economy. They never openly tell the public about the second part of their strategy when they discuss taxes, growth and wages.


Several other good articles here
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
I hear the approach of many (convervative) feet! They'll soon be here to tell you things like the explosive growth of the internet fueled economic growth and that offset any damage done by overtaxation of wealthy individuals and businesses. Or something.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
<yawn> drivel drivel drivel.

The implication you seem to be making is that it's ok to raise taxes on the 'wealthy' because there's no direct measurable negative impact on the economy. That idea is patently stupid, for a miriad of reasons, most of which I won't bother going into because someone who makes statements like this is too much of a moron to understand them anyway:

<<Conservatives? hidden agenda: we want to allow our wealthy supporters?the ones who benefited most from the economic policies that forced huge sacrifices onto American workers during the 1980s and 90s?to be able to keep more of their money. >>

Furthermore, that site you link to is obviously written by half brained pinko dimwits that sat through a freshman poli-sci class and now think they have a clue... &quot;Workers of the world unite!&quot; :D

 

Xede

Senior member
Oct 15, 1999
420
0
0
&quot;...economic policies that forced huge sacrifices onto American workers during the 1980s and 90s?to be able to keep more of their money&quot;

ahhHAHAHAHAaaa... those poor folks. Nothing gives me more pleasure than making rich people richer.
 

Pennstate

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 1999
3,211
0
0
There goes another media outlet that's going to be labeled liberal biased. That's how the Conservatives answer these facts.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Pennstate
&quot;Etech, you've lost your credibility from your CNB.com posts. SO just stop wasting our and your time &quot;
Do you think the stockmarket will skyrocket if Bush is elected?
Pennstate
There goes another media outlet that's going to be labeled liberal biased. That's how the Conservatives answer these facts.

Nope, Pennstate, that is how you answer facts.

What is posted here is not facts and anyone who has studied the economy and history of the last 20 years would know that.
 

searcher

Senior member
Oct 14, 1999
290
0
0


<< What is posted here is not facts and anyone who has studied the economy and history of the last 20 years would know that. >>



Study This
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,508
46
91
You know, it's not about the effect on the economy. It about taking away from those who have worked hard to support themselves. I don't know many lazy millionaires . . . I know a lot of lazy people on welfare, though. Welfare shouldn't be a government dole; it should be a short-term fix to help people get on their feet and re-established.

If I bust my hump and pull down a good salary, why should I pay more taxes than some lifelong welfare recipient who keeps pumping out kids to get bigger checks who's too lazy to go get a job at McDonald's?
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Searcher:

Nice post. Taxing the wealthy leaves them with less money. Period. The dire consequences for the economy are and always have been pure bullsh*t.
 

I'm Typing

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,208
0
0
Searcher: Keep up the good fight, dude. Of course, you are going to convince none of the conservative idiots who think that bushlite will be good for their pocketbooks. Too bad the rest of us will suffer. The media, of course, will LOVE a bushlite presidency...scandal after scandal! Front page news!!!

Xerox: For every new millionaire out there today, there are probably 5 who have their money for no other reason than that they were born with it. They have accountants and tax attorneys to make sure they pay no taxes. I turn the question around: why should I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than a billionaire who claims losses on his stock market dealings?
 

Napalm381

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,724
0
0


<< For every new millionaire out there today, there are probably 5 who have their money for no other reason than that they were born with it. >>

Absolutely 100 percent WRONG. From Meet The Millionaire Next Dooor: About 80 percent of [millionaires] are first-generation affluent. Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.

Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.

More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.

Fewer than 25 percent ever received &quot;an act of kindness&quot; of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.

Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.

Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.

&quot;For every 5 new millionaires out there today, there is probably 1 who has his money for no other reason than that he were born with it&quot; is a lot closer to the truth.
 

I'm Typing

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,208
0
0
Napalm: Good post.
My bad.

But it still does not change the second part of my post...why should a millionaire pay less taxes than (you) or I?
 

DABANSHEE

Banned
Dec 8, 1999
2,355
0
0
The simple fact is Xero man, that on average wealthy people are no more productive than anyone else. Really the most productive people are dirt poor immigrants, like Mexican fruit pickers working 15 hours a day for $3 hour so you have fruit to eat; &amp; Vietnamese families working as outworkers in the garment trade sitting arround their living/dining room 18 hours a day sewing shirts together for 30c a shirt, just so you can have something to wear. Plus they are supplying the neccesities of life not some needless want.

&amp; here you are saying people like the Media Mogul billionaire, Kerry Packer, who spends most of his days on race tracks &amp; in casinos, are more productive. The simple fact is that if virtually every millionaire just stopped turning up to work, the businesses they own would still be just as productive as they'd ever been. Whereas if every warfy stopped turning up for work the economy would collaspe. Same thing would happen if assembly workers at Ford stop turning up, the lines would come to a halt, but if upper management stop turning up it wouldnt make any different to Ford's production line outputs.

Also the wealthy don't pay more taxes, because of their dodgy trust funds, income spliting schemes, profit tranferr schemes, acelerated depreciation schemes, 'bottom of the harbour' tax rorts &amp; family trusts, etc, they are able to slime there way out of most of their taxes, like the above mentioned Kerry Packer who only paid a measly $14 income tax last financial year. Now you might then say well even if they don't pay the tax the're s'pose to, the businesses they own/run/have shares in do, but then they also dodge most of the taxes the're s'pose to pay too, using schemes outlined Here. Really its the average PAYE (pay as you earn) mug who bankrolls the govt.

Besides wealthy people don't have to pay higher rates of tax, they can make a point of earning/working less so they can lower their incomes into a smaller tax bracket, that would also have the fringe benifit of freeing up work for others. If they chose to earn so much that they end up in a higher tax bracket, its there own fault.

Anywhere you are still better off in a higher tax bracket even with the higher rate of, Say someone had income of $2000000, but paid 50% tax they'd have a net income of $1000000, whereas the average mug earning $20000, just pays 15% tax, yet ends up with only $17000, so even though the wealthy bloke payed 50% in tax he was still better off. When I was on the railways I ended up in the 50% tax bracket cause of all the penalties &amp; overtime, but I was still heaps better off than when I was in the 30% tax bracket, &amp; at the end of the day that's what was important, so I didn't mind having to pay that tax at all.

It really amazes foreigners the way Americans are so obsessed about taxes - anywhere else if a politician offerred tax cuts to get elected he'd loose votes as people would think he was trying to bribe the electorate.
 

~zonker~

Golden Member
Jan 23, 2000
1,493
0
0
Take a look at where all that tax money comes from and goes to here.

Tax cuts are nice for everyone. I think a nice increase in the standard deduction or personal exemption would be a more fair way to deliver a tax cut. Everyone gets the same dollar figure in taxable income.

Note that personal income taxes is less than 50% of revenue and the US has the lowest tax rate as a percentage of GDP in the world.
 

Napalm381

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,724
0
0


<< why should a millionaire pay less taxes than (you) or I? >>

I don't think they should either. And I think your statement highlights the weaknesses of the bizarre entity that is our tax code. Loopholes and shelters abound, and SOMEBODY had to put those loopholes in- politicians. We've all heard the statistics that the income tax code is 14000 pages long and such. A simplification of our tax code would probably do wonders. And before anyone accuses be of being a Steve Forbes flunkie and proposing a flat tax, I am not. I'm merely suggesting that a significant revision of our tax code would eliminate a lot of the bullsh|t that goes on.

However, the rich DO pay a lot in income taxes. In 1998 (the most recent numbers I have on hand), the top 10 percent of households payed about 62 percent of income tax. The top one percent payed about 33 percent. If the rich are getting out of paying their taxes, as you claim, then why do they pay a significant majority of the taxes in our country?


<< . The simple fact is that if virtually every millionaire just stopped turning up to work, the businesses they own would still be just as productive as they'd ever been. >>

You ignore the role that a wise executive plays in the success of a business. Would the tech world be the same if Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, and other notable business leaders had not been the head of their respective companies? Extremely doubtful. The choice of a wise executive has more impact on the success of a business than the choice of Joe Blow over John Doe on the assembly line. Certainly, workers are a indespensible part of a business. But a smart executive is just as important for financial matters, market matters, and the like. If executives are so expendable, then why the high rate of turnover in top-level jobs? If a company is doing poorly, the CEO is often the first to go. The head of Gilette (sp) resigned just last week, due to the wishes of the board of directors at the company. The choice of leaders can have a marked impact upon a company, often time the difference between being a market leader and a second-rate straggler.
 

403Forbidden

Banned
May 4, 2000
2,268
0
0
What else do you expect from the Wall Street Journal...that's the most
liberally biased rag I have ever seen.

Oh another thing...the Feds have no right to collect 1 red cent in taxes
from me!
























just kidding...

The Wall Street Journal is one of the most conservative papers out there.

The US Constitution clearly gives the feds power to tax citizens.


 

JoeBaD

Banned
May 24, 2000
822
0
0
I'm Typing,

Since from this and some of your previous posts I have gleamed you know nothing about our tax law but just blow numbers and comments out you a$$, let me enlighten you.

Stock losses, i.e. capital losses, can be used to offset like capital gains. Only $3,000 per year of net capital losses can be used to offset ordinary income. I hardly think that those billionaires out there are reaping great fortunes from this.

However, charitable deductions are based upon the market value of the stock (or painting etc.) contributed. So if those same billionaires contributed appreciated stock or other assets they can deduct the full market value which may far exceed their original cost. This is a great tax benefit to the wealth!
But be careful about targeting this deduction for elimination. I think you would find many liberal leaning institutions eg. colleges, museums, libraries, various arts, up in arms. Funny how it works both ways isn' it.

Lastly, when you liberals talk about the evil rich why is it names like Kennedy never seem to pop up? Do a little research on the number and kinds of trust funds they have to perpetuate their wealth.


 

Shazam

Golden Member
Dec 15, 1999
1,136
1
0
Reading posts from ill-informed poeple who know nothing about macroeconomics always makes my day :)

PLEASE, people, TAKE SOME ECONOMICS COURSES!! This way, you guys won't sound like you're making stuff from your a$$, which in fact you guys are right now.
 

Napalm381

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,724
0
0
I've taken the econ classes, Shazam. I'm an econ major. What specific claims in this thread are you disputing?
 

JoeBaD

Banned
May 24, 2000
822
0
0
LOL

I just noticed that searcher responded to his/her own post.

&quot;Cool&quot;

Must be mighty proud of his/her self.
 

DirkBelig

Banned
Oct 15, 1999
536
0
0
{yawn}

Anyone who is against tax cuts for EVERYONE because those who already pay MUCH MORE get a larger dollar amount, though a smaller PERCENTAGE needs to explain why they are in favor of punishing success and hard work.

Two things to ponder:

1. When was the last time a poor person gave you a job?

2. I was in the vicinity of my office last night (Sunday, 6 pm.) and wanted to show the GF where I worked. There were few folks in working then! I gather that they make more than I do, so, should I hate them?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY