Economic Myths: the ongoing list

Discussion in 'World News / Current Events Forum' started by jaeger19, Apr 28, 2011.

  1. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,499
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Parma idaho
    Well, if our country ever gets off discussing whether Obama's birth certificate is real or whether his grades were up to par.....

    We might get back to discussing the economy...:doh

    Listening to the pundits on both the republican and democrat sides, its pretty clear there is a lot of myths out their.

    So far:

    MYTH #1: "Income taxes are higher than ever"...

    Its already been shown on this board how tax rates were much higher in previous years... but here is an easy answer... THEY WEREN"T CALLED THE BUSH TAX INCREASES....
    The bush tax cuts did exactly that.. cut taxes... so that makes rates lower now than before.

    MYTH #2: "Its been proven that decreasing tax rates increases tax revenue"...

    This myth seems to be generated by proponents of the LAFFER CURVE... which does predict that at ultra high taxation rates that revenue will decrease as taxpayers either stop economic activity or more likely find avenues to avoid paying taxes (such as barter)...

    However, the myth is that this is always the case. The Laffer curve is just that.. a curve. The other half of the curve predicts that if TAX RATES ARE TOO LOW, then REVENUES WILL DROP..

    MYTH #3: Saw this one the other day... "if we tax those that create jobs then we will cut or stop economic growth"...

    Pretty good one:l:l... Except corporations such as mine pay taxes on PROFIT . Which is the money we have decided to keep rather than grow our businesses!... so income taxes fall on that money which the corp has already decided won't go toward growth!.

    Ironically, for bigger corporations, higher taxes can encourage growth.
     
  2. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    I was waiting for something like this.

    Those old tax rates you love to reference, why don't you ever mention the corresponding deductions and how overall tax burden has changed?

    Also, how do you respond to the recent discussions regarding taxing virtually all income over 100K at 100% and still not balancing the budget, given your often repeated 'increase taxes' mantra?

    That's an interesting premise that you attempt to portray as if everyone operates that way. For your own agenda here you can try to claim that by default the govt taking more of your money (regardless of the bucket it comes from) has no impact on your decisions and actions regarding things like hiring help all you want, but logical folks will stop you right there before you get any further down that imaginary road. Note, I said by default.

    You may claim your 'growth' decisions are independent of your profit all you want (and heck, who knows how you operate) but others tend to act a bit differently.
     
  3. Lowtide

    Lowtide Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    9,626
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    MYTH #4: The rich don't pay enough income taxes.

    MYTH #5: The government can continue it's wild spending spree when nearly half of US adults don't pay any federal income tax.
     
  4. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,499
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Parma idaho
    As far as deductions? More deductions in many ways now... thats in large part what the bush tax cuts did... then add that the stimulus bill included about 30-40% of its price tag in tax cuts... etc etc...

    as far as "tax burden"... you mean the rich paying more of the bill? Sure.. because thats where the money is. The middle class has gotten squeezed and wages are stagnant while the top percentage of rich has made a ton more. That means as a "percentage" the rich pay more...because they make exponentially more.

    Well, post or link said "recent discussions" and I will respond fully.
    Quite truthfully, that really doesn't make sense because if you look at our GDP at say 14 trillioin dollars... a large portion of that money lands in the hands of people making over 100k a year...
    Our annual budget was about 3.6 trillion...so it would seem real easy to balance the a 3.6% budget by taxing everything over 100k.

    But lets see your figures

    No "attempt to portray" Okie... thats how income and corportate tax work for businesses. You pay tax on the money that you don't spend on your business. Money you spend on your business (especially on growth) is a business deduction.

    Never have I said that nor would I ever say that. But the effect that taxes have on business are very different from what is commonly said...

    Here's a good example: The government spends a ton of money... why?
    Do you really think its because the government cares what Tom, the fat slob on welfare wants?
    Or do you think its at the behest of the major corporations that pocket all the money thats spent?

    What do you think happens when corporations realize that they can go to the great government trough for money.. but then never have to actually pay the taxes for those programs?

    Not at all... folks don't act differently. If you pay a lot in taxes.. its because you have a lot of profit.....
    If you have an opportunity to grow, if you put money into it... you don't have to pay taxes on that money...

    Its how taxes work.
     
  5. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    'More' in number maybe so, doesn't matter. Nevertheless, pointing solely to the rate 50 yrs ago and implying that people paid more overall is not the whole story and is not accurate.
    No I mean overall tax burden. How much of one's money ends up in the govt's hands. Regarding the point you make there, it's bogus. The vast amount of money being at the top does NOT mean that by default they pay more percentage-wise. It doesn't mean that all if you're talking about percent paid per individual. Percent of the 'bill' paid by that portion of taxpayers? Yes, but either way that is not what I was referring to.

    Great, you forgot about a little debt problem though.:l

    The tax year of 2008 was the last to date that the IRS has done this kind of analysis. In 2008 the highest marginal tax rate of 35% applied to all AGI above $357,700.00. In that year the total amount of AGI subject to the highest rate was $622.8 Billion. The government collected in taxes $218.0 Billion (35%)....In 2011 the annual budget deficit will be nearly $1,665.0 Billion and in 2012: $1,100.0 Billion....If the highest rate of 35% were raised by a factor of 20% to 42%, then the additional tax revenue would be $43.5 Billion, not much of a dent in $1,665.0 Billion. So, let's raise the rate by a factor of 50% to 52.5%; the additional revenue would be $108.9 Billion. Still nowhere near enough, so let's just tax it at a rate of 100%, bringing in an additional $404.8 Billion. Unfortunately the country is still $1,260.0 Billion in the hole for the year.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/why_we_cant_tax_ourselves_out.html


    I'm all for eliminating the corporate breaks resulting in folks avoiding taxes. I'm also for addressing the fact that half the country pays nothing. Address both or we're sunk. Acknowledge that we can't tax our way out of this mess regardless or we're sunk as well.

    True. This is another of your common tactics. You're not informing anyone of anything by stating that and you're also not making the point that you claim you're making.

    They are different than a lot of what is commonly said. That does not make them what you say. Big difference. You're trying to refute 'taxing the moneymakers creates less jobs'. Ok, have at it. Noting that tax is on profit does not in any way refute that notion. Part of the reason for that is the role profit plays in business decisions/practices.

    ***** right I do. There are lots of factors and it's certainly included. You refuse to acknowledge for one that Tom is even a fat welfare slob, but ignoring that you routinely portray Tom as a victim while attempting to negate his role in this mess and place all the blame on corporations. I say there's plenty to go around. You say it's all 'big business'.
    I think there's an issue there yes. But they don't pocket the money that Tom pockets and they don't make Tom go to the casino or the liquor store (whether they own them or not). Do you treat Tom? Are you the problem you speak of? Am I for filling his meds? Is Tom a degenerate leech because there's a doctor in town who takes medicaid or a casino? Is that what makes Tom a bum or might it have anything to do with Tom's character?

    I think just like and as bad as Tom, they milk it for all they can. I say treat them all the same. You say one is a victim and I guess magically becomes productive if corporations are taxed to death.

    If you have a lot of profit you are entitled to said profit and no greater percentage of it should be taken from you than from the guy across the street. Dang sure not 30% compared to zero, not counting the rest that you give up.

    Tax 'em all you want jaeger, you still can't pay for poor ole Tom any way you slice it.

    Furthermore, attempting to do so is going to result in a pretty ugly situation at some point.

    I have said repeatedly that the welfare leeches AND the corporate leeches will be told no one way or the other. Again and again I've mentioned both. You won't find me ignoring either, but you also won't find me claiming that if we just tax those who have it enough, we can address this problem.
     
  6. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,505
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    Why the conotation that anyone (individual, proprietor, or corporation) taking advantage of applicable tax code is evil? Tax avoidance within the context of the law is the goal of everyone (who of us does not purchase special tax preparation software or hire experts to exploit every opportunity to minimize tax payments). This is not tax evasion. If ya want to beat up someone regarding tax issues, focus upon those who approve and sign convoluted multi faceted tax laws. The vast majority of individuals and businesses are intensely interested in compliance with applicable law. If one is concerned about the money trough, then work to eliminate it rather than try to shame those who stop by for a drink.
     
  7. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    But that doesn't go very far in allowing one to masqeruade as champion for the afflicted, downtrodden souls....
     
  8. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,505
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    Yer right. Maybe we're just spectators of the wishful dreaming stage of a mid life career change.
     
  9. 'tween_fly_ways

    'tween_fly_ways Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    5,448
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    South Tennessee via North Alabama
    Absurd on so many levels. If you produce, you should reap.
     
  10. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,499
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Parma idaho
    .

    Number of reasons that suggest that "myth" is actually true. About 14 trillion of them

    Well, it can when 5% of the population makes roughly 50% of the income. and the top 1% makes about 25% of the income.
     

Share This Page