-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Trump Says The Way President Obama Is Running The Country Is "Stupid"
- Thread starter Curt James
- Start date
Historical Tables
Table 1.1?SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (?): 1789?2017
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls
* what is the number in Column D at row 116? it's -1,412,688
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688
irish_2003
Board Rep
there's a difference between combat arms and combat troops...the problem though is it takes something like 7-10 (or more i'm not sure) support personnel for every combat arms individual there is to function properly and many of those support personnel are in the field with the combat arms units the entire time...
Trump isn't popular by most opinions, I get that. Comparing Trump to Obama is at least fair.
Obama has never even ran any sort of business, other than our country(miserable failure there).
Trump has ran several and has a BK history, the difference is trump has negotiated and paid down his debt, our current president is in denial, he doesn't get it, the USA IS IN BK! But he, the destroyer, is still spending like the well is full.
The last time I was in New York, Trump tower was still there, and his net worth is estimated at 2.9 billion, over 200 times that of Obamas meager 11.8 million, but, Obama has a Nobel peace prize! And he deserved that, right? lol
BFHammer
Registered
The thing is your have to actually read US history. Tax cuts have worked every single time they have been used, booming economy. Conversely every time a major tax increase has occurred major recessions/depression follow.
Historic Tax Cuts and Economic Growth | Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
By Daniel Mitchell, Ph.D.
August 13, 2003
There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy's growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and "rich" taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden - a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.
Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to "soak the rich," the rest of us take a bath. Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions can prove useful lessons.
1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.
The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.
According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:
The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).
According to President John F. Kennedy:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits? In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.
The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).
According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:
At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.
2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.
The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.
The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.
The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.
Harmful Spending & Complexity
Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.
This WebMemo is excerpted from the author's, Daniel J. Mitchell's, Backgrounder, The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates, published July 19, 1996. The original publication, found here, contains footnotes and numerous charts.
The stupidest thing the US ever did was elect the Kenyan skid-mark to pretend to be president. His communist goals are to destroy the US to be remade into the new soviet style state.
I spend thousands of hours a year reading economic papers and there is no evidence that blanket tax cuts result in SUSTAINABLE GROWTH. especially when those tax cuts heavily favor those at the top, all it does is increase inequality in wealth when then leads to rent seeking. this is the trend that all of the data shows going back to the mid 1800's.
LOL @ Heritage Foundation....going on 40 years now and they have not produced one single economic paper that is heavily cited. nothing but ideologues at that place, that pick and choose data that suits their agenda.
tax cuts for top earners do not result in productive investments for the economy, such as those used for education, infrastructure, etc. that increase future national income of the working class. there is zero empirical evidence that supports the rationale that "blanket tax cuts" result in long term gains in productivity or even increases in real income growth. you also have to factor in the type of growth and the jobs that were added during those years compared to the low wage service sector and consumption based economy that the US has now and since the 80's. before the late 70's and 80's the US had record national savings, it's highest union participation rate ever and was still manufacturing based.
if you even bothered to read the IMF reports you would have found that out, the IMF is not some liberal think-tank either, they are loan sharks to governments...they are not the good guys at all
then there is also the problem of the constantly increasing costs of goods and services and the reduction of taxes, they don't really go to well together. the past 30 years the working class has seen income grow about 40% all of which was negated due to the constantly increasing monetary base which increases inflation which effects those that earn the least the most. top earners in the US have seen incomes increase 300-400% since the 80's and they are obviously the least effected by inflation and economic downturns. then there is also the fact that as taxes on capital and corporate income has been reduced the mean unemployment rate has increased.
the US is a low tax country, taxes are not the problem they are at a 60 year low. if you look at the OECD data you will find that the country's with the lowest taxes have very high income inequality and sluggish economy's (low real GDP growth). the only low tax country that does not suffer from that is Switzerland because they also have low income and wealth inequality along with a government that does not allow the markets to prey upon it's working class citizens as in seen in the rent seeking activities of capitalist in the US.
the economy of 2012 is not like the economy of 1980 which is not like the economy of 1920...not comparing apples to apples, you have to look at the details, not just simply tax rates.
LOL @ Heritage Foundation....going on 40 years now and they have not produced one single economic paper that is heavily cited. nothing but ideologues at that place, that pick and choose data that suits their agenda.
tax cuts for top earners do not result in productive investments for the economy, such as those used for education, infrastructure, etc. that increase future national income of the working class. there is zero empirical evidence that supports the rationale that "blanket tax cuts" result in long term gains in productivity or even increases in real income growth. you also have to factor in the type of growth and the jobs that were added during those years compared to the low wage service sector and consumption based economy that the US has now and since the 80's. before the late 70's and 80's the US had record national savings, it's highest union participation rate ever and was still manufacturing based.
if you even bothered to read the IMF reports you would have found that out, the IMF is not some liberal think-tank either, they are loan sharks to governments...they are not the good guys at all
then there is also the problem of the constantly increasing costs of goods and services and the reduction of taxes, they don't really go to well together. the past 30 years the working class has seen income grow about 40% all of which was negated due to the constantly increasing monetary base which increases inflation which effects those that earn the least the most. top earners in the US have seen incomes increase 300-400% since the 80's and they are obviously the least effected by inflation and economic downturns. then there is also the fact that as taxes on capital and corporate income has been reduced the mean unemployment rate has increased.
the US is a low tax country, taxes are not the problem they are at a 60 year low. if you look at the OECD data you will find that the country's with the lowest taxes have very high income inequality and sluggish economy's (low real GDP growth). the only low tax country that does not suffer from that is Switzerland because they also have low income and wealth inequality along with a government that does not allow the markets to prey upon it's working class citizens as in seen in the rent seeking activities of capitalist in the US.
the economy of 2012 is not like the economy of 1980 which is not like the economy of 1920...not comparing apples to apples, you have to look at the details, not just simply tax rates.
Yeah, lol that's why we are where we are now.
vicious 13
Registered
How do u know
vicious 13
Registered
I miss Clinton
GearsMcGilf
Registered
How Obama tax policies and budget deficit stack against Reagan's
The national budget isn't a president-only thing. So there's blame o'plenty to go around. And I'm really not too sure what Obama's peace prize has anything to do with the national budget.
Without the government and the inevitable taxes where do you think the infrastructure comes from when you want to run down to the 7-11 to get your Big Gulp? It sure wasn't because private enterprise thought it would be a nifty thing to build.
The national budget isn't a president-only thing. So there's blame o'plenty to go around. And I'm really not too sure what Obama's peace prize has anything to do with the national budget.
Yes, the wave of blame flows high, he is at the top of the wave.
it's always about the Nobel peace prize, you know that
taxes are what give a fiat currency value where it naturally has no intrinsic value, the no tax country that uses a fiat currency has never existed in reality in world history. and redistribution is a BASIC FUNCTION of every single society in world history dating back to the Egyptians, it is one of the basic functions of all economic systems.
i am neither an ideologue or an extremists, there is always a grey area. only extremists and children deal in absolutes.
you really should read the reports from the IMF that I posted. they dispell the myth of the good that Reagan's economic policy's did for the long term. 30 years of extreme income and wealth inequality is what lead up the the economic crisis. rent seeking always occurs in periods of extreme income/wealth inequality because excess wealth not only promotes selfish behavior it is not value neutral.
and David Stockman Reagan's budget chief has trashed the economic policy's of Reagan...as has Joseph Stiglitz
The national budget isn't a president-only thing. So there's blame o'plenty to go around. And I'm really not too sure what Obama's peace prize has anything to do with the national budget.
Yes, the wave of blame flows high, he is at the top of the wave.
it's always about the Nobel peace prize, you know that
If it works in DC it's got equal blame for the clusterfuck that is the condition we're in. Nobody there has the lion's share of guilt.
And the peace prize has nothing to do with anything, it's a red herring. Doing its job of distracting you from what's really going on.
with cars getting more fuel efficient, fuel tax will rise since it is the primary tax for roads and bridges.
There have been talks of VMT, a tax based on miles driven... lol, it's like Rome all over again.
gas tax in the US is the lowest in the OECD, it's why gas is so cheap in the US compared to the EU. cheap gas promotes excess consumption which translates to higher profits for big oil. cheap gas also allows urban sprawl, higher gas prices would keep workers closer to the metro areas where the majority of the jobs are. housing and construction, etc. would be even further reduced if the US had high gas taxes like other OECD country's.
inflation since the 80's has reduced much of the value of monies collected from gas taxes for the highway fund. it's less than 40B a year which is peanuts compared to the several trillion that is needed to repair US roadways and bridges. the gas tax is not indexed for inflation.
the US is a low tax country but we have high inflation. on average real inflation is double what the CPI states.
inflation since the 80's has reduced much of the value of monies collected from gas taxes for the highway fund. it's less than 40B a year which is peanuts compared to the several trillion that is needed to repair US roadways and bridges. the gas tax is not indexed for inflation.
the US is a low tax country but we have high inflation. on average real inflation is double what the CPI states.
Haha isnt it amazing that there are still people who believe in "trickle down economics". All they need do is look at the past ten years, taxes are lower now on the high earners than ever before, if that creates growth whats the dilly- yo ?
Im with you in saying the gap between upper and middle class is greater evidence of a larger problem
Im with you in saying the gap between upper and middle class is greater evidence of a larger problem
when they mention either "free markets" or supply-side economics it's akin to them saying "hey I don't really understand econ in reality but that stuff sounds good to my brain."
