The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[JWBear]

Yes, but the problem is when they cut the taxes for the rich and the big corporations only.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Whether it is the Demand-side cuts of JFK or the Supply-side cuts of RWR I think a case can be made that tax cuts do create more revenue.....at least in the short term.

Pure correlation, no cause/effect relationship can be proven.

[scaeagles]

I guess it all depends on how you define rich. My taxes have gone down, and I'm not rich at all.

Rather than copying the information, here's some good info, particularly about myth #10 - that the tax cuts benefit only the "rich". And they are certainly not the only ones who have gotten tax cuts, but again the problem is that the tax burden is so top heavy already tax cuts will naturally affect those that pay the greatest amount of taxes.

Again, I'm not rich, and my taxes have gone down.

The corporate tax is a myth. Raise corporate taxes, corporations raise prices, passing the so called corporate soaking taxes on to the consumer.

Easy solution? Eliminate the income tax and go to property and sales taxes only. But that takes too much power away from power hungry politicians that want to use the tax code as a source of power.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Pure correlation, no cause/effect relationship can be proven.

Perhaps....but it has also been done on the State level too......Bill Richardson, the current 4th place contender for the Democratic nomination lowered taxes in his state and viola.....revenue increased.

Correlation? Maybe.....but can you find an equal number of recent correlations showing that lowering taxes produces less revenue?

btw: Is "proven" a word? My spell check didn't like it???

[3894]

1. Ron Paul appeared to be missing some marbles during the NH Republican debate.

2. Some of the others - particularly Mitt Romney and John McCain - seemed to be smirking at Ron Paul's simplicity.

3. What combination of factors would lead a person to be as big a donkey's rear as Fred Thompson appears to be?

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Yes, but the problem is when they cut the taxes for the rich and the big corporations only.

Can you please define "rich" for me? In rural Arkansas most of the people here on LoT might be concidered "rich". In suburban DC where I live the housing prices, food prices and just cost of everything prices set the bar a hell of a lot higher.

So precisely how do you define that term? Do you take into account geographic disparity?

[scaeagles]

I didn't watch the debate last night, but I don't find Thompson to be that way at all. But you probably aren't sickened by the very sound of Edward's voice like I am.

[3894]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

But you probably aren't sickened by the very sound of Edward's voice like I am.

Is it the accent or the words?

[Morrigoon]

Count me in on the "please define rich" standpoint. After all, here in California, you need a 6-figure income just to buy a house. Are those people "rich"? Couldn't they use a tax cut too?

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Can you please define "rich" for me? In rural Arkansas most of the people here on LoT might be concidered "rich". In suburban DC where I live the housing prices, food prices and just cost of everything prices set the bar a hell of a lot higher.

So precisely how do you define that term? Do you take into account geographic disparity?

Here.