|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 17, 2012 14:37:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 17, 2012 14:43:51 GMT -8
Sorry, but if it is not reported by Rush, Drudge, or NewsMax, it just can not be true. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 17, 2012 15:08:32 GMT -8
Sorry, but if it is not reported by Rush, Drudge, or NewsMax, it just can not be true. ;D No, but if reported by JFK, it probably is true... "In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus." – John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 17, 2012 15:55:30 GMT -8
Sorry, but if it is not reported by Rush, Drudge, or NewsMax, it just can not be true. ;D No, but if reported by JFK, it probably is true... "In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus." – John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference Oh gosh. You qouted JFK. He is a Democratic icon. Oh, I am so conflicted. Not. I will take the numbers guys from CRS. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 17, 2012 15:56:40 GMT -8
A not very convincing arguement or opinion. A stable enviornment with sensible regulations in place are thing not mentioned. This is purely a political writing and ignores the lessons of the past from Ike, JFK, and Reagan. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 18, 2012 8:34:26 GMT -8
A not very convincing argument or opinion. A stable environment with sensible regulations in place are thing not mentioned. This is purely a political writing and ignores the lessons of the past from Ike, JFK, and Reagan. So CNBC, a conservative business site, is not credible when it doesn't fit into your world view? Do the blinders you are wearing make you look like Mr. Ed? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Sept 18, 2012 9:50:45 GMT -8
A not very convincing arguement or opinion. A stable enviornment with sensible regulations in place are thing not mentioned. This is purely a political writing and ignores the lessons of the past from Ike, JFK, and Reagan. Ike's tax rates for the rich were high and the Gipper raised taxes three times. Those lessons? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Oct 4, 2012 14:10:33 GMT -8
A not very convincing argument or opinion. A stable environment with sensible regulations in place are thing not mentioned. This is purely a political writing and ignores the lessons of the past from Ike, JFK, and Reagan. Ike's tax rates for the rich were high and the Gipper raised taxes three times. Those lessons? The highest marginal tax under Regan went from 70% to 28%. That is what spurred the economic boom that we are still reaping the rewards from. By the way income to the government spiked upward even with a lower marginal tax rate. I love Romney's example of a simple method to simplify the tax code while spurring growth. Limit total deductions to 25K. Figure what difference that would make over the prior years and reduce the rates an amount that would result in the same value. That would be a boon for the county. That is because money would chase the best investments rather than the best tax results.
Obama's idea has a big unintentional consequence. If you lower corporate rates and raise individual rates, Do you really think that would have no effect on small business and the rate of incorporation? STUPID. Every small business in America would incorporate and states would lose millions of dollars in state taxes. STUPID. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 4, 2012 15:33:24 GMT -8
A not very convincing argument or opinion. A stable environment with sensible regulations in place are thing not mentioned. This is purely a political writing and ignores the lessons of the past from Ike, JFK, and Reagan. Ike's tax rates for the rich were high and the Gipper raised taxes three times. Those lessons? What we all must remember is that the tax rates are no indication of what one pays under this very complicated and even contradictory tax code. With all the loop holes that have been in place for years and just keep getting more complicated as our politicians try to create carve outs for their friends no one paid the top rate in the 50's just as even fewer do today. We need massive overhaul and simplification. Nobody should have to go to a CPA for their individual tax return. |
|
