Obama calls for increase in Federal Gas Tax

[pocketfullofshells]

I agree that it is wording only.

For example, it is clear that both "tax rebate" and "tax cut" put more money in your pocket. . .whether it is for one year or for 10 years doesn't matter. What does matter is that tax rebate have less of an impact on the deficit, because it is "time controlled" and it's impact is usually greater for people with little income than for people with large income.

$300.00 doesn't mean the same thing for someone making $20,000 a year, than for someone making $200,000 a year! In fact, many of my neighbors didn't even REALIZE that they had gotten a tax rebate! It was kind of "lost" among their dividend income! While my cleaning lady was very happy to tell me what she had spent that "windfall" on. . .and how fast!

So, the $300.00 in tax rebate that went to my cleaning lady immediately had a positive impact on the economy. The $300.00 that went in my neighbors' bank account stayed there. . .

all I just heard was that you make to much if you have your own cleaning lady..slacker lol

but yea thats the problem...if you said lets just give the people making under 70,000 a year more money...but we will double the amount from the savings not going to the rest...it would have a lot bigger impact...But that your a communist fascist hilter who hates the "job Creators"

speaking of job creators...its funny how a company of 50,000 workers all building producs and making the company run and actuly making the product that is sold paying the bills of the top guys...They are not job Creators...even though without them..the CEO would have no job...But with no CEO...I bet they would be able to keep going.Working class...the real job Creators.

 

[GenSeneca]

funny how for 8 years Bush had a tax cut...

Why is that funny? Unlike Obama, Bush actually lowered tax rates. Remember? You should, you attack him for cutting taxes all the time.

(BTW, if it was bad for Bush to "cut" taxes during a time of war, why don't you also cry about Obama "cutting" taxes while the exact same wars are still being fought?)

Bush, like Obama, also handed out government money but Bush called them "Rebate Checks" while Obama calls the same checks "Tax Cuts".

The Newspeak you Ministry of Truthers are pushing is truly Orwellian.

Obama lowered your taxes, call it what you want..tax payers dont care as long as they get there money.

My tax rates remained unchanged, therefore, Obama did not lower my taxes.

And then there is the issue of "tax payers" with a negative tax liability who, got back more than they paid into the system, then also got the "rebate" checks. They didn't get "there" money, that money came from ACTUAL tax payers, like me. Not a single one of those tax parasites has cleaned my house, or cut my grass, or cleaned my gutters, or done anything at all to actually earn the money I worked hard for, Obama simply handed my money over to them... Just like Bush did.

 

[GenSeneca]

but yea thats the problem...if you said lets just give the people making under 70,000 a year more money...but we will double the amount from the savings not going to the rest...

How about we start by redistributing YOUR wealth?

speaking of job creators...its funny how a company of 50,000 workers all building producs and making the company run and actuly making the product that is sold paying the bills of the top guys...They are not job Creators...even though without them..the CEO would have no job...

They only have those jobs because the company was built, over time, from a one man operation into a thriving business with 50,000 employees, all thanks to the real job creator - The man who created the business.

But with no CEO...I bet they would be able to keep going.

They'd "keep going" just long enough to sink the company that someone else worked so hard to build. There are no shortage of examples of just that happening around the world. It happens every time people like you take power and kick the men of ability out of their own businesses and hand it over to the wage slaves who have no appreciation for, or experience at, operating a business.

 

[PLC1]

My tax rates remained unchanged, therefore, Obama did not lower my taxes.

I paid less in taxes, therefore, Obama and Bush both lowered my taxes.

Was it advisable to lower taxes while putting a war on our collective MasterCard?

Was it advisable to lower taxes while running a record deficit?

If trickle down economics works, then it was, wasn't it?

 

[steveox]

I paid less in taxes, therefore, Obama and Bush both lowered my taxes.

Really ?? Read this

Obama Calls for Extension of Gas Tax to Fund Highway Construction, Repair

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nd-highway-construction-repair/#ixzz1XD9tsQ6E

 

[PLC1]

Really ?? Read this

Obama Calls for Extension of Gas Tax to Fund Highway Construction, Repair

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nd-highway-construction-repair/#ixzz1XD9tsQ6E

What about it? He's advocating that we continue an existing tax.

 

[GenSeneca]

I paid less in taxes...

With the Bush Tax Cuts, yes, you actually PAID less in taxes because your rate was cut. Obama didn't cut your rate, therefore, you paid the SAME in taxes.

If that's still to complicate for you to understand...

Your rate is reduced from 15% to 12%, you PAY less in taxes.

Your rate remains at 15%, you do not PAY less in taxes.

A tax rebate comes AFTER government collects your money, not before...

And I notice you have nothing to say about the millions of people who got back more money than they paid into the system and were further allowed to collect a bonus check that I helped fund. For them it was a bonus check, not a refund, not a rebate, it was free money, to go with the other free money they got from Uncle Sam, all at the expense of actual tax payers, like me.

Was it advisable to lower taxes while putting a war on our collective MasterCard?

Since there is no causal link between tax rates and revenue, I don't really think it matters.

Was it advisable to lower taxes while running a record deficit?

Since there is no causal link between tax rates and revenue, I don't really think it matters.

If trickle down economics works, then it was, wasn't it?

I'd say trickle down works just as well as your trickle up theory on economics.... Both are predicated on the existence of a causal link between tax rates and revenue/GDP - A link which does not exist.

 

[PLC1]

With the Bush Tax Cuts, yes, you actually PAID less in taxes because your rate was cut. Obama didn't cut your rate, therefore, you paid the SAME in taxes.

If that's still to complicate for you to understand...

Your rate is reduced from 15% to 12%, you PAY less in taxes.

Your rate remains at 15%, you do not PAY less in taxes.

A tax rebate comes AFTER government collects your money, not before...

No, it didn't. I didn't pay the government, then get a rebate back. The rebate came from the tax bill directly. It doesn't really matter, of course, as the total out of my pocket is what I'm interested in anyway. How the number is calculated is not relevant.

And I notice you have nothing to say about the millions of people who got back more money than they paid into the system and were further allowed to collect a bonus check that I helped fund. For them it was a bonus check, not a refund, not a rebate, it was free money, to go with the other free money they got from Uncle Sam, all at the expense of actual tax payers, like me.

For them, it was a bonus check. For me, it was a tax cut.

Since there is no causal link between tax rates and revenue, I don't really think it matters.


Since there is no causal link between tax rates and revenue, I don't really think it matters.

We already had this discussion. I already showed you that the percent of GDP that constitutes federal revenues has has gone from 21% to 17%, and that the revenue difference accounts for about half of the deficit. Since you didn't respond to that the first time, I don't want to take the time to look it up all over again.

I'd say trickle down works just as well as your trickle up theory on economics.... Both are predicated on the existence of a causal link between tax rates and revenue/GDP - A link which does not exist.

and I say that trickle down represents wishful thinking. The difference is, I already proved my point some time ago.

Not that it really matters, but most Americans agree with me on the issue of tax increases.

 

[GenSeneca]

How the number is calculated is not relevant.

It does if you want to use accurate terms... Which you certainly don't care about being accurate.

For them, it was a bonus check. For me, it was a tax cut.

For you it was a rebate.

We already had this discussion. I already showed you that the percent of GDP that constitutes federal revenues has has gone from 21% to 17%... Since you didn't respond to that the first time, I don't want to take the time to look it up all over again.

I did respond, you cherry picked data that supported your conclusion while ignoring the data which directly contradicts your conclusion. You ran away and hid after that.

I say that trickle down represents wishful thinking.

Your trickle up theory is also wishful thinking, as I've proven. If rates increased revenue as a % of GDP, why didn't we see record revenues as a % of GDP when tax rates were at 70%? If there is a causal link, as you claim exists, then the higher the rate, the higher revenue should be as a % of GDP, but we both know that is not the case.

Not that it really matters, but most Americans agree with me on the issue of tax increases.

You're right, it doesn't matter... You can't support the existence of a causal link between rates and revenue without cherry picking only the years which support your conclusion and disregarding all the other years which directly contradict your theory.

As for "most" Americans buying into the trickle up theory of economics...

A survey from the Pew Forum on Religion showed that a vast majority of Americans, nearly 80%, believe in miracles.
​

That's why it's Wishful Thinking... People, like you, believe what they like to imagine is true, rather than believing only that which can be proven by actual facts.

 

[PLC1]

It does if you want to use accurate terms... Which you certainly don't care about being accurate.


For you it was a rebate.

I don't care if they call it a turnip. I paid less in taxes. $800 less, as a matter of fact. I expect you also paid less in taxes.

I did respond, you cherry picked data that supported your conclusion while ignoring the data which directly contradicts your conclusion. You ran away and hid after that.



Your trickle up theory is also wishful thinking, as I've proven. If rates increased revenue as a % of GDP, why didn't we see record revenues as a % of GDP when tax rates were at 70%? If there is a causal link, as you claim exists, then the higher the rate, the higher revenue should be as a % of GDP, but we both know that is not the case.

So, now we're only including the top marginal tax rate as the only little datum to consider? Now, who's cherry picking?

A survey from the Pew Forum on Religion showed that a vast majority of Americans, nearly 80%, believe in miracles.
​

That's why it's Wishful Thinking... People, like you, believe what they like to imagine is true, rather than believing only that which can be proven by actual facts.

Does cutting taxes and expecting an increase in revenues as a result qualify as believing in miracles?

 

[Pandora]

Really ?? Read this

Obama Calls for Extension of Gas Tax to Fund Highway Construction, Repair

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nd-highway-construction-repair/#ixzz1XD9tsQ6E

You need $$ if you are going to hire union buddies to repave the roads silly!

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't care if they call it a turnip. I paid less in taxes. $800 less, as a matter of fact. I expect you also paid less in taxes.

Nope, I paid the same amount and then got some of it back, you did too.

So, now we're only including the top marginal tax rate as the only little datum to consider? Now, who's cherry picking?

Still just you... Include all the rates, you're trickle up theory of a causal link between rates and revenue will still be shown to be imaginary.

Does cutting taxes and expecting an increase in revenues as a result qualify as believing in miracles?

Yes, but then so does raising taxes with the expectation that it will increase revenue as a % of GDP. Both theories are nonsense that cannot be supported without cherry picking data.

 

[steveox]

Well Tea Party folks will just throw more democrats outta office. It wont be long before republicans get over 300 members in the house.Thats a super majority. That means they can over ride any presidents veto and will not approve any plan the president has.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

you can't please the Right...give them more money and they pretend you did not..even if you can see it in your checking account.

 

[PLC1]

Nope, I paid the same amount and then got some of it back, you did too.


Still just you... Include all the rates, you're trickle up theory of a causal link between rates and revenue will still be shown to be imaginary.


Yes, but then so does raising taxes with the expectation that it will increase revenue as a % of GDP. Both theories are nonsense that cannot be supported without cherry picking data.

I already did support it by showing that revenues as a % of GDP went from around 21% in 2000 to about 17% now. Since the GDP is around 14 trillion, that 4% amounts to $560 billion dollars.

I'm not sure why I'd bother to dig the figures up again. Once should be enough.

Here's another chart. See what you can figure out from it: