Would you support a War Tax and if so then why?

[pocketfullofshells]

The whole premise is flawed... So many of you seem to be under the delusion that increasing taxes results in an increase of revenue to the government when history tells that such results are the exception and not the rule.

Over a 60 year period, taxes have fluctuated wildly, from 90% down, but revenue to the government has remained steady around 18% of GDP. When the taxes were the highest, there was less economic activity, resulting in a lower GDP and therefore less revenue to the government. When the taxes were lower, it resulted in higher economic activity and an increase of revenue to the government.

Since history tells us that, regardless of tax rates, we still collect 18% of the GDP, the focus needs to be on increasing economic activity in the private sector to maximize GDP and in the process we will maximize revenue.

Obama understands that higher taxes result in less revenue but, as he said in the presidential debates, his interest in raising taxes has nothing to do with increasing revenue to the government, its about "fairness".

Rather than cutting off our nose to spite our face in the name of "fairness", tax policy should be strictly used for the purpose of maximizing revenue.

So you are now in favor of what ever tax policy gives the government the most money? Have you fallen of the deep end, or not being truthful there? I don't think you realy want that.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

As I already pointed out numerous times, the supplemental spending bills give a much better picture of the true cost than just claiming a number up front.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...and, it never showed-up in Lil' Dumbya's budget-total, either.

How crafty!

​

 

[BigRob]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...and, it never showed-up in Lil' Dumbya's budget-total, either.

How crafty!

​

It was common knowledge that it was being voted on, it was well documented what the cost was. If you somehow missed all that, then it is your own fault.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It was common knowledge that it was being voted on, it was well documented what the cost was.

Please!!​

"Today I signed into law H.R. 2216, the ‘‘Supplemental Appropriations Act, FY 2001,’’ which provides funding for the Department of Defense and other departments.

This important supplemental appropriation provides urgently needed resources to enhance defense readiness and operations and maintenance; to improve the morale of our service men and service women, and their families..."

ONCE, it's (maybe) "urgently needed"!!!!

Every time, after, is merely a slick/easy way to avoid making it part o' the Budget!!!! ​

 

[BigRob]

Please!!


ONCE, it's (maybe) "urgently needed"!!!!

Every time, after, is merely a slick/easy way to avoid making it part o' the Budget!!!! ​

If you could not take the time to read how much funding was in each bill, then that is again your own fault.

Something prevent you from doing that?

 

[PLC1]

The whole premise is flawed... So many of you seem to be under the delusion that increasing taxes results in an increase of revenue to the government when history tells that such results are the exception and not the rule.

Over a 60 year period, taxes have fluctuated wildly, from 90% down, but revenue to the government has remained steady around 18% of GDP. When the taxes were the highest, there was less economic activity, resulting in a lower GDP and therefore less revenue to the government. When the taxes were lower, it resulted in higher economic activity and an increase of revenue to the government.

Since history tells us that, regardless of tax rates, we still collect 18% of the GDP, the focus needs to be on increasing economic activity in the private sector to maximize GDP and in the process we will maximize revenue.

Obama understands that higher taxes result in less revenue but, as he said in the presidential debates, his interest in raising taxes has nothing to do with increasing revenue to the government, its about "fairness".

Rather than cutting off our nose to spite our face in the name of "fairness", tax policy should be strictly used for the purpose of maximizing revenue.

If revenue remains the same regardless of tax rate, how can tax policy be used to maximize revenue?

 

[BigRob]

If revenue remains the same regardless of tax rate, how can tax policy be used to maximize revenue?

Well if lower tax rates result in higher GDP numbers and the % of revenue is the same. It would make sense that 18% or so of a higher GDP equates to more revenue.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Well if lower tax rates result in higher GDP numbers and the % of revenue is the same. It would make sense that 18% or so of a higher GDP equates to more revenue.

at the same time a lower tax rate for some people results in alot more spending then a same decrease for others. targets tax reduction is key, for that. And also there is always a point where you can reduce it it more and more, but you get less and less increase in GDP. otherwise we would have a tax rate of half a percent and have the best econ in the world and trillions in new tax streams...Just like you can't tax 100% and think you will make alot of new money for the goverment.

 

[PLC1]

Well if lower tax rates result in higher GDP numbers and the % of revenue is the same. It would make sense that 18% or so of a higher GDP equates to more revenue.

OK, that makes sense. Now, is there a point at which the % of GDP actually goes up or down, or does the principle hold regardless of how high or how low the tax rate goes?

If there is a point at which the GDP no longer increases, then it makes sense to set tax policy at that point, doesn't it?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If you could not take the time to read how much funding was in each bill, then that is again your own fault.

Something prevent you from doing that?

That's right.....keep changing-the-subject....or, Lie.

You're tooooooooooooooooooooo predictable.

​

 

[BigRob]

That's right.....keep changing-the-subject....or, Lie.

You're tooooooooooooooooooooo predictable.

​

....you claimed you did not know the cost... I claimed it was clearly in the funding legislation...

you claim I lie, and changed the subject.... interesting.

 

[LooseChange]

"In the middle of this recession, I don't think you're going to be able successfully or fairly to add a tax burden to middle-income people," Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan

Well that too damn bad now ain't it. If we love our freedom so much then we need to pay up. The middle class, upper class, and even the lower class are going to have to sacrifice senator and it's too damn bad if it costs us here in America. Freedom isn't free and neither are wars...