Dick Gephart

[Pick]

The funny thing is the Democrats in this country said the same damn thing about Reagan. They were against the tax cut then, and they called Reagan a moron. They said a tax cut would never help an economy........

[NSX-R-SSJ20K]

you do realise cutting taxes will results in lower public services

such as poorer schools
poorer libraries that will have less books and have had to cut staff (notice they don't have a lot of staff anyway)

There was something wrong with cutting taxes that made it a simplistic ideal that can go horribly wrong and which isn't a normal tactic by federal govenment,

[tomlong]

I believe the truth is that Dick just wants to try and make anything the president does look wrong. If the president was talking tax increases Dick would say that we need tax cuts.
In regards to the expense of war with Iraq over five years this war is supposed to cost 120 billion dollars according to Newsweek. Well base on our enourmous population this only equates to everybody in our country contributing $450.00. Where do I send my check. Lets break it down over five years. That would only be 2 and a half cents per day per person.

[texan]

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K
you do realise cutting taxes will results in lower public services

There is a difference between cutting tax rates and cutting tax revenue. The idea behind this tax rate cut is that it will stimulate the economy enough to (over several years) offset the immedaite loss in revenue, and even increase it in the long term. More importantly though, the immediate hope is that over the next 2 years this cut will help enliven the economy.

[TexasF355F1]

Originally posted by texan


There is a difference between cutting tax rates and cutting tax revenue. The idea behind this tax rate cut is that it will stimulate the economy enough to (over several years) offset the immedaite loss in revenue, and even increase it in the long term. More importantly though, the immediate hope is that over the next 2 years this cut will help enliven the economy.

That was my exact point. Its all for the long term advantages.

[YogsVR4]

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K
you do realise cutting taxes will results in lower public services

such as poorer schools
poorer libraries that will have less books and have had to cut staff (notice they don't have a lot of staff anyway)

There was something wrong with cutting taxes that made it a simplistic ideal that can go horribly wrong and which isn't a normal tactic by federal govenment,

No country has ever taxed itself into prosperity. Lowering tax rates lead to higher revenues. Its happened every single time its been done. Clearly its not practicle to cut rates to zero (although I fully support that) but even small cuts in the marginal rates have shown that revenues increase dramatically.

Little Dick loves to say its a tax cut for the rich. He is full of shit. Its a tax cut for the workers. Somone with 50 million in the bank will pay zero taxes and recieve zero tax breaks on that money. He still has fifty million. A shmoe like me who pulls in around 150G a year pays 40K in income taxes alone. I am hardly rich. So lets see. Man with 50 Million now pays 0 and still pays zero. Man with 150K pays 40K. You do the math. Who is that tax cut for again?

[texan]

The top 1% of American earners pay 35% of all income tax. The top 20% pay 83% of the total. And the top 50% pay almost 96% all federal income taxes.

So knowing this, what's the point of cutting taxes to the bottom 50%? Very little money would change hands, because very little money is changing hands now. Put simply, you can't cut what isn't being paid, and more importantly the idea of a tax cut at this point is to stimulate the economy. Giving the poorest Americans a few bucks back will do nothing for the economy, but give the richest some back (along with incentives for investment and business expansion) and you can actually make a difference.

That's the facts and theory anyway.

[Pick]

Originally posted by texan
The top 1% of American earners pay 35% of all income tax. The top 20% pay 83% of the total. And the top 50% pay almost 96% all federal income taxes.

So knowing this, what's the point of cutting taxes to the bottom 50%? Very little money would change hands, because very little money is changing hands now. Put simply, you can't cut what isn't being paid, and more importantly the idea of a tax cut at this point is to stimulate the economy. Giving the poorest Americans a few bucks back will do nothing for the economy, but give the richest some back (along with incentives for investment and business expansion) and you can actually make a difference.

That's the facts and theory anyway.

Actually, the top 1% in income pay 50% of all our taxes.

[1985_BMW318i]

Ronald Reagan was most decidely the most loved President in my time. I'd also have to say Eisenhower was a great president. We had a great economy and a rapid arms build up against russia at the height of the cold war. Nixon ended Vietnam and had so many back to work after LBJ despite Watergate.