Hilary campaigning on a far left platform

I agree that taking from someone isn't liberty. So I guess you'll join me in wanting fair wages and compensation, and want those benefiting the most from infrastructure and the American system to not get away with taking more than their share away from that system.

 

What is the return on tax cut -> GDP? I imagine it is not linear, and there must be a point of diminishing returns.

 

Explain in detail what a fair wage and who decides it.

 

I would say bush is far from the right. He is a staunch supporter of Common Core, Amnesty, and the Great Society to name a few. He will get his ass clobbered like Romney, Mcain and Dole. Clinton will run on class warfare and identity politics. I can not think of one accomplishment as Secretary of State or a bill she sponsored in congress.

 

Of course there is. do you have any idea how closely things like consumer spending are monitored in the united states? you think people are picking these numbers out of the air?

it's absolutely absurd and factually incorrect to argue that the debt grew because of tax cuts. It grew because of spending.

 

who determines what is fair?

 

I fair wage is one in which a person can work 40 hours, afford a safe place to live and have some creature comforts. Paying someone less than what it costs to live in a given place is not a fair wage and is taking advantage of desperation.

 

She would be our Francois Hollande. Pass.

 

it's absolutely linier. Obama's own economic advisor:

“In short, tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output.”

The Romers’ baseline estimate suggests that a tax increase of 1% of GDP (about $160 billion in today’s economy) reduces real GDP by 3% over the next 10 quarters.

A tax decrease increase of 1% increases GDP by 3%. Obviously if you lower the tax rate to zero there is no way to increase the revenue by the growing economy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charles...romer-knows-tax-hikes-will-kill-the-recovery/

To be clear we are talking about pure economic growth. Not the deficit.

 

Yes, in the same way that if my pay were cut the reason I would go into debt is because I continued to have to pay the same rent.

Spare me the Koch Bros' stuff. The Tax Foundation isn't in the business of managing national debt, just in convincing people to [itch bay] louder about taxes.

 

then you should be happy with the current system:

 

So it's linear, huh? All we have to do is cut taxes by 99.9 % and watch the GDP soar 299.7%!

 

Ah, OK, we are not talking about the "lowering taxes generates more tax revenue" that the early 90's conservatives kept quoting. Because obviously there would be a point of diminishing returns there, which is what I was thinking of.

Thanks.

 

what? no. in the same way if your pay went up and your rent went up faster than your pay.

jesus. these are real numbers. it's not up for debate that tax revenues went up significantly after the Reagan tax cuts.

 

absolutely. I find it very funny you are outraged by a study down by a flaming liberal.

 

I am sure that 1% is 1 percentage off of the current rate (lowering it from 20% to 19%). So you could only lower it to zero or 20 percentage points and raise the GDP by 60% (in theory).

 

You put your ass on the line, started a business that employs 50 people and now we want to make sure you redistribute your company's earnings fairly!

Is that what you're saying?

 

1) I can get free tv's off of craig's list.
2) How many of those less than 20k folks are either a) retired, b) receive money not classified as income, or c) disable or otherwise receiving substantial assistance?

We don't know, so this really doesn't prove anything. The working poor and the retiree would both fall into the less than 20k block.

 

I'm saying I would never hire someone if I can't actually pay them what it costs to live. Would you pay a guy minimum wage with no benefits? Maybe you would. I wouldn't.

 

yeah obviously there is a point where you lower taxes to the point where the increase in GDP doesn't pay the difference. most economists believe we aren't anywhere near that point though.