PoliticsWho Cares: Swingers Discussion 2071581061

155
PoliticsWho Cares: Swingers Discussion 2071581061

Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

TOPIC: Politics--Who Cares

GoTo Page: Less ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... More

Start

61 to 70 of 284

End

User Details are only visible to members.	PEOPLE: A FLAT TAX would solve the debate. A larger economy would bring in more tax revenue. There would be a need for more rich people like Romney because the more they make the more taxes they pay. It would also make it easier for poor and middle class to move up and become rich and pay more taxes. The tax system we have now only controls people.
Denver CO			Username hidden (1312 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	From MIT - not from a 'friend' nber . org/chapters/c10945 . pdf
Pittsburgh PA			Username hidden (14772 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"1994 1,258,566 9.03% 1995 1,351,790 7.41% 1996 1,453,053 7.49% 1997 1,579,232 8.68% 1998 1,721,728 9.02% 1999 1,827,452 6.14% 2000 2,025,191 10.82% 2001 1,991,082 -1.68% Yep - look at the increases fall from 1994 until the TAX CUT of 1997!!
Pittsburgh PA			Username hidden (14772 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"You really are an idiot. Put up some sources and numbers. Then go right ahead and tell me that cutting the capital gains tax doesn't raise Venture Capital." Lol, your anger/insult level always goes up in direct proportion to your frustration at being presented with facts that don't fit your little ideology. Funny to watch. The cap gains rate reductions that took effect in 1997 had almost nothing to do with the venture capital investment you referred to in the late 90's. Venture investment had already grown 44% from '95-'96, and the growth rate actually slowed down a little in '07 and '08 (to 33% and 39%) after the tax cut passed. It grew wildly in '99 and 2000, not because of a tax cut three years earlier, but because of something called the technology boom. Perhaps you heard of it. Venture capitalists look for home run opportunities. When those present themselves, like they did in the late '90's dot com boom, there was going to be investment regardless of the cap gains rate. Did Newt tell you that his 1997 tax cut built the internet boom? Look at what happened to venture capital investment when further cap gain rates were enacted in 2003: nothing. (Well, not exactly nothing; VC investment actually declined 9% from the previous year). So much for the mantra/myth that tax cuts always spur investment. The numbers are below. I got these off a report sent to me a few years ago by a friend at Thomson Reuters and have no reason to doubt them. If you doubt them and can't find a reliable source, let me know. Year VC Inv (M) YOY +/- 1995 7,337 1996 10,590 44% 1997 14,104 33% 1998 19,658 39% 1999 51,395 161% 2000 100,367 95% 2001 38,524 -62% 2002 20,943 -46% 2003 19,057 -9% 2004 21,898 15% 2005 22,874 4%
Belle Chasse LA			Username hidden (8678 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Forbes "The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase" The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, with the top rate hitting joint returns with incomes above $250,000 ($400,000 in 2012 dollars). In addition, it removed the cap on the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax, raised the corporate tax rate to 35% from 34%, increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits, and imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes. Speaking at a fund raiser in 1995, President Clinton said: ”Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.”
Pittsburgh PA			Username hidden (14772 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	But Clinton was not wasteing Billions of dollars either like uhh Billion to Soros to drill in other countrys after shutting down our off shore drilling and Billions to other Countrys who hate our guts,,,BIG DIFERENCE.. Mickey..
Rayne LA			Username hidden (3827 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	8 years after 1993 tax increase???? roflmao!!! Aren't you fogettig the 1997 tax cuts???? What a retard
Pittsburgh PA			Username hidden (14772 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Dumbass - READ: TOTAL REVENUES.
Pittsburgh PA			Username hidden (14772 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Below I used individual income tax revenues, because we were talking about the effect of the Bush tax cuts and those cuts primarily impacted individual taxes. But using total revenues doesn't change the fundamental point either. 1994 1,258,566 9.03% 1995 1,351,790 7.41% 1996 1,453,053 7.49% 1997 1,579,232 8.68% 1998 1,721,728 9.02% 1999 1,827,452 6.14% 2000 2,025,191 10.82% 2001 1,991,082 -1.68% Increase of total annual revenues eight years after 1993 tax increase over pre-increase level: 72.5 % Now the same numbers for the years after the Bush tax cuts: 2002 1,853,136 -6.93% 2003 1,782,314 -3.82% 2004 1,880,114 5.49% 2005 2,153,611 14.55% 2006 2,406,869 11.76% 2007 2,567,985 6.69% 2008 2,523,991 -1.71% 2009 2,104,989 -16.60% Again giving you benefit of the doubt and using the highest year of 2007, annual total revenues increased less than 29 % over the six years after the tax cuts started. Slice it any way you want, but tax revenue grew rapidly after Clinton raised tax rates, and was used to reduce the deficit. Revenues grew at a paltry rate after Bush cut tax rates, and the deficit mushroomed.
Belle Chasse LA			Username hidden (8678 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	You keep trying to cherry pick a couple of years here and there. Look at the whole picture. Revenues from Individual Income Taxes Year Amount Year-over-year increase 1994 543,055 6.55% 1995 590,244 8.69% 1996 656,417 11.21% 1997 737,466 12.35% 1998 828,586 12.36% 1999 879,480 6.14% 2000 1,004,462 14.21% 2001 994,339 -1.01% Annual revenue increase eight years after 1993 tax increase, over pre-increase level of revenue: 95 % Now the same numbers after eight years following the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003: 2002 858,345 -13.68% 2003 793,699 -7.53% 2004 808,959 1.92% 2005 927,222 14.62% 2006 1,043,908 12.58% 2007 1,163,472 11.45% 2008 1,145,747 -1.52% 2009 915,308 -20.11% Even if you disregard the revenue losses attributable to the recession in '08 and '09, and use the highest year ('07), there was only a 17 % increase in revenues from pre-taxcut levels. Conclusion: Cutting tax rates reduces tax revenue from what it would have been (gasp!). Increasing tax rates increases revenue (double gasp!).
Belle Chasse LA			Username hidden (8678 post)

GoTo Page: Less ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... More

Start

61 to 70 of 284

End

TOPIC: Politics--Who Cares