For once, Anita is right. I misspoke. The actual tax hike was 11% and it targeted the wealthiest 3%. Its been awhile since I read the Oregon Register-Guard article.
My error aside it changes nothing, revs declined disproportianately to the increase. Income tax revs were down 33% and cap gains taxes collected down 43%. There were also appx 100,000 less filers in the targeted range the year after going into effect.
Oregon's tax increase was a failure. If Illinois' goes through, it will fail too. Its guaranteed.
Any amount of money? OK, I will bet you one MILLION dollars that revenue will go up in Illinois, so long as every other state also raises taxes on the rich. Or wait, we could raise the top federal income tax rate. Sure a few millionaires might leave the country rather than pay their fair share.
But I say let's go ahead and make a bet on Illinois, assuming they do go ahead of course. How about another book-reading bet?
1. Gary u don't have a million dollars. 2. Gary you are already admitting that u know I'm right by adding your pre conditions which we both know won't happen because not every state is as stupid as Illinois.
3. Anita if you don't believe it or think it's wrong you back it up yourself. Or move along. When I visit your blog I will destroy your arguments myself. I won ask for your help, and it won't be needed because you are intellectually inferior to me.
Gary you're already admitting that I'm right when you say all the other states have to raise taxes too. Why don't you just say "when we become a completely socialist country" as your pre condition to the bet?
Common sense and a very tiny amount of knowledge about history tells us all that raising taxes doesn't increase revenue.
Raising taxes doesn't increase revenue? Never? And I suppose lowering them always increases revenue? No economist has ever made such a statement. The Bush and Reagan tax cuts resulted in lower revenue and higher deficits.
Time for a lesson in elementary economics (elementary economics being all I know). A tax rate of zero will produce zero revenue, obviously. A tax rate of 100% will also produce zero revenue as there will be no incentive to work. But at relatively low tax rates increases will bring in more revenue. At higher rates increases may result in lower revenue. So the trick is to find the optimal tax rate beyond which an increase will result in lower revenue.
Since the Bush tax resulted in lower revenue, raising the rate a few points back to Clinton levels will very likely result in higher levels.
The Bush cuts increased the tax base and increased tax revenues. It was his spending that did damage to the deficit, but it paled in comparison to when Pelosi took over in 06 and Obama in 08. Seriously they were like Bush on steroids.
Not a partisan thing, the spending is to blame and on that all of them are to blame.
The Bush cuts increased the tax base and increased tax revenues. It was his spending that did damage to the deficit, but it paled in comparison to when Pelosi took over in 06 and Obama in 08. Seriously they were like Bush on steroids.
Not a partisan thing, the spending is to blame and on that all of them are to blame.
A little research online reveals that conservatives say the Bush tax cuts increased revenue and liberals say the Bush tax cuts lowered revenue. WTF? Apparently we live in different worlds where everyone has not only their own opinions but their own facts as well.
Own opinions yes, own facts no. Its just that liberals are really good at lying and conservatives are really bad at fighting back against liberal lies.
The Bush tax cuts greatly expanded the tax base and increased tax revenues collected. The larger deficit was the result of runaway spending on Bush's part. The ewven greater deficit now is the result of even greater spending on the Pelosi Congress and Obama's part.
I must correct you there donkey. The spending is controlled by congress.
However Bush could have vetoed it or set the agenda in the proper direction and didn't. That's why the dems took congress back in 06 and will again if the new majority ignores the will of the people.
I stand corrected, but while Congress controls the purse strings it is the the President that ultimately gets the blame or credit and Bush waiting 6 years to life his veto pen warrants blame.
But as bad as he was, the Pelosi Congress took thinks to a whole nother level. Your man Mankiw had a nice video explaining the spending but I cant seem to find it.
19 comments:
OK I will bet you. What do you suggest?
Anita youre cute when you do that whole foam at the mouth BUSH IS THE DEVIL thing. Now run along, its man talk time (and bring Gary with you)
This is a suckers bet as we know for a fact that two things will happen.
1. The number of filers in the affected range will decrease sharply
2. Tax revenues collected will decrease sharply
This isnt rocket surgery and its not up for debate. It always happens. Always.
Take for example Oregon's recent 3% tax increase that resulted in 30% less revs collected. Congrats Oregon, youre morons.
Do your own homework Anita. And please stop using grays brain.
For once, Anita is right. I misspoke. The actual tax hike was 11% and it targeted the wealthiest 3%. Its been awhile since I read the Oregon Register-Guard article.
My error aside it changes nothing, revs declined disproportianately to the increase. Income tax revs were down 33% and cap gains taxes collected down 43%. There were also appx 100,000 less filers in the targeted range the year after going into effect.
Oregon's tax increase was a failure. If Illinois' goes through, it will fail too. Its guaranteed.
Any amount of money? OK, I will bet you one MILLION dollars that revenue will go up in Illinois, so long as every other state also raises taxes on the rich. Or wait, we could raise the top federal income tax rate. Sure a few millionaires might leave the country rather than pay their fair share.
But I say let's go ahead and make a bet on Illinois, assuming they do go ahead of course. How about another book-reading bet?
1. Gary u don't have a million dollars.
2. Gary you are already admitting that u know I'm right by adding your pre conditions which we both know won't happen because not every state is as stupid as Illinois.
3. Anita if you don't believe it or think it's wrong you back it up yourself. Or move along. When I visit your blog I will destroy your arguments myself. I won ask for your help, and it won't be needed because you are intellectually inferior to me.
First of all, I bought a lotto ticket and fully expect to have a million dollars soon.
Second, you ignored my serious proposal for another book bet, loser to read a book of the winner's choosing.
Gary you're already admitting that I'm right when you say all the other states have to raise taxes too. Why don't you just say "when we become a completely socialist country" as your pre condition to the bet?
Common sense and a very tiny amount of knowledge about history tells us all that raising taxes doesn't increase revenue.
Raising taxes doesn't increase revenue? Never? And I suppose lowering them always increases revenue? No economist has ever made such a statement. The Bush and Reagan tax cuts resulted in lower revenue and higher deficits.
Time for a lesson in elementary economics (elementary economics being all I know). A tax rate of zero will produce zero revenue, obviously. A tax rate of 100% will also produce zero revenue as there will be no incentive to work. But at relatively low tax rates increases will bring in more revenue. At higher rates increases may result in lower revenue. So the trick is to find the optimal tax rate beyond which an increase will result in lower revenue.
Since the Bush tax resulted in lower revenue, raising the rate a few points back to Clinton levels will very likely result in higher levels.
Thats just not true.
The Bush cuts increased the tax base and increased tax revenues. It was his spending that did damage to the deficit, but it paled in comparison to when Pelosi took over in 06 and Obama in 08. Seriously they were like Bush on steroids.
Not a partisan thing, the spending is to blame and on that all of them are to blame.
Thats just not true.
The Bush cuts increased the tax base and increased tax revenues. It was his spending that did damage to the deficit, but it paled in comparison to when Pelosi took over in 06 and Obama in 08. Seriously they were like Bush on steroids.
Not a partisan thing, the spending is to blame and on that all of them are to blame.
A little research online reveals that conservatives say the Bush tax cuts increased revenue and liberals say the Bush tax cuts lowered revenue. WTF? Apparently we live in different worlds where everyone has not only their own opinions but their own facts as well.
Own opinions yes, own facts no. Its just that liberals are really good at lying and conservatives are really bad at fighting back against liberal lies.
The Bush tax cuts greatly expanded the tax base and increased tax revenues collected. The larger deficit was the result of runaway spending on Bush's part. The ewven greater deficit now is the result of even greater spending on the Pelosi Congress and Obama's part.
Stop spending.
I must correct you there donkey. The spending is controlled by congress.
However Bush could have vetoed it or set the agenda in the proper direction and didn't. That's why the dems took congress back in 06 and will again if the new majority ignores the will of the people.
I stand corrected, but while Congress controls the purse strings it is the the President that ultimately gets the blame or credit and Bush waiting 6 years to life his veto pen warrants blame.
But as bad as he was, the Pelosi Congress took thinks to a whole nother level. Your man Mankiw had a nice video explaining the spending but I cant seem to find it.
Post a Comment