The Fiscal cliff

[rwh11385]

Maybe you can't read, so here's Paul Ryan calling the payroll tax cut Keynesian and saying that no one wants it to be permanent.



But maybe you can prove the guy who was behind the conservative's budget plan wasn't right or he's not a conservative.

[rwh11385]

It isn't Keynesian...lol. You keep thinking that.
It's already insolvent. Do you think your boy racking up a debt of 6.5 trillion in 4 years is helping SS become solvent? How about him making no cuts and adding to the current debt instead?

My boy? You simple troll, I didn't vote for Obama. But that doesn't mean I agree with your utter stupidity when it comes to your clueless argument. And you simply don't understand that general spending cuts won't change social security's financials... it is in a separate trust...

A key fact that you apparently are not aware of is that while cutting MARGINAL tax rates in the '80s, Reagan INCREASED PAYROLL tax rates to try to make Social Security solvent. [1983]

http://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend.html

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/oasdiRates.html

More facts: Tax Reform Act of 1986 eliminated loop holes and raised capital gains tax rates. It raised the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains to 28 percent from 20 percent. Before it, consumer interest was also deductible - so you paid lower taxes for carrying credit card debt, etc. Reagan didn't see all taxes as being the same, so why do you?

If you are uneducated, you might be angry about something you are clueless on. But maybe try to learn something for once and realize that you are upset about something you are are ignorant about, and attacking me for holding the conservative opinion while foolishly calling me a liberal for it.


It would be better to not rob social security or use deficits to give people non-marginal tax rate cuts, and then reduce deductions for debt on a house to be able to lower marginal rates across the board. The deductions are social engineering that unfairly provide benefits (why should people who buy a house in cash, or take a 15 year mortgage, benefit less and pay more taxes than someone who buys a house they likely cannot afford?) and without them, the government can afford lower marginal tax rates that actually improve economic growth. (like in the 80s... which is the basis for Republican ideals on supply-side economics, but apparently you don't actually understand)

[rwh11385]

Not at all. Their also talking about long and short term. In the short term it does nothing and that's the point. You're trying to wave a magic wand over the issue. As if tax rates on income are the same on income takers (20% being the same as 35%). As if lowering them at all would be Keynesian. That's nonsense.
As much as you might hate it Conservatives do support low taxes on individuals as well.
Fox news isn't the only business news source concerned about the tax hikes and the effects they might have on this economy.

*They're* also talking about long and short term, but said that payroll taxes holiday is based on Keynesian theory and for the naive.

I'm not trying to wave a magic wand over the issue, I'm apparently trying to pick up where your teachers fell short.

You have some notion that conservatives liked the payroll tax cut and I'm not sure where you get this misunderstanding besides complete and utter ignorance and being too simple to know the difference.

Let me repeat these quotes:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/10/21/taxes-2013-163m-workers/1647251/

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., disparaged the payroll tax cut, calling it "sugar-high economics" that wouldn't promote long-term growth.

Politicians from both parties say they are concerned that it threatens the independent revenue stream that funds Social Security.

They are backed by powerful advocates for seniors, including AARP, who adamantly oppose any extension.

"The payroll tax holiday was intended to be temporary and there is strong bipartisan support to let that tax provision expire," said Sen. Orrin of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. "The continued extension of a temporary payroll tax holiday has serious long-term implications for Social Security and, frankly, it's not even clear that it has helped to boost our ailing economy."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2012/03/06/mitt-romney-is-no-keynesian/

The crucial difference between supply-side and Keynesian tax cuts is one of design. Supply-side tax cuts occur at the marginal rates of the income tax, whereas Keynesian tax cuts occur before those rates. Under a regimen of marginal rate cuts, the most remunerative thing to do is earn more income. Under non-marginal cuts, you get the full amount of the cut no matter if you work more or not.

Moreover, if marginal tax rates are high, and you get a non-marginal cut, you might even decide to work less than before. A non-marginal tax cut increases your income beyond what you’d been making in the past. If your last bit of work is barely paying — say taxed at 1980’s marginal rate of 70% — you can cut back on work and still see the same take-home pay as before.

It’s clear what makes a tax cut supply-side or Keynesian. Supply-side tax cuts prompt people to envision more income and thus go for earning it. Demand-side tax cuts increase paychecks without encouraging more work and production.

Here’s the president on his kind of tax cuts, referring to the recent reduction in the social security levy: “It means $40 extra in their paycheck. And that $40 helps to pay the rent, the groceries, the rising cost of gas — which is on a lot of people’s minds right now. LaRonda Hill — right here — told us how $40 covers the water bill for a month. So this tax cut makes a difference for a lot of families.”

Obviously the Keynesian variety. The president sees tax cuts — demand-side ones — as a sort of welfare program, whereas Romney sees tax cuts — supply-side ones — as a spur to economic growth.

Do you not know how to read?

[z31maniac]

Of course you're going to do you're usual and pop in and post while unable to remain in a thread and make a real point (a rarity for you).
Whether you like it or not this is an increase on taxes for most of the country on their incomes which they haven't seen in two years. Let alone the taxes that were increased on investments, death tax and upper wage earners and we now have a recipe for trouble.

Even Obama was fighting to keep the payroll holiday in place. What they should have done was make it permanent.

No, you can't understand the difference between supply/demand side stimulation.

So there is really no point to engage you, other than to laugh.

[joshh]

Are you seriously, even now, not capable of reading the Heritage or Forbes links and understanding you completely miss the point about the difference between marginal and payroll taxes?

How are you going to spell it out for me when it is clear that no matter how many times I've tried to explain it to you in simple terms with multiple sources to back it up that you cannot seem to comprehend it? You are the one who has struggled to read or understand this subject.

As Charlie pointed you, this behavior is typical of you and no matter how lost you are, you are convinced that it's the other person who is wrong.

Read the sources until you actually get that conservatives like supply-side economics which are marginal tax rate cuts, while cutting payroll taxes is a demand-side Keynesian move. I don't know how to break it down more simpler so you can understand.

The issue is you don't apparently know what Keynesian means, nor can you possibly process in your mind that not all taxes influence behavior the same. I'm sorry that you are not capable of reading well or differentiating different things.

Not at all. Their also talking about long and short term. In the short term it does nothing and that's the point. You're trying to wave a magic wand over the issue. As if tax rates on income are the same on income takers (20% being the same as 35%). As if lowering them at all would be Keynesian. That's nonsense.
As much as you might hate it Conservatives do support low taxes on individuals as well.
Fox news isn't the only business news source concerned about the tax hikes and the effects they might have on this economy.

I'm pretty sure that no one needs to make a real point on the issue because it is pretty clean and dry. You are apparently the only one incapable of understanding.


So your plan is to permanently fund Keynesian moves with deficits or making social security insolvent even sooner?

It isn't Keynesian...lol. You keep thinking that.
It's already insolvent. Do you think your boy racking up a debt of 6.5 trillion in 4 years is helping SS become solvent? How about him making no cuts and adding to the current debt instead?

[slammin.e28]

My paycheck was $20 less this week. My gf's was more. Uncle Sam can go pound sand.

[rwh11385]

Of course you're going to do you're usual and pop in and post while unable to remain in a thread and make a real point (a rarity for you).
Whether you like it or not this is an increase on taxes for most of the country on their incomes which they haven't seen in two years. Let alone the taxes that were increased on investments, death tax and upper wage earners and we now have a recipe for trouble.

Even Obama was fighting to keep the payroll holiday in place. What they should have done was make it permanent.

I'm pretty sure that no one needs to make a real point on the issue because it is pretty cut and dry. You are apparently the only one incapable of understanding.


So your plan is to permanently fund Keynesian moves with deficits or making social security insolvent even sooner?

[rwh11385]

I'm going to have to spell it out for you further...
What you've done is use sources and twist as usual. You're trying to equate lowering taxes as only being Keynesian while Conservatives want low taxes as well. Because all you can do is focus on your little argument of that one little Keynesian point of economics theory. But yet Conservatives would like lower taxes all around....permanently. Keep struggling with that one.

Are you seriously, even now, not capable of reading the Heritage or Forbes links and understanding you completely miss the point about the difference between marginal and payroll taxes?

How are you going to spell it out for me when it is clear that no matter how many times I've tried to explain it to you in simple terms with multiple sources to back it up that you cannot seem to comprehend it? You are the one who has struggled to read or understand this subject.

As Charlie pointed you, this behavior is typical of you and no matter how lost you are, you are convinced that it's the other person who is wrong.

Read the sources until you actually get that conservatives like supply-side economics which are marginal tax rate cuts, while cutting payroll taxes is a demand-side Keynesian move. I don't know how to break it down more simpler so you can understand.

The issue is you don't apparently know what Keynesian means, nor can you possibly process in your mind that not all taxes influence behavior the same. I'm sorry that you are not capable of reading well or differentiating different things.

[joshh]

This is painful.

But keep trying joshh.

Of course you're going to do you're usual and pop in and post while unable to remain in a thread and make a real point (a rarity for you).
Whether you like it or not this is an increase on taxes for most of the country on their incomes which they haven't seen in two years. Let alone the taxes that were increased on investments, death tax and upper wage earners and we now have a recipe for trouble.

Even Obama was fighting to keep the payroll holiday in place. What they should have done was make it permanent.

[joshh]

Actually, I used multiple credible sources to support my argument. Try it sometime George.

I explained why he didn't understand it because he couldn't read, was clueless / uneducated about economic theory, and ignorant about what was right or wrong.


But maybe you can explain again why you think my pants are down... Are you now defending Keynesian economics? Or just disregarded the truth or facts to attack my side because of your inherent bias?

I'm going to have to spell it out for you further...
What you've done is use sources and twist as usual. You're trying to equate lowering taxes as only being Keynesian while Conservatives want low taxes as well. Because all you can do is focus on your little argument of that one little Keynesian point of economics theory. But yet Conservatives would like lower taxes all around....permanently. Keep struggling with that one.

[gwb72tii]

find a need and fill it

[Deadskittles]

So here is a little lesson on Capitalism. Someone gets fucked over. Welcome to the world. And its funny how we are all arguing about money when we all live in a very rich country regardless of your class. (Not including the extremely poor and homeless) Its just sad how there are people living(and dying) on cents per day and here we are arguing about taxes.

EDIT: Not picking sides, just making a point

[rwh11385]

actually we have a pool bet going to see how many times rwh uses terms like "stupid, ignorant, uneducated, can't read, clueless" and other terms as a way to win a debate

Actually, I used multiple credible sources to support my argument. Try it sometime George.

I explained why he didn't understand it because he couldn't read, was clueless / uneducated about economic theory, and ignorant about what was right or wrong.


But maybe you can explain again why you think my pants are down... Are you now defending Keynesian economics? Or just disregarded the truth or facts to attack my side because of your inherent bias?

[BraveUlysses]

Josh,

Honest question here, what is your highest form of education received? Eighth grade, ninth grade?

Seriously man, I have seen you post on forums for years now, and no matter what the topic, you take the most outlandish, uneducated, and just frankly "wrong" viewpoint, no matter how badly you get refuted. You have zero critical thinking capability, and you just sort of slam your head into the ground and never "get" it. You've got this toxic combination of dumb-dumb paranoia and a complete aversion to anything factual or objective.

There is a quote generally attributed to Lincoln, stating "it it better to remain silent and be thought a fool, then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." Print that off. Tape it to your computer screen.

-Charlie

I'll say it again: dumb enough to be fooled by the church of $cientology for most of his entire life.

[gwb72tii]

actually we have a pool bet going to see how many times rwh uses terms like "stupid, ignorant, uneducated, can't read, clueless" and other terms as a way to win a debate