Delta cancels upcoming interviews

[cale42]

Businesses are taxed more, they produce less or pass on the cost to consumer, employess make less and/or people buy less. All that results in less tax revenue for Uncle Sam.
You can't make people spend more (or expect them to) when they have less disposable income.

2011 will be interesting..... Business is trying to get their business done in 2010 to aviod tax hikes in 2011. Looks like this might get worse before better...

Same old tired a$$ voodoo economics that people have been spouting since the 80's and hasn't worked yet. You tax more revenue goes up, it's really just that simple. The only people that actually benefit from trickle down economics are the ultra rich and the businesses that can increase their profit, turn around and bend over their employees farther.

Why do we never learn.

 

[Bigoober]

Are we ready for 50% taxes? I wish it were that simple. Wouldn't have to bicker about each other's philosophy all day.

 

[jonjuan]

Remove all the god damn tax incentives heaped upon us. There's zero reason why peole should receive a tax subsidy for owning a home. Why not give me an incentive for buying an suv as well? There's nothing wrong with renting.

 

[Data]

Same old tired a$$ voodoo economics that people have been spouting since the 80's and hasn't worked yet. You tax more revenue goes up, it's really just that simple. The only people that actually benefit from trickle down economics are the ultra rich and the businesses that can increase their profit, turn around and bend over their employees farther.

Why do we never learn.

Really, it's just that simple? Why don't we take care of the problem once and for all and just raise the tax rate to 100%. It really is, after all, that simple.

 

[Moon-dog]

Same old tired a$$ voodoo economics that people have been spouting since the 80's and hasn't worked yet. You tax more revenue goes up, it's really just that simple. The only people that actually benefit from trickle down economics are the ultra rich and the businesses that can increase their profit, turn around and bend over their employees farther.

Why do we never learn.

You have no grasp of economics my friend. Maybe some study, instead of posting ignorant comments on here might help. When business' do not have to pay more in tax, to cover your welfare, they can grow, hire more and invest in growth. It's not rocket science, unless of course, you are one who thinks that all business should pay to "take care of you and all your lazy friends."

Sad, just sad.

 

[generaltso]

Remove all the god damn tax incentives heaped upon us. There's zero reason why peole should receive a tax subsidy for owning a home. Why not give me an incentive for buying an suv as well? There's nothing wrong with renting.

You do realize the person you are renting from bought and owns the house?

 

[jonjuan]

You do realize the person you are renting from bought and owns the house?

Yep-and he's losing his shirt.

 

[cale42]

You have no grasp of economics my friend. Maybe some study, instead of posting ignorant comments on here might help. When business' do not have to pay more in tax, to cover your welfare, they can grow, hire more and invest in growth. It's not rocket science, unless of course, you are one who thinks that all business should pay to "take care of you and all your lazy friends."

Sad, just sad.

Umm.. actually I have a lot stronger grasp of economics than you may think. The model you describe is exactly what voodoo econmics and Reagonomics is based on.. and guess what, it has failed. It is nice in theory but it doesn't work in practice.

You inadvertently defeated your own argument because for that model to work it has to rely on exactly what you said.. growth. Unfortunately constant growth is not possible. Bigger isn't always better. However that is what trickle down economics depends on, get bigger make more money. This is what the jacked up US stock market feed on, growth, growth, growth. However you can't grow infinitely. Eventually you overextend yourself and collapse.

In a perfect world businesses would invest in modest growth when appropriate and use their income to reward their employees and update their capital investments. In a perfect world the market would reward this. In a perfect world profit sharing would be 50-60% of the profits. However none of these perfect scenarios exist. Instead companies cut wages when times are bad and "invest" in growth when times are good. This creates an unsustainable cycle where every single time labor gets screwed.

Sadly using tax dollars to help prop up workers that will never be treated respectfully by their companies is the only solution.

Please don't lecture me on message boards about needing a better grasp of economics.. I've learned it and gone above and beyond to do my own thinking and realize the flaws in many theories.

cale

 

[Hutchman]

Why not give me an incentive for buying an suv as well?

Bush did. Don't you remember all the Hummers running around a few years ago? It qualified for the 100% tax write off. The bill was written for farmers to buy new equipment but all that was in the bill was the weight of the machine being purchased. The hummer qualified so many people bought them and used them for their "business."

Getting back to your point though, I don't see any reason to encourage people to get into debt by giving them a tax write off.

 

[rigger]

Umm.. actually I have a lot stronger grasp of economics than you may think. The model you describe is exactly what voodoo econmics and Reagonomics is based on.. and guess what, it has failed. It is nice in theory but it doesn't work in practice.

You inadvertently defeated your own argument because for that model to work it has to rely on exactly what you said.. growth. Unfortunately constant growth is not possible. Bigger isn't always better. However that is what trickle down economics depends on, get bigger make more money. This is what the jacked up US stock market feed on, growth, growth, growth. However you can't grow infinitely. Eventually you overextend yourself and collapse.

In a perfect world businesses would invest in modest growth when appropriate and use their income to reward their employees and update their capital investments. In a perfect world the market would reward this. In a perfect world profit sharing would be 50-60% of the profits. However none of these perfect scenarios exist. Instead companies cut wages when times are bad and "invest" in growth when times are good. This creates an unsustainable cycle where every single time labor gets screwed.

Sadly using tax dollars to help prop up workers that will never be treated respectfully by their companies is the only solution.

Please don't lecture me on message boards about needing a better grasp of economics.. I've learned it and gone above and beyond to do my own thinking and realize the flaws in many theories.

cale

Cale:

Basic facts not fiction at all anymore, Please look back the last 100 years I do agree that a tax decrease alone will not solve the issues, but You can not (if you have an open mind) argue that raising tax's will increase revenue and visa versa, it is just a plane fact of history that bears you looking into more lowering taxes increases revenue. I have taken the liberty and laid out some of the FACTs for you there are more please go back into history and read more about them. EVERY TIME TAXES WERE CUT IN HISTORY REVENUE WENT UP AND THE CROOKS ON BOTH SIDES STOLE THAT MONEY TO BUY MORE VOTES....MORE FACTS. It's OK Cale, I was educated in a government school also and it hit me like a ton of bricks too......sorry dude, facts suck...history sucks more for those who have never read or payed attention to it!

There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy's growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and "rich" taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden - a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.
Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to "soak the rich," the rest of us take a bath. Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions can prove useful lessons.
1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.
The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.
According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:
The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.
The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).
According to President John F. Kennedy:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.
The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).
According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:
At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.
2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.
The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.
The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.
The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.
Harmful Spending & Complexity
Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.