Author Topic: Why do Democrats always want to raise taxes? (Read 1965 times)

Eagler · « **Reply #30 on:** October 22, 2006, 05:30:44 PM »

to play their Robin Hood card thus paying back their base through entitlement programs funded off the backs of the working class

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #31 on:** October 23, 2006, 07:37:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Nah, not everytime. They provide the potential for growth, but they don't cause it. As for the record high tax incomes, is it a direct correlation to the tax breaks? I'm going to say no. There are a variety of causes, corporations being forced to pay more, population growth, import taxes, etc.

What we're talking about here is basic economics. Something liberals will never learn because they are too busy with their women's studies classes, and rallies for homosexuals on campus.

The record tax income is directly from tax cuts. It's called Laugher's Curve (I believe, it's been a while since I had economics). There's a magic point where you get more money then any other point on the curve. If you tax less then this point, you get less money, if you tax more then this point, you get less money.

It has directly to do with supply and demand, and applies equally as well. Basically, if you charge more in taxes, less of the product will be sold, thus you'll get less money, even though you're charging a higher percentage. If you charge less, you'll be getting more people paying taxes, but at a lower percentage, thus you get less.

lazs2 · « **Reply #32 on:** October 23, 2006, 08:54:20 AM »

The easiest answer is that democrats believe in equality of outcome.

They believe that if everyone doesn't have the exact same bundle of toys that the toys need to be collected by the nanny and redistributed.

The practical application of this is that they have to raise taxes on the ones who achieve and give to the ones who don't (for whatever reason).

The sad result of this is that the achievers allways manage to achieve but they do it in a way that they keep the most of what they have and become.... selfish..or, more selfish as the case may be.

The other result is that people who would normally feel compassion and charity no longer do... they co-opt that to the government... they shut that part of them off saying to themselves that the government will take care of the less fortunate and they are released (by paying taxes) from the obligation.

lazs

midnight Target · « **Reply #33 on:** October 23, 2006, 09:18:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
What we're talking about here is basic economics. Something liberals will never learn because they are too busy with their women's studies classes, and rallies for homosexuals on campus.

The record tax income is directly from tax cuts. It's called Laugher's Curve (I believe, it's been a while since I had economics). There's a magic point where you get more money then any other point on the curve. If you tax less then this point, you get less money, if you tax more then this point, you get less money.

It has directly to do with supply and demand, and applies equally as well. Basically, if you charge more in taxes, less of the product will be sold, thus you'll get less money, even though you're charging a higher percentage. If you charge less, you'll be getting more people paying taxes, but at a lower percentage, thus you get less.

I guess its been a while since you took a logic class too. Nothing you wrote proves your point. It was very vitriolic though, so cudos for that.

lukster · « **Reply #34 on:** October 23, 2006, 09:28:22 AM »

"government of the people, by the people, for the people"

GIGO - Greedy In Greedy Out

midnight Target · « **Reply #35 on:** October 23, 2006, 12:49:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
The easiest answer is that democrats believe in equality of outcome.

lazs

No, they believe in equality of opportunity. Big difference.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #36 on:** October 23, 2006, 12:51:42 PM »

To prove my point? I wasn't trying to prove my point, just offer an explanation of how the real world works.

But to ask you to learn anything is rediculous. You don't have time to fit in economics over your women's right's classes.

midnight Target · « **Reply #37 on:** October 23, 2006, 01:00:49 PM »

When in doubt go with what you know laser....

The tax revenue increase could be due to other factors, maybe you could read up on these other possibilities. Or were you assuming zero population growth and zero trade changes and zero economic groth in all sectors and zero change in unemployment and zero IQ of the folks reading this BBS?

Maybe that wasn't covered in sheepshank 101.

mietla · « **Reply #38 on:** October 23, 2006, 01:06:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
No, they believe in equality of opportunity. Big difference.

Nice try MT, this is what libs say, but it it was true, there would be no need for wealth transfer or affirmative action, now would be?

Equal opportunity means that everyone is allowed to go to school. It does not meam that everybody deserves to graduate.

Fishu · « **Reply #39 on:** October 23, 2006, 01:32:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
The record tax income is directly from tax cuts. It's called Laugher's Curve (I believe, it's been a while since I had economics). There's a magic point where you get more money then any other point on the curve. If you tax less then this point, you get less money, if you tax more then this point, you get less money.

Huge part of "the record tax income" has been funded by raising national debt. Where does the magic curve go for excessive debt raising?

Masherbrum · « **Reply #40 on:** October 23, 2006, 01:41:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pei
But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us."

I voted for Perot both times. Now, I'm voting Independant again, the two-party system has failed.

Momus-- · « **Reply #41 on:** October 23, 2006, 01:44:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
To prove my point? I wasn't trying to prove my point, just offer an explanation of how the real world works.

But to ask you to learn anything is rediculous. You don't have time to fit in economics over your women's right's classes.

You should ask for a refund from wherever you purportedly studied economics. The Laffer Curve isn't supposed to describe "how the real world works"; it's a deliberately over-simplified construct intended to illustrate the law of diminishing returns as applied to taxation. It isn't supposed to be taken literally, since it excludes every factor except tax rate vs tax revenue.

Yeager · « **Reply #42 on:** October 23, 2006, 01:58:55 PM »

fEdErAl IcoMe tAx iS uNCOnstiTuTioNaL

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #43 on:** October 23, 2006, 02:05:51 PM »

Quote

Huge part of "the record tax income" has been funded by raising national debt. Where does the magic curve go for excessive debt raising?

Again, this is another part of basic economics. Since you didn't understand microeconomics, I wouldn't think you'd understand macroeconomics.

lazs2 · « **Reply #44 on:** October 23, 2006, 02:51:30 PM »

mietla.... beat me to it. Libertarians believe in eqaulity of opportunity while socialist and democrats believe in equality of outcome.

Afirmitive action and such are perfect examples of trying to get an equal outcome... "Hate crimes" are an attempt and getting an equal outcome... neither has anything to do with equality of opportunity. Our tax system is meant to punish those who work the hardest and reward those who work the least. This is classic equality of outcome at the expense of any real equality of opportunity.

lazs