OT: Raising or lowering taxes--what effect on the economy?

What effect does raising taxes have on the economy, and why?

What effect does lowering taxes have on the economy, and why?

Up to a certain point, it's been shown by Kennedy, 20 years later by Reagan
and 20 years later by Bush that lowering tax RATES raises tax REVENUES.

We need to lower rates again and see if we continue to get increased
revenues. And again. And again. Until we find the "sweet spot"...also known
as the Laffler Curve. Most liberals want the highest, most punitive tax
rates they can inflict. And most conservatives want no taxes at all or even
have the government pay them. The real truth is at the peak of the Laffler
Curve. We need to find that.


"Adam Corolla" <nospam@nospam03550265902.com> wrote in message
news:y7qdndpFm4IqJq3YnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.com...[color=blue]
> What effect does raising taxes have on the economy, and why?
>
> What effect does lowering taxes have on the economy, and why?
>[/color]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 07:17:27 -0400, "D.D. Pallmer"
<ddpalmer@hotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Up to a certain point, it's been shown by Kennedy, 20 years later by Reagan
>and 20 years later by Bush that lowering tax RATES raises tax REVENUES.
>
>We need to lower rates again and see if we continue to get increased
>revenues. And again. And again. Until we find the "sweet spot"...also known
>as the Laffler Curve. Most liberals want the highest, most punitive tax
>rates they can inflict. And most conservatives want no taxes at all or even
>have the government pay them. The real truth is at the peak of the Laffler
>Curve. We need to find that.[/color]

We need to keep Conservatives in power.

Did anyone comment on the gigantic deficit reduction?

[color=blue]
>
>
>"Adam Corolla" <nospam@nospam03550265902.com> wrote in message
>news:y7qdndpFm4IqJq3YnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.com...[color=green]
>> What effect does raising taxes have on the economy, and why?
>>
>> What effect does lowering taxes have on the economy, and why?
>>[/color]
>[/color]

--

Scott in Florida

In article <mmp1j2hfdttg8t5678if72thls9j6pi4ar@4ax.com>,
Scott in Florida <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 07:17:27 -0400, "D.D. Pallmer"
> <ddpalmer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >Up to a certain point, it's been shown by Kennedy, 20 years later by Reagan
> >and 20 years later by Bush that lowering tax RATES raises tax REVENUES.
> >
> >We need to lower rates again and see if we continue to get increased
> >revenues. And again. And again. Until we find the "sweet spot"...also known
> >as the Laffler Curve. Most liberals want the highest, most punitive tax
> >rates they can inflict. And most conservatives want no taxes at all or even
> >have the government pay them. The real truth is at the peak of the Laffler
> >Curve. We need to find that.[/color]
>
> We need to keep Conservatives in power.
>
> Did anyone comment on the gigantic deficit reduction?[/color]


I calculate by the 08 president elections the deficit will be zero. The
Republicans will remain in the WH and if they lose the house this
election take it back in 08. Should be a fun time.



[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
> >
> >
> >"Adam Corolla" <nospam@nospam03550265902.com> wrote in message
> >news:y7qdndpFm4IqJq3YnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.com...[color=darkred]
> >> What effect does raising taxes have on the economy, and why?
> >>
> >> What effect does lowering taxes have on the economy, and why?
> >>[/color]
> >[/color][/color]
--

"dbu" <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote in message
news:howardyno-496934.08531114102006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> In article <mmp1j2hfdttg8t5678if72thls9j6pi4ar@4ax.com>,
> Scott in Florida <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 07:17:27 -0400, "D.D. Pallmer"
>> <ddpalmer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> >Up to a certain point, it's been shown by Kennedy, 20 years later by
>> >Reagan
>> >and 20 years later by Bush that lowering tax RATES raises tax REVENUES.
>> >
>> >We need to lower rates again and see if we continue to get increased
>> >revenues. And again. And again. Until we find the "sweet spot"...also
>> >known
>> >as the Laffler Curve. Most liberals want the highest, most punitive tax
>> >rates they can inflict. And most conservatives want no taxes at all or
>> >even
>> >have the government pay them. The real truth is at the peak of the
>> >Laffler
>> >Curve. We need to find that.[/color]
>>
>> We need to keep Conservatives in power.
>>
>> Did anyone comment on the gigantic deficit reduction?[/color]
>
>
> I calculate by the 08 president elections the deficit will be zero. The
> Republicans will remain in the WH and if they lose the house this
> election take it back in 08. Should be a fun time.
>
>[/color]

Did you use the same brain cells that convinced you that WMD would be found?

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:54:02 GMT, dbu <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>In article <mmp1j2hfdttg8t5678if72thls9j6pi4ar@4ax.com>,
> Scott in Florida <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 07:17:27 -0400, "D.D. Pallmer"
>> <ddpalmer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> >Up to a certain point, it's been shown by Kennedy, 20 years later by Reagan
>> >and 20 years later by Bush that lowering tax RATES raises tax REVENUES.
>> >
>> >We need to lower rates again and see if we continue to get increased
>> >revenues. And again. And again. Until we find the "sweet spot"...also known
>> >as the Laffler Curve. Most liberals want the highest, most punitive tax
>> >rates they can inflict. And most conservatives want no taxes at all or even
>> >have the government pay them. The real truth is at the peak of the Laffler
>> >Curve. We need to find that.[/color]
>>
>> We need to keep Conservatives in power.
>>
>> Did anyone comment on the gigantic deficit reduction?[/color]
>
>
>I calculate by the 08 president elections the deficit will be zero. The
>Republicans will remain in the WH and if they lose the house this
>election take it back in 08. Should be a fun time.[/color]

If the Dims don't win both the House and Senate, this election will be
a gigantic defeat for them.


I would think that Hillary is secretly hoping that the Dims will lose
the House.

Can you imagine trying to run for Prez after those loonies have had
the House for two years?


--

Scott in Florida

Well, that is really one question because they are exact opposites. Assuming
that lowering taxes would raise spending and spur the economy, raising taxes
would dampen spending and sour the economy.

Answering one question answers the other by inferrance.

You and I (consumers) are collectively the largest part of the economy. If
we have more money to spend, we will spend it -- or save it and that spurs
investment. If we buy goods or services, then we create an environment where
another person gets to work. the more of us that are working, the greater
the tax base for the government, and the more revenue they rake in.

If 80% of us work at a 33% tax rate, the government sees X amount of
revenue. but, if 95% of us work at a 28% tax rate, the revenue goes up, and
this is good for government and for us. Lowering taxes on you and I allows
us to buy more goods and services, which employs others that can then be
taxed. Our taxes go down, but revenues go up. Pretty simple stuff really.

Does it really work that way? Good question. The Republicans think it does,
the Democrats are not so sure. Hense the battle lines currently drawn over
keeping the tax cuts or repealing them.







"Adam Corolla" <nospam@nospam03550265902.com> wrote in message
news:y7qdndpFm4IqJq3YnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.com...[color=blue]
> What effect does raising taxes have on the economy, and why?
>
> What effect does lowering taxes have on the economy, and why?
>[/color]

In article <bsa2j2tgi8m9g7qmafn0gggondfv7s0e7t@4ax.com>,
Scott in Florida <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:54:02 GMT, dbu <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >In article <mmp1j2hfdttg8t5678if72thls9j6pi4ar@4ax.com>,
> > Scott in Florida <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 07:17:27 -0400, "D.D. Pallmer"
> >> <ddpalmer@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Up to a certain point, it's been shown by Kennedy, 20 years later by
> >> >Reagan
> >> >and 20 years later by Bush that lowering tax RATES raises tax REVENUES.
> >> >
> >> >We need to lower rates again and see if we continue to get increased
> >> >revenues. And again. And again. Until we find the "sweet spot"...also
> >> >known
> >> >as the Laffler Curve. Most liberals want the highest, most punitive tax
> >> >rates they can inflict. And most conservatives want no taxes at all or
> >> >even
> >> >have the government pay them. The real truth is at the peak of the
> >> >Laffler
> >> >Curve. We need to find that.
> >>
> >> We need to keep Conservatives in power.
> >>
> >> Did anyone comment on the gigantic deficit reduction?[/color]
> >
> >
> >I calculate by the 08 president elections the deficit will be zero. The
> >Republicans will remain in the WH and if they lose the house this
> >election take it back in 08. Should be a fun time.[/color]
>
> If the Dims don't win both the House and Senate, this election will be
> a gigantic defeat for them.
>
>
> I would think that Hillary is secretly hoping that the Dims will lose
> the House.
>
> Can you imagine trying to run for Prez after those loonies have had
> the House for two years?[/color]

LOL, those dimmies are oh so ruthless and scheming
--

No, We trusted Hilary, ahhhh from the left


"Truckdude" <notl@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ca7Yg.165$4T6.115@trnddc02...[color=blue]
>
> "dbu" <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote in message
> news:howardyno-496934.08531114102006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=green]
>> In article <mmp1j2hfdttg8t5678if72thls9j6pi4ar@4ax.com>,
>> Scott in Florida <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 07:17:27 -0400, "D.D. Pallmer"
>>> <ddpalmer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Up to a certain point, it's been shown by Kennedy, 20 years later by
>>> >Reagan
>>> >and 20 years later by Bush that lowering tax RATES raises tax REVENUES.
>>> >
>>> >We need to lower rates again and see if we continue to get increased
>>> >revenues. And again. And again. Until we find the "sweet spot"...also
>>> >known
>>> >as the Laffler Curve. Most liberals want the highest, most punitive tax
>>> >rates they can inflict. And most conservatives want no taxes at all or
>>> >even
>>> >have the government pay them. The real truth is at the peak of the
>>> >Laffler
>>> >Curve. We need to find that.
>>>
>>> We need to keep Conservatives in power.
>>>
>>> Did anyone comment on the gigantic deficit reduction?[/color]
>>
>>
>> I calculate by the 08 president elections the deficit will be zero. The
>> Republicans will remain in the WH and if they lose the house this
>> election take it back in 08. Should be a fun time.
>>
>>[/color]
>
> Did you use the same brain cells that convinced you that WMD would be
> found?
>[/color]

Again, what is the Dimwhit plan, raise taxes???


"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:X46dnY6Cxqbqr6zYnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@ez2.net...[color=blue]
> Well, that is really one question because they are exact opposites.
> Assuming that lowering taxes would raise spending and spur the economy,
> raising taxes would dampen spending and sour the economy.
>
> Answering one question answers the other by inferrance.
>
> You and I (consumers) are collectively the largest part of the economy. If
> we have more money to spend, we will spend it -- or save it and that spurs
> investment. If we buy goods or services, then we create an environment
> where another person gets to work. the more of us that are working, the
> greater the tax base for the government, and the more revenue they rake
> in.
>
> If 80% of us work at a 33% tax rate, the government sees X amount of
> revenue. but, if 95% of us work at a 28% tax rate, the revenue goes up,
> and this is good for government and for us. Lowering taxes on you and I
> allows us to buy more goods and services, which employs others that can
> then be taxed. Our taxes go down, but revenues go up. Pretty simple stuff
> really.
>
> Does it really work that way? Good question. The Republicans think it
> does, the Democrats are not so sure. Hense the battle lines currently
> drawn over keeping the tax cuts or repealing them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Adam Corolla" <nospam@nospam03550265902.com> wrote in message
> news:y7qdndpFm4IqJq3YnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.com...[color=green]
>> What effect does raising taxes have on the economy, and why?
>>
>> What effect does lowering taxes have on the economy, and why?
>>[/color]
>[/color]

I suppose that depends on who "Dimwhit" (sic) is. GWB is/has
lowering/lowered taxes ... It's the dimwit Democrats that are looking to
raise them.






"Roadrunner Newsgroup" <RRNG@highlandcraft.com> wrote in message
news:z5gYg.12533$IO2.9732@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> Again, what is the Dimwhit plan, raise taxes???
>
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:X46dnY6Cxqbqr6zYnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@ez2.net...[color=green]
>> Well, that is really one question because they are exact opposites.
>> Assuming that lowering taxes would raise spending and spur the economy,
>> raising taxes would dampen spending and sour the economy.
>>
>> Answering one question answers the other by inferrance.
>>
>> You and I (consumers) are collectively the largest part of the economy.
>> If we have more money to spend, we will spend it -- or save it and that
>> spurs investment. If we buy goods or services, then we create an
>> environment where another person gets to work. the more of us that are
>> working, the greater the tax base for the government, and the more
>> revenue they rake in.
>>
>> If 80% of us work at a 33% tax rate, the government sees X amount of
>> revenue. but, if 95% of us work at a 28% tax rate, the revenue goes up,
>> and this is good for government and for us. Lowering taxes on you and I
>> allows us to buy more goods and services, which employs others that can
>> then be taxed. Our taxes go down, but revenues go up. Pretty simple stuff
>> really.
>>
>> Does it really work that way? Good question. The Republicans think it
>> does, the Democrats are not so sure. Hense the battle lines currently
>> drawn over keeping the tax cuts or repealing them.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Adam Corolla" <nospam@nospam03550265902.com> wrote in message
>> news:y7qdndpFm4IqJq3YnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.com...[color=darkred]
>>> What effect does raising taxes have on the economy, and why?
>>>
>>> What effect does lowering taxes have on the economy, and why?
>>>[/color]
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

Republicans can't stop spending money so question is mute.


"Adam Corolla" <nospam@nospam03550265902.com> wrote in message
news:y7qdndpFm4IqJq3YnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.com...[color=blue]
> What effect does raising taxes have on the economy, and why?
>
> What effect does lowering taxes have on the economy, and why?
>[/color]

In article <5qydnfo364sqwK_YnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@ez2.net>,
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I suppose that depends on who "Dimwhit" (sic) is. GWB is/has
> lowering/lowered taxes ... It's the dimwit Democrats that are looking to
> raise them.[/color]


That point was reiterated by a senate democrat candidate this morning on
Meet the Press. She said if she wins she will work to rase taxes.

[color=blue]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Roadrunner Newsgroup" <RRNG@highlandcraft.com> wrote in message
> news:z5gYg.12533$IO2.9732@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=green]
> > Again, what is the Dimwhit plan, raise taxes???
> >
> >
> > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:X46dnY6Cxqbqr6zYnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@ez2.net...[color=darkred]
> >> Well, that is really one question because they are exact opposites.
> >> Assuming that lowering taxes would raise spending and spur the economy,
> >> raising taxes would dampen spending and sour the economy.
> >>
> >> Answering one question answers the other by inferrance.
> >>
> >> You and I (consumers) are collectively the largest part of the economy.
> >> If we have more money to spend, we will spend it -- or save it and that
> >> spurs investment. If we buy goods or services, then we create an
> >> environment where another person gets to work. the more of us that are
> >> working, the greater the tax base for the government, and the more
> >> revenue they rake in.
> >>
> >> If 80% of us work at a 33% tax rate, the government sees X amount of
> >> revenue. but, if 95% of us work at a 28% tax rate, the revenue goes up,
> >> and this is good for government and for us. Lowering taxes on you and I
> >> allows us to buy more goods and services, which employs others that can
> >> then be taxed. Our taxes go down, but revenues go up. Pretty simple stuff
> >> really.
> >>
> >> Does it really work that way? Good question. The Republicans think it
> >> does, the Democrats are not so sure. Hense the battle lines currently
> >> drawn over keeping the tax cuts or repealing them.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Adam Corolla" <nospam@nospam03550265902.com> wrote in message
> >> news:y7qdndpFm4IqJq3YnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >>> What effect does raising taxes have on the economy, and why?
> >>>
> >>> What effect does lowering taxes have on the economy, and why?
> >>>
> >>[/color]
> >
> >[/color][/color]
--

"dbu" <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote in message
news:howardyno-98880E.11540715102006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> In article <5qydnfo364sqwK_YnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@ez2.net>,
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I suppose that depends on who "Dimwhit" (sic) is. GWB is/has
>> lowering/lowered taxes ... It's the dimwit Democrats that are looking to
>> raise them.[/color]
>
>
> That point was reiterated by a senate democrat candidate this morning on
> Meet the Press. She said if she wins she will work to rase taxes.
>[/color]


And that has you so mad, you can't even spell rase (raise) right. ;-)

How many times must we tell you Bublicans that
"deficits are taxes...." So said Nobel Prize-winning
economist Milton Friedman.

Just use your noodle. You don't think the interest and
principal on all those 10- and 30-year Treasury Bonds issued
to cover the 400-plus billion dollar deficit gets paid by the
Tooth Fairy, do ya? It gets paid with Tax Money.

You Bublicans are precious :-)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]