The Sequester

[astralis]

dale,

Can a Democrat ever lower taxes?

-dale

sure, when it makes sense. JFK did, after all (although his timing sucked). so did obama...:)

[dalem]

dale,



sure, when it makes sense. JFK did, after all (although his timing sucked). so did obama...:)

Oh please, Obama's little payroll tax holiday was more than exceeded by his other taxes.

But even giving you that one you'd agree that it's not something that they are known for, or something that you'd expect them to do?

-dale

[astralis]

dale,

But even giving you that one you'd agree that it's not something that they are known for, or something that you'd expect them to do?

i'm not sure what your point is. we HAVE a party that's about lower taxes uber alles, it's called the Republicans.

that doesn't mean Dems are never for tax cuts; part of the long-term trouble we're in is because everyone wants lower taxes and more services, after all.

[dalem]

dale,



i'm not sure what your point is. we HAVE a party that's about lower taxes uber alles, it's called the Republicans.

that doesn't mean Dems are never for tax cuts; part of the long-term trouble we're in is because everyone wants lower taxes and more services, after all.

So then you'd agree that the Dems don't want to lower taxes, in general?

-dale

[astralis]

dale,

So then you'd agree that the Dems don't want to lower taxes, in general?

no, i wouldn't agree. dems are flexible about when they want to lower taxes-- it's a pragmatic/situational issue for them, not an ideological one.

[dalem]

dale,



no, i wouldn't agree. dems are flexible about when they want to lower taxes-- it's a pragmatic/situational issue for them, not an ideological one.

So when can they? What circumstance must exist for a Democrat to lower taxes?

-dale

[astralis]

dale,

So when can they? What circumstance must exist for a Democrat to lower taxes?

recessions, largely. JFK lowered taxes in the context of the 1958 and 1960-61 recession. obama did the same with the Great Recession-- the stimulus didn't just contain the payroll tax cut, but a variety of other tax cuts. during the stagflation years carter lowered capital gains taxes from 39% to 28%.

[DOR]

So when can they? What circumstance must exist for a Democrat to lower taxes?

-dale

A: When it doesn't F**k up the economy.

For extra credit, the student is invited to compare and contrast with the GOPers.

[snapper]

of the approximately 11.8 trillion/75% in GDP of debt we hold now, the bush tax cuts have been estimated to cost from 1.5 trillion-2.8 trillion, depending on how optimistic you are about the effect of the cuts on the overall economy.

You neglect to mention how much wealth was created by not taxing people more. Every time a Government raises tax it takes money out of the private sector - money that could otherwise be used to create more wealth. Arguably if it had not been for these tax cuts the tax revenue collected today would be lower and therefore the need to borrow and the deficit higher.

[dalem]

A: When it doesn't F**k up the economy.

For extra credit, the student is invited to compare and contrast with the GOPers.

Oh, go away, men are talking.

-dale

[dalem]

dale,



recessions, largely. JFK lowered taxes in the context of the 1958 and 1960-61 recession. obama did the same with the Great Recession-- the stimulus didn't just contain the payroll tax cut, but a variety of other tax cuts. during the stagflation years carter lowered capital gains taxes from 39% to 28%.

So, barring a perceived economic crisis, Democrats will not lower tax rates?

-dale

[astralis]

snapper,

You neglect to mention how much wealth was created by not taxing people more. Every time a Government raises tax it takes money out of the private sector - money that could otherwise be used to create more wealth. Arguably if it had not been for these tax cuts the tax revenue collected today would be lower and therefore the need to borrow and the deficit higher.

note the range i gave. even if one was wildly optimistic about the amount of growth created by the tax cut, it still caused a huge 1.5 trillion dollar hole. the laffer curve is simply not applicable at current tax rates.

[astralis]

dale,

So, barring a perceived economic crisis, Democrats will not lower tax rates?

"will" is too strong; i'd affix "generally" in front of it, and add further qualifiers, "at the national level", "especially on the wealthy".

a lot of small exceptions; clinton raised marginal rates on the wealthy but also significantly enlarged tax credits/shelters for the middle class (the Roth IRA, for instance). truman cut taxes for low-income folks and reduced payroll taxes.

[snapper]

snapper,



note the range i gave. even if one was wildly optimistic about the amount of growth created by the tax cut, it still caused a huge 1.5 trillion dollar hole. the laffer curve is simply not applicable at current tax rates.

So, in your view, by how much would taxes need to be cut for the laffer curve to apply? Seeing as you can now borrow at negative real rates anyway (thanks to the Fed) are you suggesting that taxes could have been cut further?

[Bigfella]

Oh, go away, men are talking.

-dale

Yeah, because name calling someone who knows more about economics than you could ever hope to (and pretty much anyone else you dion't agree with for that matter) is definately a sign of manhood.