Re: Obama Understands Economics in Spite of Himself
"Karl" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Sure, that's *exactly* what I said, see it there? Right there? No, There!... No, I didnt actually say that or even suggest anything of the sort. I said that statement was fallacious and short sighted.. In fact the rest of the comment I made that you failed to quote explained that. " There are more than one kind of tax and many kinds of revenues." So....if you reduce income taxes to nothing, but also all sales taxes, all excise taxes and all forms of taxation completely, then yes, you can say that zero tax means zero government revenue. Unless the government then becomes the distributor of goods and services of course.... But simply taking away income taxes would not mean zero revenue, it would only mean zero revenue from that source. Some we pay all manner of other taxes, that would means some revenue. Would it mean less, and maybe dangerously less? Maybe. Washington has no income tax, (despite their recent efforts to pass on by demonizing those damn rich people), but we have higher taxes in other places. We manage. The situation requires balance, something not seen very often. Personally, in the present situation, I am mostly disgusted with all the memes and lies...sorry I meant statistics. The tax bill Obama made a deal with is awful. I am ok with the Bush tax cuts since I think they would work fine with controlled spending. The spending was a huge part of the problem. But even taking the highest 1% and saying hey, we need a compromise, you get bumped up 1youre your rate would have been decent gesture. Cutting social security taxes will do more damage than good, and UI extension....don't get me started on that. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruce Geerdes Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 8:49 AM To: DADL (off topic) Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Obama Understands Economics in Spite of Himself On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Karl Swenson <[email protected]> wrote: > Revenue will not be zero unless that tax was your only revenue. Wow. So you're suggesting that dropping taxes to zero might improve the revenue situation? -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot