Bush in 30 seconds ads

[nclib]

While CBS certainly has the right to decide what and what not to air, it appears that CBS is pandering to its friends in the White House.

http://www.capwiz.com/now/issues/alert/?alertid=4917801&type=CU

[jravnsbo]

100% NOT TRUE.

As I explained before, they have a viewpoint neutral policy long in place before Moveon.org was ever established.  they don't run advocacy ads for EITHER side.

While CBS certainly has the right to decide what and what not to air, it appears that CBS is pandering to its friends in the White House.

http://www.capwiz.com/now/issues/alert/?alertid=4917801&type=CU

[opebo]

Destructive redistributionist payments like Medicare...and I suppose Social Security too, right? Sure, why do we need those? If people can't pay for their own health care and well being, let them die, right? I suppose there should be absolutely no obligation on the part of anyone to help anyone else out if they don't want to.

Supply side has been tried and failed. Under Reagan, the deficits went up. Under Bush 43, they've gone up dramatically. Supply side economics does not increase tax revenue, it decreases it. Perhaps if taxes were really "very high" then this would happen. But tax rates in this country are already very low, especially for the wealthy. Cutting taxes for the rich in the 1960s, for example, from a top rate of 91 percent down to 70 percent was beneficial, as 91 percent was too high. But the economy was still quite good with a 70 percent rate on the rich...even with a 91 percent rate, it still wasn't bad, although growth was probably being held back a bit.

Tax cuts for the rich do benefit the economy slightly, but not nearly enough to offset the long term damage to the economy from the higher deficits that they create, and also they are not nearly as beneficial as increasing spending on social programs.

Tax cuts for the poor and middle class, however, do benefit the economy more, and also do much less damage to the deficit. Supply side theory would work better at the lower end of the economic spectrum, since the poor and middle class are much more likely to spend the extra money on purchases that will help the economy. Also, they are much more likely to spend their money domestically as opposed to the wealthy who are much more likely to use the extra money to open a new factory in a country where they can pay everyone $1/hour, or even otherwise to spend it internationally on a foreign vacation or second home, for example. The poor and middle class are much more likely to spend money on such things in the US, and also much more likely in general to spend the money rather than save it because they have more immediate need to spend it.

Yeah, I'm against those programs you mentioned above - medicare, social security, etc.  And no, supply side economics does work in general.  But of course your point about tax reduction is valid - one gains the most benefits in reducing very excessivly high taxes.  This is simply because with taxes above say 50% people genuinely don't bother to make money above a certain level - or they simply flee.  Capital flight is a big issue for socialist economies.  You're probably right that reducing taxes from 39.5% to 35% isn't going to make a huge difference, but this is all part of supply side reasoning - the Laffer curve.  Supply siders recognize that the tax reduction=more tax revenue doesn't work to infinity - obviously a 1% tax rate doesn't necessarily confiscate more than a 10% one.   That's why it takes the form of a bell curve.   I gaurantee that if you put the rates back up to 70% you'ld have an exodus of capital and the most productive individuals from the US.

What's more important recently has been the excellent reduction in Capital Gains taxes - really it is absurd that capital gains are taxed at all since a) they're mostly just inflation and b) its a tax on money that was already earned and taxed once.  Similar to Estate Taxes.

Tax reductions on the poor and middle class are practically impossible because they pay hardly any tax already.  Exempting them entirely tends to create a false impression that government spending is 'free', leading to a downward spiral towards socialism and a destruction of the source of wealth - capitalism.

[Nym90]

Ok, now this is probably going to shock you, given that we are on dimetrically opposite sides of the political spectrum, but I agree with you about double taxation of money! It doesn't make any sense. Money should be taxed once only. Of course, the estate and capital gains taxes, and all the others about which this is said, are obviously not the only ones for which this is true. All money in our economy is taxed multiple times. Sales taxes are taxes on money that has already been taxed once (when it was earned as  income). So really, you could make this argument about all taxes.

But, I agree with you that the tax system is too complicated and should be simplified. I favor eliminating all taxes except for the federal income tax, including sales, property, capital gains, estate, state income, local millages, etc., and instead raising the federal income tax by whatever amount would be necessary to compensate for the loss of revenue from all of the eliminated taxes. Eliminating sales taxes would be especially beneficial to the economy, as this would result in an across-the-board cut in prices thus encouraging spending (and wouldn't it be nice to be able to buy something without having to mentally do the arithmetic about how much it will cost...the price you see is actually the price you pay, wow!). The federal government of course would be required to make the appropriate revenue sharing arrangements with local and state governments to fund them, or it could be a chain system (federal funds state, state then funds local). Such arrangements are already in place though everywhere, it would just be a matter of increasing the funds being transferred.

As far as our beliefs about the proper role and scope of government in providing a social safety net, I'll just say that we'll have to agree to disagree on that point... Your views, as you are well aware, are quite a bit to the right even of most of your own party.

Yes, the Laffer curve is correct, but I think that the point at which tax revenue starts to stifle economic growth is quite a bit higher than any of our current rates. Even most conservatives have now admitted that lower taxes do bring in less money for the government, not more, but they say well, that this is a good thing, not a bad thing.

[Gustaf]

The taxation model is simplistic, people care about so many other things that high taxes does not necessarily drive away all capital. Sweden is doing reasonably well with high taxes, and most of the people I know who want to go to the US and study of course wants to go Massachussetts, b/c the risk of ending up with crazy republicans is the lowest there!

[A18]

Yeah, I'm against those programs you mentioned above - medicare, social security, etc.  And no, supply side economics does work in general.  But of course your point about tax reduction is valid - one gains the most benefits in reducing very excessivly high taxes.  This is simply because with taxes above say 50% people genuinely don't bother to make money above a certain level - or they simply flee.  Capital flight is a big issue for socialist economies.  You're probably right that reducing taxes from 39.5% to 35% isn't going to make a huge difference, but this is all part of supply side reasoning - the Laffer curve.  Supply siders recognize that the tax reduction=more tax revenue doesn't work to infinity - obviously a 1% tax rate doesn't necessarily confiscate more than a 10% one.   That's why it takes the form of a bell curve.   I gaurantee that if you put the rates back up to 70% you'ld have an exodus of capital and the most productive individuals from the US.

What's more important recently has been the excellent reduction in Capital Gains taxes - really it is absurd that capital gains are taxed at all since a) they're mostly just inflation and b) its a tax on money that was already earned and taxed once.  Similar to Estate Taxes.

Tax reductions on the poor and middle class are practically impossible because they pay hardly any tax already.  Exempting them entirely tends to create a false impression that government spending is 'free', leading to a downward spiral towards socialism and a destruction of the source of wealth - capitalism.

Nice