Started By
Message

re: Tax revenues hit all time high for FY 2014

Posted on 8/15/14 at 2:25 pm to
Posted by constant cough
Lafayette
Member since Jun 2007
44788 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 2:25 pm to
quote:

I'll be curious to see how this is spun as a bad thing.



Yeah I'm sure the government having more of our money to waste is really a good thing. Silly us for thinking otherwise.
Posted by igoringa
South Mississippi
Member since Jun 2007
11875 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 2:26 pm to
quote:

But it's good compared to where we have been the last few years.


So as long as you beat your all time worse, which is worse then anyone else's, and your all time best is worse than anyone else's worse - that is something that is 'good'.



Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
57120 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 2:38 pm to
quote:

Oh, I promise you had Obama eliminated the deficit entirely, these same arse hats would say "But we're $17t in debt - eliminating the deficit is nothing. He hasn't done squat about the real problem".
Well Obama did promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of the first term... I would give satan himself credit for accomplishing that!
This post was edited on 8/15/14 at 2:38 pm
Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
90543 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 3:12 pm to
Short term revenue will increase but long term it will decrease as higher rates drive companies overseas and people have less money to spend, which slows consumption and economic growth.

Tax cuts decrease revenue short term but gain revenue long term due to people having more money to spend, increasing consumption and economic growth
Posted by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
162209 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 3:13 pm to
quote:



Yeah I'm sure the government having more of our money to waste is really a good thing. Silly us for thinking otherwise.



So if they took in 400 billion dollars less and still spent the same amount would that be better or worse than what actually happened?
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 3:13 pm to
Welcome back, Powerman. I thought you might have grown tired of this wearisome, withering place.

Posted by GoCrazyAuburn
Member since Feb 2010
34877 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 3:14 pm to
quote:

So if they took in 400 billion dollars less and still spent the same amount would that be better or worse than what actually happened?


Why is that the only option?

Posted by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
162209 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 3:18 pm to
quote:



Why is that the only option?




It isn't. It's a hypothetical question and it's obvious that it's a hypothetical question. If you're afraid to provide an answer, happily move the frick along. It wasn't directed at you anyway.
Posted by GoCrazyAuburn
Member since Feb 2010
34877 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 3:21 pm to
quote:

If you're afraid to provide an answer, happily move the frick along


Why are you getting so testy?

It is a hypothetical question that is irrelevant, even to his comment.

Obviously higher deficits are worse, nobody has argued otherwise.

However, his point is that there is no reason to trumpet the fact that tax receipts are at an all time high, seeing that maximizing tax revenue is a seemingly silly goal.
Posted by Jbird
In Bidenville with EthanL
Member since Oct 2012
73424 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 3:22 pm to
quote:

Why are you getting so testy?
It's his schtick.
Posted by JoeMoTiger
KC Area
Member since Nov 2013
2677 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 3:49 pm to
I think Obammy should take his pen and paper and decree that minimum wage is $50 an hr and we are now on a flat tax of 75% for everyone, there that'll fix everything.
Posted by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
162209 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 6:07 pm to
quote:


Obviously higher deficits are worse, nobody has argued otherwise.


Clearly they have argued otherwise.

I said that a 460 billion dollar deficit is a good thing compared to a 600 billion dollar deficit and it was laughed off as nonsense
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123820 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 6:22 pm to
quote:

I said that a 460 billion dollar deficit is a good thing compared to a 600 billion dollar deficit and it was laughed off as nonsense
Kind of like saying Richard Speck was a good guy compared to Ted Bundy because Bundy killed more women. It's an asinine statement. A $460Bn deficit is not a good thing. To the contrary, in the face of record revenues, it is horrendous.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123820 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 6:24 pm to
quote:

So if they took in 400 billion dollars less and still spent the same amount would that be better or worse than what actually happened?
It would depend on trajectory of the economy, wouldn't it.
Posted by CptRusty
Basket of Deplorables
Member since Aug 2011
11740 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 6:51 pm to
quote:

460 billion dollar deficit is a good thing compared to a 600 billion dollar deficit


Being $460,000 in debt is better than being $600,000 in debt, but neither is a "good thing"
Posted by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
162209 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 6:53 pm to
quote:



Being $460,000 in debt is better than being $600,000 in debt, but neither is a "good thing"


But it's extremely easy to see which one is better than the other.

We could be doing much worse fiscally. And likely would be if a lot of the "all taxes are theft" crowd had their way.
Posted by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
162209 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 6:54 pm to
quote:

It would depend on trajectory of the economy, wouldn't it.

Sure. But all other things equal, having 400 billion dollars less revenue probably wouldn't point toward anything good for the economy. This is obvious.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123820 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 7:04 pm to
quote:

But all other things equal, having 400 billion dollars less revenue probably wouldn't point toward anything good for the economy. This is obvious.
Not obvious at all.
In fact, if we eliminated corporate taxes altogether, it would have a profound future economic effect. It would also amount to far less than $400Bn on a tax basis.
Posted by Bestbank Tiger
Premium Member
Member since Jan 2005
70923 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 7:18 pm to
quote:


There were people working for free?


Before 1865, yes.
Posted by redandright
Member since Jun 2011
9606 posts
Posted on 8/15/14 at 7:21 pm to
When
quote:

the cap gains tax was set to increase, thinking the beginning of 2013. Remember when no tax deal was done until after Jan. 1, and everyone was selling assets to use the 15% tax rate instead of what was being propose (and now is law)? Now if you earn more than $250k of ordinary income, you pay 20% cap gains tax PLUS 3.8% net investment income tax. 23.8%! PLUS the ordinary income tax bracket went back to the draconian Clintonian era with a 39.6% high, from what was a high of 35%.


quote:

A lot of assets were sold prior to 12/31/12, and tax revenues were the highest in recorded history. Scare the masses, and they respond.



Please don't confuse them with the facts. And if I remember correctly several well known Leftists during a previous Democrat Administration, unloaded their stuff just before a tax increase was scheduled to go into effect.
This post was edited on 8/15/14 at 7:26 pm
first pageprev pagePage 5 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram