22 comments

• Comment Link Saturday, 05 January 2013 01:17 posted by max

  I think this debate was REALLY UNFAIR. There was no representation of Conservative American values as both sides were Socialists: Fabian Socialists on the right, Marxist Socialists on the left. This tinkering of economies, taxing and devaluing, arguing over rich and poor classes are all Marxist point of views.
  We should end the FED, and base our money on actual value and then their would be NO inflation bubbles, no over-printing and devaluing of our money for imperial wars, no tax on the money printed (our money), and less of a NEED to over-tax individuals. The poor would then have value in their money, their hard work, and the rich would have to produce more value instead of making it the way Romney did, through: tax schemes, government hand-outs, Wall-street manipulations/gambling, and offshore account *hoarding*. Taxation in the manner of the IRS is illegal in American under the Constitution. Free Wesley Snipes!

• Comment Link Friday, 04 January 2013 09:11 posted by Mochica

  Quite good. Missing argument is that in the past lowering the tax rate with increased revenue occurred because the middle class was earning proportionately more than now thus was tapped those with cash in hand. Today, the middle class is struggling with minimum COLA while the bankers, CEOs, and ilk earn a proportionately bigger piece of the pie. The bulge in the pie is at the top, so that is where the tax rate needs to follow. Decades ago the bulge was with the middle class so taxing them and not the rich as much made sense and worked. Today it is mathematically incorrect.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 02 January 2013 16:33 posted by ftw225

  A lot of people here aren't making valid points. You can correlate all Americas problems to the tax rates of the rich people. The rich people are in the higher tax brackets. You cant tax them more because they are more privileged than others. That doesn't encourage business growth. Doctors, lawyers etc. work very hard not only to get the position they have, but to maintain it. The small percentage of rich people pay the majority of taxes. Even if taxes were to raise on the rich, it wouldn't have much of an effect on the national debt. Thats why i believe the rich are taxed enough and we should worry more about spending.

• Comment Link Saturday, 17 November 2012 01:20 posted by brenda strand

  "Bush tax cuts"...The U.S. government's budget deficit is nearing a trillion dollars for the fourth straight year and unemployment remains high."
  Nuf said?

• Comment Link Friday, 16 November 2012 02:25 posted by Rod

  The simple argument against the proposal is, if the rich are taxed enough, and they are at near the lowest levels in history, why are we having any economic problems at all right now. It's pretty simple, at times where there is a more equitable share of the revenue burden, the economy is better for everyone.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:39 posted by mark

  Nobody answered the question, "What do you mean by 'broaden the base?'"
  
  I was floored by the attempted misdirection by Laffer. There are two orthogonal questions, (a) do we need more revenue and (b) who should pay (for whatever revenue we do need)? It is disingenuous (that means "lying," Arthur) to say that we'll lower taxes, solve all the problems. That is a discussion but was not supposed to be this one. The assiduous attempt to hide things makes me think he didn't believe his own rhetoric. One could decouple the topics by an approach that clearly sets revenue aside, like this: "Assuming an across the board tax reduction because of surpluses, should we tilt the tax schemes toward more progressive, or less progressive?"
  
  I say more because of the trend in wealth concentration. The tax policy changes (mostly Bush cuts) have had the unsurprising effect of accelerating wealth stratification and so "obviously" we should rescind them, unless this kind of disparity is the goal, in which case, by all means keep it up.
  
  At one point I thought we had agreement! Everyone seemed to like closing loopholes such that the rich pay a higher portion of their income. If so, but the GOP want to say that means they win the debate, I say that's grand!
  
  There should be another debate on the Laffer curve itself. That manifestly remains a matter of ideology rather than science. I wish it could be laid definitively to rest and, if it can't be resolved, then We should resolve... not to talk about it any more!

• Comment Link Monday, 12 November 2012 00:57 posted by Devon Meyer

  This debate is fantastic...I wish it were framed so that it relates more closely with the current debate in Washington. Did the winning side (against the motion) effectively endorse the current republican position? I think they did because they seem to agree that closing the deficit by increasing the progressivity through closing loopholes exclusively (without increasing any marginal rates) is possible-and "fair". Zandi said that this is possible, at least with the proper political cooperation...and, from my limited understanding, this is exactly what Boehner (Republicans) is proposing as a "balanced" approach-that regarding earners of 250k or more; raising effective taxes, rather than marginal tax rates, qualifies as "raising taxes," while Obama (democrats) is arguing that only increasing rates on the >250k earners qualifies as "raising taxes." It seems that Mr Zandi and Mr Reich have effectively argued that the republicans approach would both work, and satisfy Obama's bi-partisan test. WHAT AM I MISSING?? (please excuse my caps)

• Comment Link Monday, 05 November 2012 13:15 posted by R. Faulkner

  The point that everyone seems to miss on this question, is should the rich pay more taxes because they have disproportionate access to Government than the rest of us. If one has a direct line to their Congressman and can therefore get laws that favor them, why shouldn't they pay more for that privilege? They seem quite willing to pay under the table!

• Comment Link Thursday, 01 November 2012 14:30 posted by mikeey

  rockin!
  
  who does not love a debate has no siblings

• Comment Link Wednesday, 31 October 2012 09:30 posted by Dave McCombs

  Hubbard's dishonesty is nothing short of spectacular. Even in the intro, instead of simply owning the obvious reality that he's partisan -- having worked for Bush and now Romney, while rather famously shilling for the financial services industry -- he drops some misdirection about working with former Sen. Bill Bradley and having some absurd claim on Obama's housing policy.
  As was noted by Miles, there was some muddying of the question and that was done, of course, by Hubbard. By absurdly claiming that his goal is to get wealthy people to pay more taxes by eliminating their tax credits, he's conceding the point that they are currently not paying enough in taxes. But instead of admitting that, he tries to claim that the question refers only to the tax rates. If the organizers wanted that to be the question, they would have written it that way: Rich people pay a high-enough tax rate.
  Hubbard, a prime mover in causing the 2007-2009 credit meltdown, is exhibit A for the notion that once you reach a certain level in political circles, you can be wrong over and over and over again, but still keep your job telling people how things are...