echelon1k1
New Member
edited for accuracy
Obama wants to Raise Taxes, Good or Bad for the Economy?
- Thread starter beenthere
- Start date
edited for accuracy
Thats pretty slim pickins, you gonna make it through the winter?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i think i'll be OK, my indoor harvest is due in another few days. and that's just the spare bedroom.
i have almost triple the wattage in the garage and they'll be ready in another month after the spare bedroom harvest.
looking at about $2500 for the spare bedroom harvest and a little more than twice that for the garage.
beats the hell out of stamp collecting.
joe macclennan
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'm thinking more like a pound and a half, but i'm trying to keep all my estimates very conservative. i may hit two, but i am not counting on it. there are 12 plants and from the looks of it, two ounces per plant is a safe estimate.
.5g/watt is nothing to write home about, i know. but i am not in this to break any world records, just to pay a few bills.
Dude, what cave did you climb out from.
Clinton's tax cuts early in his first term were a strain on the economy, the era you are talking about came after he cut taxes on businesses and investments.
You can also credit welfare reform and the .com boom.
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Got IT? I got that you are a day dreamer...I got that you are a compulsive lier and story teller that likes to make shit up..Whats the big deal with the boat? you jealous or something?
see4
Well-Known Member
It totally depends on the strain UB. 1/2 a gram per watt for some kushs isn't that bad. For an ak or nl strain that's pretty shitty. But I'd say you got some killer grows fo sho. You got any good strains I would want to know about?
The discussion of statutory versus effective tax rates has nothing to do with revenue figures. "Effective tax" doesn't mean anything.
The fact that the statutory tax rate was once ~90% doesn't mean that top earners ever paid 90%; the effective tax rate--the actual rate top earners paid--was substantially lower than that. Statutory rates are meaningless because deductions, credits, loopholes, etc. aren't considered, thus is makes no sense to refer to statutory rates as proof of anything.
True, the Bush tax cuts did reduce revenue, but most of the reduction (75% of it, if I recall the CBO report correctly) was attributable to changed economic conditions, not the tax cuts.
And what's wrong with reducing revenue.
It's ridiculous that the left think money in the government's hands (revenue) is some how better than money in the peoples hands, WTF
If the federal government would quit spending money it doesn't have, revenue would not be such an issue.
The point was that Clinton's revenue growth reflected a strong and healthy economy undergoing a technological revolution, not his relatively minor tax increases. Likewise, the reductions at the beginning of Bush's presidency reflected the deflation of an economic bubble that had built up in Clinton's time, not his relatively minor tax cuts.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
The CBO projected a decrease in revenue but in fact, revenues increased every year after the Bush tax cuts in 03' to 09'. It surprised a lot of people. Human behavior is a bitch to predict. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
I was referring to the pre-tech-bust 10 year baseline which contained the trillions of dollars of fanciful surpluses. The narrative is always that the Bush tax cuts erased the surpluses; in reality, adjusting economic expectations to be realistic instead of irrationally exuberant explained the vast majority of the difference.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
And I was addressing what you said about the tax cuts making revenues go down as the CBO predicted. They actually went up instead. It's been repeated about 3 times in this thread that revenues went down after the tax cuts. That's what was expected. The opposite ACTUALLY happened though. Empirical data is available but for some reason being totally ignored.
Simple math says that if I am bringing in 100 bucks in taxes, cut them by 20%, I'll bring in 80 bucks. The reality shows us human behavior is impossible to predict. Some take their gains with lower taxes, some work overtime because it's more profitable now while some work even less because they can. It's not as simple as saying raising taxes by 10% will create a 10% increase in revenue.
Agreed, my point was the fact that the left often mistakes higher government revenue as economic growth and vice versa.
see4
Well-Known Member
I could agree with that for the most part.
see4
Well-Known Member
The problem with that in my opinion is that when revenue is down, which I can argue is not a terrible thing... the defense budget was skyrocketing, leaving very little room for infrastructure and education, and the Bush administration made no effort to set a plan to do so.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Be honest lefty, by infrastructure and education you really mean social programmes...
Dont lie, my country is run by your sort, can smell the bullshit miles away.
Social democracy can kiss my arse.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
We could spend half what we do on defense and still be the biggest kid on the block. Much of our military spending is just a different form of welfare. I'm on your side on this one. The infrastructure concerning roads means the interstate system, all other roads and bridges are state and local. You should not have a right to take money from people in WV and make them pay for a bridge in AK. A federal dept of education is yet more waste but you want more money in this. We have a federal dept of ed, a state debt (Calif has 2), a country board of ed, a district board of ed and the school board. When we need to cut costs due to skyrocketing legacy and administrative costs, we lay off teachers and cancel the arts. No, more money on education is not needed, a restructure is.
Cutting defense is a good start we both agree on, but taking those savings and increasing other wasteful spending does nothing but rearrange the furniture. I want to see our country prosper.
Similar threads
