8 Responses

1. 

   1)

   Greg said on 10/6/2004 @ 2:35am PT: [Permalink]

   Cutting marginal tax rates gives people the incentive to work more to make that extra dollar because they can keep the fruits of their efforts. The more the work the greater the overall amount of production performed. The pie has gotten bigger so to speak. With an overall bigger pie, even at a lower tax rate, the total amount of tax revenue taken in rises. Try this example on for size.

   If govt A wanted to take in the most tax revenue and they had the option of the following 2 situations, which should they pick?:

   1)A 10% tax rate on $100 in income ($10)or…

   2)A 5% tax rate on $500 in income. ($25)

   Clearly in this example, the lower tax rate provides the govt with greater tax receipts.

   The above example is basic but illustrative of how a lower tax rate can yield more income for the govt if the pie grows. The Left has always chosen to ignore this behavior that people, given appropriate incentives (lower tax rates) will absolutely work harder and grow the pot. The Left also forgets our economy is not static. It is growing and can grow to greater gains if people are unfettered. Look at the behavior of businesses. Many businesses will cut prices to stimulate demand in their products. This allows them to sell more overall and yield greater profits.

   On the other hand one thing that absolutely CRUSHES business is dealing with the costs imposed by the trial bar. Examples include defending frivolous lawsuits, settling frivolous lawsuits, and paying increased prices for business related liability insurance. Those are REAL costs which we, who have our own businesses, must worry about.

2. 

   2)

   johnhp said on 10/6/2004 @ 3:35am PT: [Permalink]

   Greg,

   Let me get this straight. So Cheney’s remarks, attempting to minimize the deaths of Americans due to the failed Bush policies, had something to do with marginal tax rates? So you lower the tax rates of dead military and they pop out of the ground like toaster pastry?

3. 

   3)

   Troll said on 10/6/2004 @ 7:23am PT: [Permalink]

   By not counting the 750+ Iraqi Security forces in the deaths, Edwards is the one misinforming us with technicalities.

4. 

   4)

   Brad said on 10/6/2004 @ 8:18am PT: [Permalink]

   Greg, thank you for stopping by. But spamming the same Tax Rate nonsense on a bunch of different threads is not appreciated. Please attempt to stick to the topic and/or take part in the discussion.

   As to your point, speaking as someone who has owned a business for many years, I don’t find your argument for a tax rate that disproportionately taxes the folks that can afford it less to be persuasive.

   More importantly…and on topic here…

   Troll, which part of "coalition casualities" in the sentence "90 percent of the coalition casualties, Mr. Vice President, the coalition casualties, are American casualties." did you not understand?

   You guys on the Right can attempt to play all the verbal jujitsu you want (as in this case, or the "Global Test" case, or the "Sensitive" case) and repeated it to your choir, and sometimes you can even fool some of the people with it. Those of us paying attention, however, know better.

   If you can’t see how that’s nothing more than monkey business, then you will always fail to see this choice for what it is.

5. 

   5)

   matt2050 said on 10/6/2004 @ 7:04pm PT: [Permalink]

   Interestingly enough, according to a recent story, I believe in Newsweek, corporations sue far more often than individuals, and bring a far greater number of frivolous lawsuits. Think FNC suit against Al Franken. I for one thought that the Kerry\Edwards plan for so called tort reform was the first time in a long time that I have heard a politician talk about a solution to a problem and not a solution to a symptom.

   The right keeps trying to pick phrases apart like the coalition casualities, and the voted for before against. Everytime they do it, they lose even more of thier credibility. I wanted JE to say: "Mr VP are you really that stupid. How much clearer do you need me to make it." Now that would have been good!

6. 

   6)

   johnhp said on 10/7/2004 @ 2:16am PT: [Permalink]

   matt,

   i for one would like to see fox’s viewers sue them for misinformation.

   But to the issue. Apparently the big problem with malpractise is not lawsuits so much as the retention of bad doctors. Apparently, people in the medical profession are unwilling to pull the trigger on bad doctors. How much would insurance go down if the medical profession would give the boot to doctors who repeatedly get sued?

7. 

   7)

   matt2050 said on 10/7/2004 @ 4:52pm PT: [Permalink]

   John, Agreed, i believe that is certainly a large part of the problem as well as a number of other things in the medical profession. Ask any patient if they think 36 hour shifts are a good idea, yeah i want my doctor exhausted when he/she has to make life or death decisions. I think, however that B/C uses the malpractice scenario for show only. They don’t really care about that side of it. All they care about is lawsuits against big corporations, screw the docs they want the insurance companies the gun companies etc.

8. 

   8)

   sdsa said on 7/25/2005 @ 5:25am PT: [Permalink]

   免费电影
   免费成人电影
   免费黄色电影
   免费色情电影
   免费激情电影
   免费性交电影

   租车
   上海租车
   汽车租赁
   上海汽车租赁