Let's cut the deficit...

[oldandslow]

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 19 Oct 2006 at 08:43:15 PM GMT is:

8,547,690,886,018.23

The estimated population of the United States is 300,018,814
so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,490.52.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.60 billion per day since September 30, 2005!

____________________

I am not into the blame game. The deficit is what it is and needs to be placed under control, or, I believe we are going to face financial crisis.

So - How would you balance the budget.

My picks...on the spending side...

1. New house and senate rule that does not allow piggybacking (placing unrelated amendments on bills)/
2. Line item veto for the Pres.
3. End subsidies
4. 10% across the board cuts in all govt spending (phased in over 3 years). No sacred cows.
5. End most foreign military engagements.

...on the tax side...

1. IRS is reorganized and income tax is eliminated...in its place -

National sales tax with a twist - Progressive tax on sales that promotes conservation. You wanna own a hummer - fine. Energy tax applies. Tax luxury items moreso than basic items. Gas and oil tax.

Inheritance taxes remain.

Sales tax must be calculated at a rate to balance budget.

2. Give people the option of "opting out" of SS. However, all of the funds meant for SS must be reinvested in some sort of pension plan. SS monies are sacrosanct and may not be utilized for any other purpose.

[bunnytrdr]

They already did. The value of the Dollar has been secretly devalued.

Oil has doubled, real estate doubled, all while wages haven't doubled.

[bunnytrdr]

Oh yeah, Gold has doubled.

[SBK]

If they'd lower spending AND taxes in Washington the windfall of money to the IRS would be insane.

I would also like to see the Fair Tax put in place, but it's a pipe dream because it takes too much of gov't control away from our pockets.

[bunnytrdr]

If they'd lower spending AND taxes in Washington the windfall of money to the IRS would be insane.

I would also like to see the Fair Tax put in place, but it's a pipe dream because it takes too much of gov't control away from our pockets.They should take 10%. How dare they ask for more money than God does.

[oldandslow]

SBK-

I would like to see proof that lowering taxes = lower deficit. It might in a given year, dependent on a business cycle, but Reagan and Bush II lowered taxes and those two have the highest deficits of any presidents in history.

[bunnytrdr]

SBK-

I would like to see proof that lowering taxes = lower deficit. It might in a given year, dependent on a business cycle, but Reagan and Bush II lowered taxes and those two have the highest deficits of any presidents in history.Democrat Congress under Reagan and Bush I. We have no excuse now.

Which makes me think, :hmmm:, perhaps there is no difference between the two parties.

[Adept Havelock]

They should take 10%. How dare they ask for more money than God does.


God can have it as soon as he shows up in person to ask for it. Till then, no way.

[SBK]

SBK-

I would like to see proof that lowering taxes = lower deficit. It might in a given year, dependent on a business cycle, but Reagan and Bush II lowered taxes and those two have the highest deficits of any presidents in history.

You haven't been paying attention to all the news now about the treasury bringing in tons of unexpected money? Or how that money is coming in from capital gains and other places (where the taxes were cut) and not from employees (where the gov't already knows exactly how much they are going to get?)

When stores lower prices they actually bring in more revenue. They're known as sales. The day after Thanksgiving is known for 2 things, the most sales, and the most money coming into the stores, both at the same time.

Tax cuts work the same way. When the gov't lowers what % of money they steal from the rich :) then people have more money to both spend and invest. The money that is invested is taxed upon the profits, which is now much more because those investments wouldn't have happened under the old tax rate.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Tax cuts work the same way. When the gov't lowers what % of money they steal from the rich :) then people have more money to both spend and invest. The money that is invested is taxed upon the profits, which is now much more because those investments wouldn't have happened under the old tax rate.

Wow...just wow. An argument for supply side economics.

oldandslow, the people promoting the national sales tax are those who represent moneyed interests. Why? Because it shifts the burden of taxation onto the middle and lower classes rather than the upper class. If you have a national sales tax of 20%, a rich guy may buy more, but he's going to spend a hell of a lot LESS of his total income than would a similar person in a lower income bracket. It's class warfare pushed on the have-nots.

[Ugly Duck]

So - How would you balance the budget.One thing we could do is ask America to pay for the war in Iraq. We've been saddling our children with the bill from Day One.

[SBK]

Wow...just wow. An argument for supply side economics.

oldandslow, the people promoting the national sales tax are those who represent moneyed interests. Why? Because it shifts the burden of taxation onto the middle and lower classes rather than the upper class. If you have a national sales tax of 20%, a rich guy may buy more, but he's going to spend a hell of a lot LESS of his total income than would a similar person in a lower income bracket. It's class warfare pushed on the have-nots.

I suggest you read the book The Fair Tax. I know that you already know it all, but it's worth a look, you may find that you're argument here is a bit off base.

[Amnorix]

Democrat Congress under Reagan and Bush I. We have no excuse now.

Which makes me think, :hmmm:, perhaps there is no difference between the two parties.

You don't see a difference? I do.



http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image002.gif

[Amnorix]

God can have it as soon as he shows up in person to ask for it. Till then, no way.

What does God need money for anyway?

[Amnorix]

When stores lower prices they actually bring in more revenue. They're known as sales. The day after Thanksgiving is known for 2 things, the most sales, and the most money coming into the stores, both at the same time.

Yeah, cuz it's a gimmick, in large part. How many people that WOULD have shopped earlier wait until the day after Thanksgiving to do it instead, because they think (whether they are or not) that they're getting a good deal?

Also note that it is associated with the kickoff of the Xmas shopping season. There's no Xmas in Tax Land.

Oh, and another thing -- businesses are COMPETING to bring in customers. We don't compete for peoples' tax dollars. "Come pay our taxes, they're the lowest around!" err...no.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if it was such a great thing, why don't businesses do it all year around?!?!

Oh, right, because it's a gimmick. It works, it helps revenues (at the cost of margins) and it has some benefits to retailers, but don't for a freaking second base your TAX POLICY on it.

And, here's another hint -- wholesalers that sell to businesses, and other business-to-business sellers do NOT have any sales on the day after Thanksgiving? Why? Because it's a dumb idea except under the right circumstances.

Tax cuts work the same way. When the gov't lowers what % of money they steal from the rich :) then people have more money to both spend and invest. The money that is invested is taxed upon the profits, which is now much more because those investments wouldn't have happened under the old tax rate.

This is just crazy. Think of what you're suggesting -- that since the tax rate is 20% (or whatever) they'll invest in the market, but at 25% they'll put it under their mattress....

I agree, at a certain point tax policy does influence behavior, but don't get too carried away. It's not a choice between a 20% and a 75% rate we're discussing.

[HC_Chief]

The true measure we should be looking at is deficit ratio (deficit versus GDP).

Here's an article regarding current deficit ratios. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1820.cfm

When measured properly, the federal govern*ment’s debt burden is actually below the post–World War II average. It is lower than it was at any time during the 1990s. However, unless Social Security and Medicare are reformed, lawmakers risk allowing debt levels to increase until they cause the highest intergenerational tax increase in history.

[Amnorix]

Yes, lower than the 90s, which had been spiked by Reagan/Bush1 (Bush 1 shares credit for the reduction in debt that took place under Clinton).

But still, flat terrible:

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image004.gif


Heritage, of course, gives the conservative viewpoint. Here's a counter view:

"The ratio of debt to GDP had been generally dropping since the end of World War II. When Mr. Reagan entered office the percent of US debt relative to GDP was down to 33.3%. Mr. Reagan campaigned on, and lobbied for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. He argued strongly to reduce the level of all that liberal spending. However the only plan he pursued to get there was cutting taxes. You can see in the chart above that cutting taxes and not spending, predictably made the debt increase - in real dollars and as a percent of GDP. During his eight years in office the percentage of debt to GDP grew to 51.9%. This increase amounts to a 64% increase in debt relative to GDP, a rather significant increase by anyone’s measure.

The percentage of debt to GDP continued to grow until 1996, when Mr. Clinton began to get government spending under control. The US debt peaked at 67.3% of GDP under that administration. By the end of the Clinton administration this percentage had dropped to 57.6%. Debt as a percent of GDP dropped almost 10% in four years under a Democratic President with a hostile Congress. Mr. Clinton showed steadfast fiscal leadership against all odds, stereotypes and in spite of right-wing miss-information.

Mr. Bush Jr. inherited a shrinking government and debt in 2001. With his first budget he managed to increase the debt ratio to 60.0%, by cutting taxes but not spending. By 2004 this ratio had risen to 63.7%, as a result of additional tax cuts, but no significant corresponding cuts in spending. Using government estimations (which are notoriously low) they predict that the debt to GDP ratio will grow to 69.3% by 2008, two percent higher than the previous peak in 1996. Mr. Bush will completely wipe out the gains we made under a fiscally responsible Democratic President."

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

[Amnorix]

Check out this page. Check out the responsibility of who has incurred the debt. See the constantly updated debt amount.

Amazing that anyone can think this isn't something we need to address.

http://zfacts.com/p/480.html

[Amnorix]

From the same zfacts website:

National Debt by President
The national debt peaked at 120% of GDP in 1946 due to the war effort, but Roosevelt, Truman, Ike, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, and Carter all did their part to bring the national debt back to pre-war levels. By the beginning of 1981, the national debt had fallen to 32.5% of GDP. Then, Reagan took office and the national debt took off. It rose non-stop for 12 years to 66.3% at the end of Bush's term, erasing 25 years of progress in paying down the national debt.

[HC_Chief]

From the same zfacts website:

National Debt by President
The national debt peaked at 120% of GDP in 1946 due to the war effort, but Roosevelt, Truman, Ike, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, and Carter all did their part to bring the national debt back to pre-war levels. By the beginning of 1981, the national debt had fallen to 32.5% of GDP. Then, Reagan took office and the national debt took off. It rose non-stop for 12 years to 66.3% at the end of Bush's term, erasing 25 years of progress in paying down the national debt.

Yet the ratio of debt is in decline. Our GDP is growing at a rate greater than our debt.

I agree we need to cut spending. The Bush administration has been anything but conservative in regards to spending, war effort not withstanding.

We need to cut spending, while maintaining the low tax rates. Heck, another tax cut would be nice :D

[patteeu]

SBK-

I would like to see proof that lowering taxes = lower deficit. It might in a given year, dependent on a business cycle, but Reagan and Bush II lowered taxes and those two have the highest deficits of any presidents in history.

That's not the right way to measure the impact of those tax cuts. As your OP acknowledges, tax policy alone doesn't control the deficit, it is a combination of tax policy and spending policy.

What happened to revenue in the wake of those tax cuts? I agree that the business cycle has something to do with the results, but it isn't an independent variable because tax policy impacts the business cycle too.

Lowering taxes doesn't always increase revenue, but it does if the tax rate is currently at a level that discourages work. On the curve below, are we going from A to C or from D to B?

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/Laffer2.gif

[Amnorix]

Yet the ratio of debt is in decline. Our GDP is growing at a rate greater than our debt.


I tried to verify this and failed. Everything I'm seeing suggests that Bush has increased the debt as a percentage as GDP. I'm not finding support for your statement.

[patteeu]

Wow...just wow. An argument for supply side economics.

oldandslow, the people promoting the national sales tax are those who represent moneyed interests. Why? Because it shifts the burden of taxation onto the middle and lower classes rather than the upper class. If you have a national sales tax of 20%, a rich guy may buy more, but he's going to spend a hell of a lot LESS of his total income than would a similar person in a lower income bracket. It's class warfare pushed on the have-nots.


:deevee: When are the unproductive going to take off their diapers and start paying their fair share?

[Amnorix]

That's not the right way to measure the impact of those tax cuts. As your OP acknowledges, tax policy alone doesn't control the deficit, it is a combination of tax policy and spending policy.

What happened to revenue in the wake of those tax cuts? I agree that the business cycle has something to do with the results, but it isn't an independent variable because tax policy impacts the business cycle too.

Lowering taxes doesn't always increase revenue, but it does if the tax rate is currently at a level that discourages work. On the curve below, are we going from A to C or from D to B?

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/Laffer2.gif

Well, the Congressional Budget Office thinks it knows, and it's not an argument for tax cuts...

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3180

[patteeu]

Oh, and another thing -- businesses are COMPETING to bring in customers. We don't compete for peoples' tax dollars. "Come pay our taxes, they're the lowest around!" err...no.

I disagree with this part of your argument to some extent. We are competing with other countries, especially for business taxpayers. We should make the US a tax haven for business and industry in order to attract foreign enterprises and retain our own.

[patteeu]

Kudos to oldandslow for avoiding the blame game.

[patteeu]

Well, the Congressional Budget Office thinks it knows, and it's not an argument for tax cuts...

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3180

That wouldn't surprise me that much. OTOH, there is also the question of where each tax bracket is on the curve. I'm pretty sure that those who pay zero taxes are on the side of the laffer curve that indicates a tax increase is in order (if revenue maximization is the goal). I'm not as sure about the top tax bracket.

[BIG_DADDY]

It's out of control I agree, BIG TIME.

[Amnorix]

I disagree with this part of your argument to some extent. We are competing with other countries, especially for business taxpayers. We should make the US a tax haven for business and industry in order to attract foreign enterprises and retain our own.

I'd prefer to blow up foreign countries that allow themselves to be used as tax havens.

Ok, I exaggerate. Ban the goods of tax sheltered domiciled companies from importation into the US.

Yeah, that's not practical either. I don't know the answer, but eliminating or minimizing corporate taxes seems generally unwise.

I agree, we are in competition to an extent, but only on a certain range of taxed items, not across the board. To that degree, I modify my prior statement.

[HC_Chief]

I tried to verify this and failed. Everything I'm seeing suggests that Bush has increased the debt as a percentage as GDP. I'm not finding support for your statement.

It is in the Herritage Foundation artice I posted.

Economic growth has played a large part in the recent declines as well. Since 1994, the national debt has expanded by 6 percent while the economy has grown by 35 percent. This has reduced the debt burden from 49 percent to 38 percent. In fact, the current debt ratio is below the level for every year of the 1990s. Thus, it is not surprising that recent budget deficits have not dev*astated the economy.

[Amnorix]

That wouldn't surprise me that much. OTOH, there is also the question of where each tax bracket is on the curve. I'm pretty sure that those who pay zero taxes are on the side of the laffer curve that indicates a tax increase is in order (if revenue maximization is the goal). I'm not as sure about the top tax bracket.

They didn't analyze by bracket, they did a flat "would an across the board 10% decrease in rates increase or decrease tax revenues" analysis, from what I could tell by my BRIEF review.

[Amnorix]

It is in the Herritage Foundation artice I posted.

Oh I see. Then the answer is easy -- the Heritage quote is WILDLY misleading because it includes the period of time when the debt was actually being paid down during the latter part of the Clinton years. It takes a 10 year snapshot that includes, for msot of that time, the BEST years of the last 30+ years, in terms of deficit spending.

It was also a time of tremendous economic prosperity, when the GDP was accelerating markedly.

Yeah, that's relevant. How about what the debt is doing compared to the GDP over the last, say, 4 years?

[Amnorix]

It is in the Herritage Foundation artice I posted.

Just because I'm somewhat irked by the Heritage Foundation's slant on this -- let's just say they would write up a summary of the Miami Dolphins something like this:

The Miami Dolphins have won more games in the NFL since 1994 than any other team in football, and, in fact their average wins per year over that timeframe is STILL better than any other team in football.

(note, I'm not saying that the above is actually true, but if it were, that's how they would describe the current state of the Dolphins. :rolleyes: )

[banyon]

They already did. The value of the Dollar has been secretly devalued.

Oil has doubled, real estate doubled, all while wages haven't doubled.

Um, no. Devaluing the dollar doesn't cut the debt or the deficit.

It actually makes it more difficult to pay off the roughly 1/2 of the total debt that is owned by foreign entities.

Maybe you're thinking of inflation?

[Amnorix]

Um, no. Devaluing the dollar doesn't cut the debt or the deficit.

It actually makes it more difficult to pay off the roughly 1/2 of the total debt that is owned by foreign entities.

Maybe you're thinking of inflation?

Actually, he's sort of right. The debt is dollar denominated -- we pay it back in dollars, not rubles or pesos or yen. If our bond buyers get a reduced rate of return due to the changes in exchange rates, too bad for them.

[HC_Chief]

Oh I see. Then the answer is easy -- the Heritage quote is WILDLY misleading because it includes the period of time when the debt was actually being paid down during the latter part of the Clinton years. It takes a 10 year snapshot that includes, for msot of that time, the BEST years of the last 30+ years, in terms of deficit spending.

It was also a time of tremendous economic prosperity, when the GDP was accelerating markedly.

Yeah, that's relevant. How about what the debt is doing compared to the GDP over the last, say, 4 years?

Yeah, a smaller sample is statistically more relevant than a larger sample. :rolleyes:
Heh, not surprising, your aisle always puts more stock in cherry-picked numbers (see: every g'damned poll thread posted here or belched forth by the MSM)

[banyon]

Actually, he's sort of right. The debt is dollar denominated -- we pay it back in dollars, not rubles or pesos or yen. If our bond buyers get a reduced rate of return due to the changes in exchange rates, too bad for them.

You have to buy treasury bond with dollars only?

[BIG_DADDY]

Quit spending money

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

[patteeu]

They didn't analyze by bracket, they did a flat "would an across the board 10% decrease in rates increase or decrease tax revenues" analysis, from what I could tell by my BRIEF review.

I think you are right about that. I'm just saying that there is another level of analysis that could be done even if we accept as accurate the CBO analysis (and I don't have any reason off the top of my head why we shouldn't).

[SBK]

This is just crazy. Think of what you're suggesting -- that since the tax rate is 20% (or whatever) they'll invest in the market, but at 25% they'll put it under their mattress....

I agree, at a certain point tax policy does influence behavior, but don't get too carried away. It's not a choice between a 20% and a 75% rate we're discussing.

Lets take the capital gains tax cuts. They went from 25% to 15%.

Do you think that if an investor has $50,000,000 in capital gains and has just saved $5,000,000 in taxes that he's not going to reinvest that money?

If you take it on a smaller scale and someone now has $100,000 more to invest that they aren't going to reinvest that money?

If a business owner now has a lower tax bill he can hire new employees, reinvest in his business, or upgrade or expand his company?

The reason that lowering taxes increases what the gov't can take in is because it expands the tax base.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Lets take the capital gains tax cuts. They went from 25% to 15%.

Do you think that if an investor has $50,000,000 in capital gains and has just saved $5,000,000 in taxes that he's not going to reinvest that money?

If you take it on a smaller scale and someone now has $100,000 more to invest that they aren't going to reinvest that money?

If a business owner now has a lower tax bill he can hire new employees, reinvest in his business, or upgrade or expand his company?

The reason that lowering taxes increases what the gov't can take in is because it expands the tax base.

Good god. We tried this in the 80's and at the beginning of Bush's term and it did not work. It only cuts government revenues, leads to a slashing of social programs, and increases the amount of money in the pockets of the people who do not need it.

[banyon]

Lets take the capital gains tax cuts. They went from 25% to 15%.

Do you think that if an investor has $50,000,000 in capital gains and has just saved $5,000,000 in taxes that he's not going to reinvest that money?

If you take it on a smaller scale and someone now has $100,000 more to invest that they aren't going to reinvest that money?

If a business owner now has a lower tax bill he can hire new employees, reinvest in his business, or upgrade or expand his company?

The reason that lowering taxes increases what the gov't can take in is because it expands the tax base.

I think the way that it works is that the more money you have, the more inclined you are to save it, not spend it.

The consumption multiplier is much more reliable than "the investment multiplier" which you are trying to invent here.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I suggest you read the book The Fair Tax. I know that you already know it all, but it's worth a look, you may find that you're argument here is a bit off base.

I suggest you remove your head from your ass and look at a simple mathematical analysis.

Let's say there is a 20% National Sales tax: (roughly equivalent to what Jim DeMint advocated at one point)

A guy who makes $50,000 a year net spends 45,000 of it on necessities, so he pays $9,000 in taxes.

A guy who makes 5,000,000 a year net spends $2 million on various things, and would end up paying a tax of $400,000.

Now, the tax rate is identical, but it's also obvious that guy A has to spend a higher portion of his income on taxes because he doesn't have as big of a cushion on which to lean on. He's paying 18 percent of his income in taxes. The Rich guy is paying 8.

Explain to me the equity in a capitalist system where a guy who benefits the more pays 2.25 times less than another individual

Until you can come up with an honest argument that proves that people in the middle class and lower class spend the same percentage of their income as people in the upper income bracket, then my characterization of a shifting of the tax burden and covert class warfare still stands.

[SBK]

Good god. We tried this in the 80's and at the beginning of Bush's term and it did not work. It only cuts government revenues, leads to a slashing of social programs, and increases the amount of money in the pockets of the people who do not need it.

Dow at an all time high, unemployment is low, and the treasury is bringing in way more money than expected, leading to way lower defecit than expected.

Tax cuts don't work at all.

[Amnorix]

Yeah, a smaller sample is statistically more relevant than a larger sample. :rolleyes:
Heh, not surprising, your aisle always puts more stock in cherry-picked numbers (see: every g'damned poll thread posted here or belched forth by the MSM)

ROFL ROFL ROFL

[Amnorix]

Lets take the capital gains tax cuts. They went from 25% to 15%.

Do you think that if an investor has $50,000,000 in capital gains and has just saved $5,000,000 in taxes that he's not going to reinvest that money?

If you take it on a smaller scale and someone now has $100,000 more to invest that they aren't going to reinvest that money?

If a business owner now has a lower tax bill he can hire new employees, reinvest in his business, or upgrade or expand his company?

The reason that lowering taxes increases what the gov't can take in is because it expands the tax base.


Per the Laffer chart, that's not only subject to diminishing returns, but doesn't hold true at all and is actually negative in terms of tax revenues after a certain point.

And tax policy does involve a few more things than strictly revenues, although people of different political philosophies will certainly strongly disagree about this.

[SBK]

I suggest you remove your head from your ass and look at a simple mathematical analysis.

Let's say there is a 20% National Sales tax: (roughly equivalent to what Jim DeMint advocated at one point)

A guy who makes $50,000 a year net spends 45,000 of it on necessities, so he pays $9,000 in taxes.

A guy who makes 5,000,000 a year net spends $2 million on various things, and would end up paying a tax of $400,000.

Now, the tax rate is identical, but it's also obvious that guy A has to spend a higher portion of his income on taxes because he doesn't have as big of a cushion on which to lean on. He's paying 18 percent of his income in taxes. The Rich guy is paying 8.

Explain to me the equity in a capitalist system where a guy who benefits the more pays 2.5 times less than another individual

Until you can come up with an honest argument that proves that people in the middle class and lower class spend the same percentage of their income as people in the upper income bracket, then my characterization of a shifting of the tax burden and covert class warfare still stands.

Like I said, read The Fair Tax.

Inbedded taxes in all products we buy, GONE. (something like 22-23% of the price we pay goes to the inbedded taxes)

Poverty level is some $25,000 or something, so gov't pays EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN a monthly check that would equal the tax paid up to $25,000. That way poor folks still pay no taxes.

Tax is placed on all new items, paid at the retail level. Prices won't change as the tax and imbedded tax no longer paid cancel each other out.

So everyone has more money, pays less tax and is subsidized by the government to the poverty line.

It won't kill you, go read the book.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Dow at an all time high, unemployment is low, and the treasury is bringing in way more money than expected, leading to way lower defecit than expected.

Tax cuts don't work at all.

Per Wiki:

Stronger critiques of supply-side economics dismiss the entire project as a complete failure which is a trojan horse for reducing marginal tax rates on upper income brackets. These critiques are found in Samuel Bowles' work, which argues that real productivity fell under supply-side taxation regimes on a unit-worker basis. Paul Krugman of Princeton called supply-side economics "Peddling Prosperity" and dismissed it as being unworthy of serious economists in a 1994 book written for the general audience. Since Krugman's early work was in international currency areas, the very theory for which Mundell received his Nobel Prize, his criticism was drawn in specifically sharp terms.

These criticisms point to the explosion in deficits and the conversion of price volatility to currency volatility as proofs that supply-side economics does not work. Supply-side defenders counter that the theory was never designed to consider government spending, and therefore cannot be blamed for this outcome. They also counter that tax revenues and the economy grew under supply-side policy, as predicted and that the Laffer Curve worked as advertised.

In 2003, the Wall Street Journal declared the debate over supply-side economics to have ended "with a whimper" after extensive modelling performed by the Congressional Budget Office failed to support supply-side policies. [11] It was also suggested that Dan Crippen may have lost his chance at reappointment as head of the CBO for failing to support supply-side inspired dynamic scoring.

[SBK]

Per the Laffer chart, that's not only subject to diminishing returns, but doesn't hold true at all and is actually negative in terms of tax revenues after a certain point.

And tax policy does involve a few more things than strictly revenues, although people of different political philosophies will certainly strongly disagree about this.

I know that there's more than tax cuts involved. If NYC was blown to bits by some terrorist and we paid no taxes the economy would take a huge hit.

If you'd like, you can point out a time that raising taxes has caused a surge in the economy. :hmmm:

[SBK]

Per Wiki:

Stronger critiques of supply-side economics dismiss the entire project as a complete failure which is a trojan horse for reducing marginal tax rates on upper income brackets. These critiques are found in Samuel Bowles' work, which argues that real productivity fell under supply-side taxation regimes on a unit-worker basis. Paul Krugman of Princeton called supply-side economics "Peddling Prosperity" and dismissed it as being unworthy of serious economists in a 1994 book written for the general audience. Since Krugman's early work was in international currency areas, the very theory for which Mundell received his Nobel Prize, his criticism was drawn in specifically sharp terms.

These criticisms point to the explosion in deficits and the conversion of price volatility to currency volatility as proofs that supply-side economics does not work. Supply-side defenders counter that the theory was never designed to consider government spending, and therefore cannot be blamed for this outcome. They also counter that tax revenues and the economy grew under supply-side policy, as predicted and that the Laffer Curve worked as advertised.

In 2003, the Wall Street Journal declared the debate over supply-side economics to have ended "with a whimper" after extensive modelling performed by the Congressional Budget Office failed to support supply-side policies. [11] It was also suggested that Dan Crippen may have lost his chance at reappointment as head of the CBO for failing to support supply-side inspired dynamic scoring.

I'll ask you the same question. Please point out a time that raising taxes has cause the economy to surge.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Like I said, read The Fair Tax.

Inbedded taxes in all products we buy, GONE. (something like 22-23% of the price we pay goes to the inbedded taxes)

Poverty level is some $25,000 or something, so gov't pays EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN a monthly check that would equal the tax paid up to $25,000. That way poor folks still pay no taxes.

Tax is placed on all new items, paid at the retail level. Prices won't change as the tax and imbedded tax no longer paid cancel each other out.

So everyone has more money, pays less tax and is subsidized by the government to the poverty line.

It won't kill you, go read the book.



It still doesn't address the fact that the middle class would then shoulder the majority of the tax burden since they spend a much much highter portion of their income than does the upper income bracket. Furthermore, it does not account for the skyrocketing deficit that would come from such a proposal, and what I enjoy the most (if only for its wanton idiocy) is that you are trying to propose a flat tax upon a system that by its nature is unfair Arguing that I should read a book whose thesis has already been rebutted is merely a poor attempt at deflection that does not address any of the numerous holes with your plan.

[Amnorix]

Dow at an all time high, unemployment is low, and the treasury is bringing in way more money than expected, leading to way lower defecit than expected.

Tax cuts don't work at all.


The same could be said for the mid-late 90s when there had been certain limited tax HIKES under Bush1 and Clinton.

Oh, and corporate profits are higher compared to GDP than since the 60s, and employee wages are lower compared to GDP than since 1947.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/28/news/economy/real_wages/

GDP up, but wages are stagnant:

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2006/04/gdp_up_wage_sta.html

And wealth and income disparity is growing markedly, getting even more ridiculously unbalanced than it already was, a trend that has been going on for almost 2 generations now.

I'm not advocating socialism or anything, but don't act for a second like the American economy is currently this terrific "rising tide lifting all boats". In reality, the tide is lifting some to the moon, while others are getting swamped, and the middle class is struggling to keep its necks above water.

This has a helluva lot more than just tax policy underlying it, of course, but tax policy is part of the big picture. You want a severely regressive tax regime on top of what is already going on? You are going to end up with incredible societal unrest, which isn't good for ANYBODY.

[bunnytrdr]

You haven't been paying attention to all the news now about the treasury bringing in tons of unexpected money? Or how that money is coming in from capital gains and other places (where the taxes were cut) and not from employees (where the gov't already knows exactly how much they are going to get?)

When stores lower prices they actually bring in more revenue. They're known as sales. The day after Thanksgiving is known for 2 things, the most sales, and the most money coming into the stores, both at the same time.

Tax cuts work the same way. When the gov't lowers what % of money they steal from the rich :) then people have more money to both spend and invest. The money that is invested is taxed upon the profits, which is now much more because those investments wouldn't have happened under the old tax rate.This is not perfectly true. If you lower taxes to 0% YOU WILL collect 0 dollars of taxes, that is a mathematical fact.

If you plot revenue generated on one axis, and % marginal tax rate on the other, then you get what is known as "The Laffer(sp) Curve", named such by its inventor, Arther B Laffer.

It definitely would make sense to lower taxes if we were at the upper half of the backwards C shaped curve, with revenue generated being the X axis, and % tax is the Y axis.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I'll ask you the same question. Please point out a time that raising taxes has cause the economy to surge.

The Clinton Tax act of 1993. Raised the upper income tax level from 33 to 39%, increased national gas taxes by a nickel. It's also known as the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation act of 1993.

Boy that economy really tanked in the 1990's, didn't it :rolleyes:

The bill, which both raised taxes and cut government spending, has been credited as the major cause behind the deficit reduction and eventual surpluses during the 1990s, by sources such as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. [1] The theory holds that federal budget deficits increase both inflation and interest rates. These two phenomena are widely known to cause economic stagnation. Indeed, when inflation increases, often the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates to contain the inflation.

The U.S. government pays for its debt by issuing additional debt instruments (such as Treasury Bonds and Treasury Notes). As U.S. government debt instruments are one of the safest investments in the world, they pay some of the lowest interest in the world. This causes the rate charged on federal bonds to act as a floor. This is because most other debt instruments are more risky (it is more likely that other issuers will default on their bonds than it is likely that the U.S. government will default on its bonds, and so those other issuers must pay higher interest rates to compensate for the higher risk). As more U.S. government debt is issued, there is an increasing demand for world capital to pay for these instruments. As the supply of these instruments increase, the interest rates paid by the U.S. government must increase to attract additional investors. As U.S. debt becomes more costly to carry, debt around the world also becomes more costly. This increase in worldwide interest rates causes it to be more expensive to operate businesses. This suppresses economic growth. It also causes companies to charge more for their products and services to pay for the more expensive debt. This causes inflation. The process is called crowding out.

[Amnorix]

I'll ask you the same question. Please point out a time that raising taxes has cause the economy to surge.

I think lowering taxes CAN have a positive effect in boosting the economy, although whether that's for reasons that are systemically good for either the economy, governmental revenues or society is debateable depending on circumstances. Conversely, raising taxes CAN have a negative effect, and similarly, whether that's good or bad is dependent on circumstances.

Under Bush 1 and Clinton, a number of taxes were raised, and yet the economy did very well in the aftermath. Why? Partly because there's a helluva lot more to whether the economy does good or bad than what the tax levels are at.

I also note that Reagan caused a surge in the economy, at the expense of an absurd national debt. Whether that's justified or not is also debateable, but as a permanent, long term policy, then what you're really advocating is that the government go deeper into debt so that more people can afford a flatscreen TV. I'm not sure that's good policy either.

And, more importantly than any of the above is this -- tax policy isn't just about causing a surge in the economy. There are a few other things that they need to be concerned about. The best surge in the economy, SHORT TERM, is to drop taxes to 1% and fund only critical necessities to make sure society doesn't fly apart. But that isn't likely to be good in the LONG term, for either the economy or society in general.

[Amnorix]

I'll ask you the same question. Please point out a time that raising taxes has cause the economy to surge.

You fail to understand some critical components of supply-side theory. The theory is that reducing taxes will BOTH (a) cause tax revenues to increase, and (b) increase wealth for all Americans, because of increased jobs, and an expanding economy.

You seem to be focused on stock market returns and the wealth of the top 10% of Americans. I agree, supply side theory is great for the stock market and the wealthiest Americans.

Everyone else is left in the dust, however, including the Feds, so don't sit there and tell me that raising taxes is axiomatically bad for the economy and lowering htem is axiomatically good. It's simplistic, naive and flat wrong.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

You fail to understand some critical components of supply-side theory. The theory is that reducing taxes will BOTH (a) cause tax revenues to increase, and (b) increase wealth for all Americans, because of increased jobs, and an expanding economy.

You seem to be focused on stock market returns and the wealth of the top 10% of Americans. I agree, supply side theory is great for the stock market and the wealthiest Americans.

Everyone else is left in the dust, however, including the Feds, so don't sit there and tell me that raising taxes is axiomatically bad for the economy and lowering htem is axiomatically good. It's simplistic, naive and flat wrong.

Bingo, and this is what happens when one guy reads one book about taxation from a biased source and takes it as the gospel truth.

The Stock Market kicked ass in the 80's while poverty and the national debt soared. It took us 200 f*cking YEARS to get $1 trillion in debt. Reagan quadrupled that in 8.

[bunnytrdr]

Yes, lower than the 90s, which had been spiked by Reagan/Bush1 (Bush 1 shares credit for the reduction in debt that took place under Clinton).

But still, flat terrible:

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image004.gif


Just change the "Bush enters office" with "Al Qaeda strikes", and I will agree with the graph and its content.

[BIG_DADDY]

Good god. We tried this in the 80's and at the beginning of Bush's term and it did not work. It only cuts government revenues, leads to a slashing of social programs, and increases the amount of money in the pockets of the people who do not need it.

If your worth more than a million you should already be investing from an offshore entity. People are already moving money out of here as it is. Over taxation and excessive legislation is enough reason for me to look at properties outside the US. Costa Rica is hella popular right now. I will not be in a situation to do that unfortunately for probably at least 10 years.

[Amnorix]

Just change the "Bush enters office" with "Al Qaeda strikes", and I will agree with the graph and its content.

Frankly, given his overall Reagan outlook, I'm VERY confident that if it wasnt' for Al Queda, he would've either (1) lowered taxes further, (2) increased military spending nearly as much anyway, or (3) found a different war to fight anyway.

There is not one iota of information about BushBaby that gives me any confidence at all that he gives a rat's ass about how much we spend or hwo deep in debt we go, and I'm sure he thinks that funding an economic expansion by raising the national debt through the roof, to make the Republicans look superfically good at managing the economy, while in reality just loading down future generations with more debt, is sheer brilliance.

IMHO, I think the Reagan and Bush2 Administrations have absolutely no excuse for this gross mismanagement.

[BIG_DADDY]

Just change the "Bush enters office" with "Al Qaeda strikes", and I will agree with the graph and its content.

Come on dude GW is spending money like it's growing on trees. He is also making or government friggen massive. The only good thing about that is there won't be any money there for the Dems to expand their never ending social ****ing programs with.

[Amnorix]

If your worth more than a million you should already be investing from an offshore entity. People are already moving money out of here as it is. Over taxation and excessive legislation is enough reason for me to look at properties outside the US. Costa Rica is hella popular right now. I will not be in a situation to do that unfortunately for probably at least 10 years.

Do what in Costa Rica? Buy some rental property, or move there for the rest of one's life, or what?

And do they get DirectTV for all NFL games? :hmmm:

['Hamas' Jenkins]

If your worth more than a million you should already be investing from an offshore entity. People are already moving money out of here as it is. Over taxation and excessive legislation is enough reason for me to look at properties outside the US. Costa Rica is hella popular right now. I will not be in a situation to do that unfortunately for probably at least 10 years.

There is a huge difference between overtaxation and what is actually going on in the US. The US has one of the lowest rates of taxation of any industrialized nation. http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp

Furthermore, investing in offshores is only popular b/c it's a way for people to avoid the already limp taxes that they do pay b/c various third world countries are so desperate for any type of revenue that they will f*ck themselves in the ass long term for a short term boost in operating currency.

[Amnorix]

Come on dude GW is spending money like it's growing on trees. He is also making or government friggen massive. The only good thing about that is there won't be any money there for the Dems to expand their never ending social ****ing programs with.

In fact, one reason the Democrats got whacked in '94, the Contract with America sweep of Republicans into office, is because we raised taxes in '93, which set the stage for lowering the debt while meanwhile not harming the economy at all.

And, once again, the Republicans nearly-criminally are mismanaging the situation, setting up the Democrats for having the do their f**king dirty work in acting responsibly as regards the budget, debt and deficit spending.

I cannot tell you how mad this makes me.

[BIG_DADDY]

Do what in Costa Rica? Buy some rental property, or move there for the rest of one's life, or what?

And do they get DirectTV for all NFL games? :hmmm:

Moving there. We have had 3 clients already do it. We have one more who will when his kids finish school. I think that is 2 years out. He already bought a property there. Most of them leave a chunk of money here but take the majority of it with them and are investing without taxation. If I got a bunch of money tomorrow I would be checking it out.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

In fact, one reason the Democrats got whacked in '94, the Contract with America sweep of Republicans into office, is because we raised taxes in '93, which set the stage for lowering the debt while meanwhile not harming the economy at all.

And, once again, the Republicans nearly-criminally are mismanaging the situation, setting up the Democrats for having the do their f**king dirty work in acting responsibly as regards the budget, debt and deficit spending.

I cannot tell you how mad this makes me.

And yet the vast majority of the populace is too goddamned stupid to ever realize what in the hell is going on. :banghead:

[BIG_DADDY]

In fact, one reason the Democrats got whacked in '94, the Contract with America sweep of Republicans into office, is because we raised taxes in '93, which set the stage for lowering the debt while meanwhile not harming the economy at all.

And, once again, the Republicans nearly-criminally are mismanaging the situation, setting up the Democrats for having the do their f**king dirty work in acting responsibly as regards the budget, debt and deficit spending.

I cannot tell you how mad this makes me.

No expansion of social programs, outstanding. Spending is out of control. I have intention of working my ass off for the rest of my life so these dickheads can go on spending sprees, expand the size of the government and take our liberties all at the same time. I think that's the way some people are beginning to look at it right now who have already made it. I didn't work this hard to have them over tax me and take my liberties, I'll just leave. The next 10 years should be very interesting in this country.

[BIG_DADDY]

And yet the vast majority of the populace is too goddamned stupid to ever realize what in the hell is going on. :banghead:

The vast majority of sheeple are tube watching friggen idiots.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

The vast majority of sheeple are tube watching friggen idiots.

Rep worthy, even if our politics don't mesh.

[HC_Chief]

This thread is a frigging classic... the leftists wringing their hands, bemoaning this gawdawful economy...

ROFL

[Baby Lee]

Oh, and another thing -- businesses are COMPETING to bring in customers. We don't compete for peoples' tax dollars. "Come pay our taxes, they're the lowest around!" err...no.
No, but productivity is competing with entropy and malaise.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

No, but productivity is competing with entropy and malaise.

Because god knows, everyone who doesn't "make it" only does so because they are lazy. :shake:

[Adept Havelock]

What does God need money for anyway?

Same reason he needs a Starship, I guess. [/Sybok]

[Baby Lee]

Because god knows, everyone who doesn't "make it" only does so because they are lazy. :shake:
Catch up, I'm referring to the relative productivity of already productive entities. And tax policy's effect on the competing interests in all of us between productivity and inactivity.

[SBK]

Because god knows, everyone who doesn't "make it" only does so because they are lazy. :shake:

99% of people that don't make it can blame poor decision making.

[htismaqe]

There is a huge difference between overtaxation and what is actually going on in the US. The US has one of the lowest rates of taxation of any industrialized nation. http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp.

The average citizen of the US also receives FAR LESS from the government than what they pay in taxes.

I lived in Europe. While the people there pay proportionally higher taxes, they also had healthcare provided, a guaranteed job, and various other "returns" on the money they paid in taxes.

Meanwhile, I pay almost 30% of my income to the government so that my next door neighbor can continue to gas up his riding lawn mower so that he can get to the guy down the street to drink beer and smoke crank...

['Hamas' Jenkins]

The average citizen of the US also receives FAR LESS from the government than what they pay in taxes.

I lived in Europe. While the people there pay proportionally higher taxes, they also had healthcare provided, a guaranteed job, and various other "returns" on the money they paid in taxes.

Meanwhile, I pay almost 30% of my income to the government so that my next door neighbor can continue to gas up his riding lawn mower so that he can get to the guy down the street to drink beer and smoke crank...

So perhaps what needs to be done is a restructuring of the way that social services are provided rather than a castration of the tax system. It's also a generalization that all those who receive government aid waste it on such things. Of course, the advertising campaign conducted by moneyed interests did a good job of dissuading people from this reality during their "war on the poor" in the 1990's.

[htismaqe]

So perhaps what needs to be done is a restructuring of the way that social services are provided rather than a castration of the tax system. It's also a generalization that all those who receive government aid waste it on such things. Of course, the advertising campaign conducted by moneyed interests did a good job of dissuading people from this reality during their "war on the poor" in the 1990's.

I never said we needed to DO anything. I was just pointing out that you're observation that Americans pay proportionally less taxes is misleading.

As for generalizations and ad campaigns, you can save it. I LIVE it everyday here in rural Iowa. Hard working people struggle to make it, paying for their own medical insurance and the like, and get nothing from the government. The guy next door lives an IDENTICAL lifestyle while sitting at home 40 hours a week and doing nothing.

[patteeu]

I suggest you remove your head from your ass and look at a simple mathematical analysis.

Let's say there is a 20% National Sales tax: (roughly equivalent to what Jim DeMint advocated at one point)

A guy who makes $50,000 a year net spends 45,000 of it on necessities, so he pays $9,000 in taxes.

A guy who makes 5,000,000 a year net spends $2 million on various things, and would end up paying a tax of $400,000.

Now, the tax rate is identical, but it's also obvious that guy A has to spend a higher portion of his income on taxes because he doesn't have as big of a cushion on which to lean on. He's paying 18 percent of his income in taxes. The Rich guy is paying 8.

Explain to me the equity in a capitalist system where a guy who benefits the more pays 2.25 times less than another individual

Until you can come up with an honest argument that proves that people in the middle class and lower class spend the same percentage of their income as people in the upper income bracket, then my characterization of a shifting of the tax burden and covert class warfare still stands.

Other than psychological benefits, what good does money in the bank do for the rich guy? If he eventually spends it all, he will pay taxes on all of it. If he doesn't spend it all, it will be the same as if the unspent portion was never there.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Other than psychological benefits, what good does money in the bank do for the rich guy? If he eventually spends it all, he will pay taxes on all of it. If he doesn't spend it all, it will be the same as if the unspent portion was never there.

Money in the bank...hmm. Well, the whole interest thing is nice. T-Bills have nice returns. The psychological benefits should not be underestimated, true monetary security is important in this society. It also works like a snowball, it affords him better investment opportunities, improves his likelihood for getting a loan, puts him in a better position should anything catastrophic happen, and so on.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I never said we needed to DO anything. I was just pointing out that you're observation that Americans pay proportionally less taxes is misleading.

As for generalizations and ad campaigns, you can save it. I LIVE it everyday here in rural Iowa. Hard working people struggle to make it, paying for their own medical insurance and the like, and get nothing from the government. The guy next door lives an IDENTICAL lifestyle while sitting at home 40 hours a week and doing nothing.

So if the system has inequites we shouldn't do anything to absolve that :hmmm:

[htismaqe]

So if the system has inequites we shouldn't do anything to absolve that :hmmm:

You're putting words in my mouth again.

We absolutely SHOULD do something to absolve that.

I haven't YET offered my opinion on what should be done.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

You're putting words in my mouth again.

We absolutely SHOULD do something to absolve that.

I haven't YET offered my opinion on what should be done.

What should be done, world traveler?

[htismaqe]

What should be done, world traveler?

Nice to see that you can't put away the condescension long enough to let somebody express their opinion.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Nice to see that you can't put away the condescension long enough to let somebody express their opinion.

I'm generally skeptical of people who play the part of a contrarian without offering any opinions of their own. It's tantamount to trolling. Sorry.

[htismaqe]

I'm generally skeptical of people who play the part of a contrarian without offering any opinions of their own. It's tantamount to trolling. Sorry.

I wasn't playing the part of contrarian. I was pointing out a misconception in your post.

However, your paranoia and want to attack anyone that doesn't explicitly agree with you led you down the path of attacking me before you even knew what my intention was.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I wasn't playing the part of contrarian. I was pointing out a misconception in your post.

However, your paranoia and want to attack anyone that doesn't explicitly agree with you led you down the path of attacking me before you even knew what my intention was.

So we've jumped from me putting words in your mouth to you having extra sensory perception. This is progress. :thumb: And it's not a misconception on my part, it's a stance that I hold in spite of a disinformation campaign and the ill-fated beliefs of people who think that because a few people abuse the system that all people abuse the system.

[htismaqe]

Anyway, since you asked...

I think the tax system needs to be reformed. Not necessarily because of inequities but because it's too complex. I don't think we necessarily need to change tax proportionality (ie. flat tax) but it seems to me that taxes on spending could offset the loss of taxes on income, and would be somewhat more "fair".

As for addressing the inequities in the system, I would prefer to see government programs that cover all people, rather than those with a loosely-defined "need". Healthcare and/or medical insurance would be government-provided to all people. And in lieu of welfare checks, people would be given employment.

[htismaqe]

So we've jumped from me putting words in your mouth to you having extra sensory perception. This is progress. :thumb: And it's not a misconception on my part, it's a stance that I hold in spite of a disinformation campaign and the ill-fated beliefs of people who think that because a few people abuse the system that all people abuse the system.

What disinformation campaign? I see it every day with my own 2 eyes. When a person can live off of the system indefinitely, when that person possesses no physical or mental disability other than laziness, the SYSTEM is broken. It matters not how many people are abusing the system, the fact that it can be abused at all means it needs to be changed.

As for your contention that a "few" people abuse the system, you need to get out more.

[patteeu]

Money in the bank...hmm. Well, the whole interest thing is nice. T-Bills have nice returns. The psychological benefits should not be underestimated, true monetary security is important in this society. It also works like a snowball, it affords him better investment opportunities, improves his likelihood for getting a loan, puts him in a better position should anything catastrophic happen, and so on.

Interest accumulated from investments is as worthless as the investments themselves until they are spent.

If something catastrophic happens and he has to liquidate his investments and spend his savings, he'd pay taxes on it.

Our tax code generally ignores psychological benefits. If we had a good way to evaluate them, I'm sure we would have already taxed them.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

What disinformation campaign? I see it every day with my own 2 eyes. When a person can live off of the system indefinitely, when that person possesses no physical or mental disability other than laziness, the SYSTEM is broken. It matters not how many people are abusing the system, the fact that it can be abused at all means it needs to be changed.

As for your contention that a "few" people abuse the system, you need to get out more.

The disinformation campaign launched by staunch social conservatives beginning in the late seventies and culminating in the 1990's.

One of my favorites comes from Reagan who said (paraphrasing) "We need to stop that Welfare mother in the ghetto of Chicago who has multiple kids just so she can live off the system". Along with this, he cloaked much of his rhetoric around "states rights" harkening back to the nascent years of the Confederacy.

The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 limited the amount of federal aid to 60 months over the course of the invidual's life. Although they allow extensions (for families with children), this largely eliminated people who can "live off the system" for their entire lives, which could happen from 1935-97. Your observations aren't fully informed.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Interest accumulated from investments is as worthless as the investments themselves until they are spent.

If something catastrophic happens and he has to liquidate his investments and spend his savings, he'd pay taxes on it.

Our tax code generally ignores psychological benefits. If we had a good way to evaluate them, I'm sure we would have already taxed them.

You aren't addressing the snowballing effect that wealth has. To take your absurd argument to its logical extension, if wealth was so undesirable, as witnessed by the apparent tyranny of our tax system, why aren't the rich giving away all their money and moving down to the middle class so that they won't be burdened with the oppressiveness of our taxation system.

[patteeu]

You aren't addressing the snowballing effect that wealth has. To take your absurd argument to its logical extension, if wealth was so undesirable, as witnessed by the apparent tyranny of our tax system, why aren't the rich giving away all their money and moving down to the middle class so that they won't be burdened with the oppressiveness of our taxation system.

The wealthy don't really care that much about taxes because they are going to be wealthy either way. It's the rest of us who are impacted by taxes and none moreso than the person who is striving to become wealthy.

Nothing about my example suggests that being wealthy is undesirable. My thesis is that the progressive tax code is a roadblock to becoming wealthy not that it makes being wealthy undesireable.

[htismaqe]

The disinformation campaign launched by staunch social conservatives beginning in the late seventies and culminating in the 1990's.

One of my favorites comes from Reagan who said (paraphrasing) "We need to stop that Welfare mother in the ghetto of Chicago who has multiple kids just so she can live off the system". Along with this, he cloaked much of his rhetoric around "states rights" harkening back to the nascent years of the Confederacy.

The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 limited the amount of federal aid to 60 months over the course of the invidual's life. Although they allow extensions (for families with children), this largely eliminated people who can "live off the system" for their entire lives, which could happen from 1935-97. Your observations aren't fully informed.

Social Security/disability.

I know people who are living quite comfortably with "migraine headaches".

['Hamas' Jenkins]

The wealthy don't really care that much about taxes because they are going to be wealthy either way. It's the rest of us who are impacted by taxes and none moreso than the person who is striving to become wealthy.

Nothing about my example suggests that being wealthy is undesirable. My thesis is that the progressive tax code is a roadblock to becoming wealthy not that it makes being wealthy undesireable.

With this having been said, this thesis is misguided IMO. The roadblock to becoming wealthy isn't a progressive tax code, it's the nature of capitalism that is the roadblock. It's a zero sum game. People may be taxed more as they earned more, but they are still taking more income home

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Social Security/disability.

I know people who are living quite comfortably with "migraine headaches".

If true, this is a fair example of the problems with the system. What I would ask you (not assuming that our current system is perfect by any means) is how you propose altering this system without creating a system where people with genuine disabilities can't survive b/c they cannot work to earn a living wage.

[htismaqe]

If true, this is a fair example of the problems with the system. What I would ask you (not assuming that our current system is perfect by any means) is how you propose altering this system without creating a system where people with genuine disabilities can't survive b/c they cannot work to earn a living wage.

I'm not gonna pretend to have the answers. If I did, I should probably run for public office.

I just know the system is broken.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I'm not gonna pretend to have the answers. If I did, I should probably run for public office.

I just know the system is broken.

I think that there are answers, but I also think that there are very strong and very rich interests that encourage the status quo.

[htismaqe]

I think that there are answers, but I also think that there are very strong and very rich interests that encourage the status quo.

I ABSOLUTELY agree with you.

On the one side, you have the people I described - completely dependent on the government for their very physical well-being.

On the other, you have the people you described - misinformed and intent on voting for whoever badmouths the former group of people above.

In the end, you have two groups of people who are empowering our existing goverment, marching in lock step, making sure that nothing positive ever gets done to change the system.

[SBK]

I think that there are answers, but I also think that there are very strong and very rich interests that encourage the status quo.

Let me explain to you why this is. It's because rich folks know the loopholes.

People that own companies will pay a far smaller % of their money to taxes than will the guy that punches the clock every week. It's the way it works, it's the way the system has been set up.

Liberals always launch into class warfare, and paying your fair share, but they know full well what loopholes their votes leave open for the "rich." They tell the middle class that they are taxing the rich hard, but in reality it's the guy in the middle class that's paying thru the nose, while multi-millionaires pay low single digit to low double digits in taxes. (now it might be a low %, but it's still way more money than the high % guy that don't make much)

Look at the current tax code. Capital gains are taxed at 15%, but you can depreciate your assets pretty well in some instances (real estate for ex.)

I can own apartment complexes, make millions, and using depreciation and my interest credits not pay a dime in taxes.

If you get into starting your own business, using an S or C corp, I can pay nearly all of my expenses with pre-tax money, and the little bit left over is what is taxed. Or I can pay myself a dividend instead of a salary, and the tax rate drops a ton.

The sad truth is that if you're an employee there's nothing you can do to escape a way too high tax burden. Interest credits (.30 for every $1 of interest) is freakin lame. I'd give someone 30 cents to get back a dollar everyday. You can't hide from the FICA, medicare and all the other taxes that are taken from you before you even get your check.

It's all a chirade, a way to get re-elected. That's why I mention the fair tax. It would actually be FAIR.

Today rich people foot the bill, but they foot that bill at a far lower % basis than do the middle class. You can thank Congress for that, it's a great way to control how people think, yet not bother to tell them the truth.

[CRONUS]

Social Security/disability.

I know people who are living quite comfortably with "migraine headaches".

The most you can make on SS disability is just over 2k a month, how do you live comfortably on that. I believe that is considered poverty level in the US.

[htismaqe]

The most you can make on SS disability is just over 2k a month, how do you live comfortably on that. I believe that is considered poverty level in the US.

Shit, that's simple.

ZERO expenses.

Section 8 housing, Title 19, food stamps, the whole 9 yards.

It's possible for a person to have EVERYTHING necessary to live (roof, food, healthcare) provided by the government AND get a check on top of it.

[CRONUS]

Shit, that's simple.

ZERO expenses.

Section 8 housing, Title 19, food stamps, the whole 9 yards.

It's possible for a person to have EVERYTHING necessary to live (roof, food, healthcare) provided by the government AND get a check on top of it.Maybe in Iowa.

[BucEyedPea]

They can do it here too. I co-own a small apartment building.
I rent to trash. Thinkin' of goin' Section 8. Can make more, although I am philosophy opposed to the idea.

[penchief]

The disinformation campaign launched by staunch social conservatives beginning in the late seventies and culminating in the 1990's.

One of my favorites comes from Reagan who said (paraphrasing) "We need to stop that Welfare mother in the ghetto of Chicago who has multiple kids just so she can live off the system". Along with this, he cloaked much of his rhetoric around "states rights" harkening back to the nascent years of the Confederacy.

The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 limited the amount of federal aid to 60 months over the course of the invidual's life. Although they allow extensions (for families with children), this largely eliminated people who can "live off the system" for their entire lives, which could happen from 1935-97. Your observations aren't fully informed.

So much for the real problem, Corporate Welfare. Reagan advocated Corporate Welfare in the same way our current administration does.

Corporate Welfare is the bigger bane on our society. Especially when we give big business our hard earned tax dollars so that they can move off-shore and avoid paying their own taxes. And when they gladly accept those tax dollars and promptly ship our jobs overseas on top of that. And when they accept those tax dollars and procede to undercut environmental regulations designed to protect the health of our communities and our families. And when they accept those tax breaks while simultaneously renegging on pensions and health care obligations.

Damn those welfare mothers!

So much for patriotism or a sense of duty toward a system that allows for the freedom to pursue unlimited wealth. At some point there has to be a gratitude or a sense of duty. At some point there has to be a recognition that one can't suck the blood out of a good thing and expect it to perpetuate itself for future generations.

When all things point in the same direction and all policy seems to benefit the same entities, one has to be skeptical.

[htismaqe]

When all things point in the same direction and all policy seems to benefit the same entities, one has to be skeptical.

What more can you be than skeptical, though? That's the question.

Especially when BOTH parties are intricately involved in maintaining the status quo?

[Hoover]

Its not the status quo, its playing it safe so you get re-elected.

If you want more accountability in Government put in term limits.

[penchief]

What more can you be than skeptical, though? That's the question.

Especially when BOTH parties are intricately involved in maintaining the status quo?

Being skeptical is the bare minimum. It's beyond that. There's been a huge political and economic power grab taking place in this country and it's been done on the sly. We've been asleep at the wheel.

This republican government has consistently undermined the common good and justified it with hollow slogans.

[SBK]

So much for the real problem, Corporate Welfare. Reagan advocated Corporate Welfare in the same way our current administration does.

Corporate Welfare is the bigger bane on our society. Especially when we give big business our hard earned tax dollars so that they can move off-shore and avoid paying their own taxes. And when they gladly accept those tax dollars and promptly ship our jobs overseas on top of that. And when they accept those tax dollars and procede to undercut environmental regulations designed to protect the health of our communities and our families. And when they accept those tax breaks while simultaneously renegging on pensions and health care obligations.

Damn those welfare mothers!

So much for patriotism or a sense of duty toward a system that allows for the freedom to pursue unlimited wealth. At some point there has to be a gratitude or a sense of duty. At some point there has to be a recognition that one can't suck the blood out of a good thing and expect it to perpetuate itself for future generations.

When all things point in the same direction and all policy seems to benefit the same entities, one has to be skeptical.

You know, the purpose of a business is to make a profit. If the US gov't is going to tax a business so much that by moving the HQ of the company off shore they can remain in business, then so be it.

I am with you about corporate welfare, if your company can't stand on it's own the gov't shouldn't be bailing you out. There are of course a few exceptions, like the airlines after 9/11 and such.

How do you feel about gov't funding research, like stem cell research or something? That's gov't money handed out to private companies. Evil drug companies at that.

[Rausch]

You know, the purpose of a business is to make a profit. If the US gov't is going to tax a business so much that by moving the HQ of the company off shore they can remain in business, then so be it.

Too bad all the cheap labor is to be had in nations that hate us.

That'll change soon though, the US educational system is quicly making tards of us all.

I am with you about corporate welfare, if your company can't stand on it's own the gov't shouldn't be bailing you out. There are of course a few exceptions, like the airlines after 9/11 and such.

**** bailouts.

Find a more effective way to run an airline or go under...

[SBK]

Too bad all the cheap labor is to be had in nations that hate us.

That'll change soon though, the US educational system is quicly making tards of us all.



**** bailouts.

Find a more effective way to run an airline or go under...

I was referring to the insurance policy that the Gov't gave the airlines before they took to the air again after the 9/11 attack.

[Rausch]

I was referring to the insurance policy that the Gov't gave the airlines before they took to the air again after the 9/11 attack.

Is that what they call a lifeline now?

[htismaqe]

Being skeptical is the bare minimum. It's beyond that. There's been a huge political and economic power grab taking place in this country and it's been done on the sly. We've been asleep at the wheel.

This republican government has consistently undermined the common good and justified it with hollow slogans.

The fact that you continue to categorize this power grab as "republican" shows they've fooled you too...

[penchief]

The fact that you continue to categorize this power grab as "republican" shows they've fooled you too...

Who are they, then? They're running under the republican brand name. Either "true" republicans need to change the name of their party or kick the retrocons out.

The republican revolution of 1994 has quickly turned into a huge power grab at the expense of our future peace and prosperity. The party has completely and whole-heartedly sold us out in exchange for their "permanent republican majority."

[patteeu]

So much for the real problem, Corporate Welfare. Reagan advocated Corporate Welfare in the same way our current administration does.

Corporate Welfare is the bigger bane on our society. Especially when we give big business our hard earned tax dollars so that they can move off-shore and avoid paying their own taxes. And when they gladly accept those tax dollars and promptly ship our jobs overseas on top of that. And when they accept those tax dollars and procede to undercut environmental regulations designed to protect the health of our communities and our families. And when they accept those tax breaks while simultaneously renegging on pensions and health care obligations.

Damn those welfare mothers!

So much for patriotism or a sense of duty toward a system that allows for the freedom to pursue unlimited wealth. At some point there has to be a gratitude or a sense of duty. At some point there has to be a recognition that one can't suck the blood out of a good thing and expect it to perpetuate itself for future generations.

When all things point in the same direction and all policy seems to benefit the same entities, one has to be skeptical.

Wouldn't it be nice if welfare queens were leaving the country in droves for greener pastures overseas and businesses were coming to America to take advantage of an attractive business environment?

The policies advocated by many democrats and some liberal republicans have the opposite effect. Those policies make America a welfare haven and relatively unattractive to business. It's compassionate, but it's like slow economic suicide.

[htismaqe]

Who are they, then? They're running under the republican brand name. Either "true" republicans need to change the name of their party or kick the retrocons out.

The republican revolution of 1994 has quickly turned into a huge power grab at the expense of our future peace and prosperity. The party has completely and whole-heartedly sold us out in exchange for their "permanent republican majority."

The current Governor here in Iowa is doing ALL of the things being bitched about - giving millions to corporations, eminent domain - continuing to consolidate more and more power.

And he's considered to be a possible DEMOCRATIC candidate for President.

The jobs lost here due to free trade with Mexico were lost when NAFTA was signed - BY BILL CLINTON.

As long as people like you continue to blame one side or the other, it will be impossible to change anything. You're doing exactly what they want - distracted from the REAL issue.

[Sully]

Anyway, since you asked...

I think the tax system needs to be reformed. Not necessarily because of inequities but because it's too complex. I don't think we necessarily need to change tax proportionality (ie. flat tax) but it seems to me that taxes on spending could offset the loss of taxes on income, and would be somewhat more "fair".

As for addressing the inequities in the system, I would prefer to see government programs that cover all people, rather than those with a loosely-defined "need". Healthcare and/or medical insurance would be government-provided to all people. And in lieu of welfare checks, people would be given employment.


Sounds good.
Where do I sign up?

[penchief]

The current Governor here in Iowa is doing ALL of the things being bitched about - giving millions to corporations, eminent domain - continuing to consolidate more and more power.

And he's considered to be a possible DEMOCRATIC candidate for President.

The jobs lost here due to free trade with Mexico were lost when NAFTA was signed - BY BILL CLINTON.

As long as people like you continue to blame one side or the other, it will be impossible to change anything. You're doing exactly what they want - distracted from the REAL issue.

I'm not so naive or partisan to know that it hasn't occurred within both parties. However, the degree to which this lock-step rubber stamp republican congress has sold this country out is blatantly obvious.

As far as NAFTA goes, while Clinton did indeed sign it, it was first introduced during the administration of George Bush, the first. However, even more than NAFTA is at work now. This White House and it's rubber stamp congress has completely sold out the public welfare for their benefactors in the oil, energy, utilties, insurance, pharmaceutical, credit card and banking industries.

They are the party of Jack Abramhoff and Haliburton. They are the party of diminishing wages, no health care, renegged pensions, eroding overtime laws, and no-bid contracts. They are the party of the new bankruptcy laws basically written by the credit card companies. They are the party of undermining environmental laws for their polluting benefactors. They are the party of corporate welfare, tax loopholes, and deregulation.

When every policy of this White House and it's rubber stamp congress always benefits those same entities and always opposes the bread and butter issues of average American families it's clear who has completely sold this country out. In almost every case listed above the democrats are in direct opposition to the republicans.

[Amnorix]

99% of people that don't make it can blame poor decision making.

Like deciding who their parents were?

You are completely missing the bus if you think an inner city kid in a poor neighborhood has an equal chance of being "successful" as a white, suburban-born of wealthy parents kid. Not impossible; just not nearly as likely, due to a very large number of factors.

That does NOT, however, mean that we should have 20 million affirmative action and other programs throwing money at the problem to fix it, necessarily. Identifying the problem is one thing -- figuring out how to try to fix it is another thing entirely.

[Amnorix]

I never said we needed to DO anything. I was just pointing out that you're observation that Americans pay proportionally less taxes is misleading.

As for generalizations and ad campaigns, you can save it. I LIVE it everyday here in rural Iowa. Hard working people struggle to make it, paying for their own medical insurance and the like, and get nothing from the government. The guy next door lives an IDENTICAL lifestyle while sitting at home 40 hours a week and doing nothing.

Don't even talk to me about return ont he tax dollar. Massachusetts and nearly all of the other "blue" statess get less than all the red states, who bitch about taxes being too high, but reap most of the windfall.

Just for exmaple, in 2004 it was .82 returned to the state for each dollar paid in by Mass., while Iowa got $1.10 for each dollar paid in.

http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm

[patteeu]

Like deciding who their parents were?

You are completely missing the bus if you think an inner city kid in a poor neighborhood has an equal chance of being "successful" as a white, suburban-born of wealthy parents kid. Not impossible; just not nearly as likely, due to a very large number of factors.

That does NOT, however, mean that we should have 20 million affirmative action and other programs throwing money at the problem to fix it, necessarily. Identifying the problem is one thing -- figuring out how to try to fix it is another thing entirely.

I appreciate your last paragraph, but I'm not sure that I agree to characterize what you've identified as a "problem." Some groups of people are always going to be at a disadvantage. Urban kids who dream of being sheep farmers are always going to be at a disadvantage to the kid who grew up on a sheep farm. Some things can't be changes so they have to simply be recognized. The kid dreaming of the sheep farm needs to realize that she's going to have to work harder than the sheep farmer's daughter to make that particular dream come true. She shouldn't take false security in the fact that she attended a publicly financed sheep camp as a remedial measure to make up for this disadvantage.

[Amnorix]

I appreciate your last paragraph, but I'm not sure that I agree to characterize what you've identified as a "problem." Some groups of people are always going to be at a disadvantage. Urban kids who dream of being sheep farmers are always going to be at a disadvantage to the kid who grew up on a sheep farm. Some things can't be changes so they have to simply be recognized. The kid dreaming of the sheep farm needs to realize that she's going to have to work harder than the sheep farmer's daughter to make that particular dream come true. She shouldn't take false security in the fact that she attended a publicly financed sheep camp as a remedial measure to make up for this disadvantage.

I categorically agree with everything you've said.

Society cannot possibly equalize everyone's situation. Having two smart parents who are loving, attentive, firm, disciplined, smart and able and willing to try to ensure their kid doesn't go astry and gets good grades puts that kid WAAY ahead of another kid who is missing some or all of those things, and there isn't a single damn one of those items that government can in any way guaranty or ensure.

That said, government can and should do what it can to try to improve the education and job prospects of the lowest rungs of society. It's like what the Patriots are sometimes referred to as doing "upgrade the bottom of the roster", or good advice for investors "always work to improve the worst performers". If you can eliminate or weed out the worst performers in a portfolio, then you will do far better than constantly questing for the next Microsoft or Dell, nine times out of ten.

There's no easy answers here, and endlessly throwing money at a situation isn't it either. I don't pretend to have any answers. But I don't believe that government should wash their hands of this and turn their backs and say "good luck, Darwinism is the rule here" either.

[htismaqe]

Don't even talk to me about return ont he tax dollar. Massachusetts and nearly all of the other "blue" statess get less than all the red states, who bitch about taxes being too high, but reap most of the windfall.

Just for exmaple, in 2004 it was .82 returned to the state for each dollar paid in by Mass., while Iowa got $1.10 for each dollar paid in.

http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm

Farm subsidies and the like don't benefit me. Sorry.

I don't reap any of the windfall.

And FYI, Iowa is a blue state, not a red state.