PDA

View Full Version : Economics Taxing My Patience


KC native
09-22-2010, 10:57 PM
Been busy lately and I'm incredibly annoyed by most of the idiotic posting out here these days but I found a few articles that I wanted to post but haven't had a chance.

First up,
http://www.slate.com/id/2267681/
Taxing My Patience
Five points to keep in mind as Congress debates the Bush tax cuts.
By Daniel Gross


Here are five things you need to know about the debate over extending the temporary tax cuts Congress passed almost a decade ago. (For those of you who haven't been paying attention in class, these are known as "the Bush tax cuts" because they were passed at the former president's urging, and if Congress does nothing, they will expire at the end of the year.)

1) All the representatives and senators who voted for the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 also voted for their expiration. That's how they were designed.

2) The tax cuts could have been made permanent or extended at some point before now. Alternatively, the folks who ran fiscal policy from 2001 through 2008—the Republican White House and a Congress that was controlled for most of that period by Republicans—could have created the conditions that would have made it possible to extend the tax cuts or make them permanent. But they didn't. Instead of running balanced budgets, they appropriated hundreds of billions of dollars to fight two wars, created an expensive, open-ended entitlement without a funding mechanism (Medicare prescription drug coverage), and increased discretionary spending. Oh, and their failures of oversight, regulation, and management led to expensive, deficit-enhancing bailouts.

3) Many Republicans and some Democrats have spent much of the last year warning (falsely, it turns out) that the large deficits we face this year and in coming years would cause inflation, result in high interest rates, and turn us into indentured servants to China. Now, the same folks are arguing for … even-larger short-term deficits that somehow won't have all those ill effects. President Obama's proposal to extend the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 per year will add $3.2 trillion to the debt. But as the Congressional Budget Office noted, extending them all will add $3.9 trillion in debt. Now, advocating tax cuts without specifying spending cuts (and, no, John Boehner, saying you want to roll back spending to 2008 levels doesn't count) means you're advocating a huge increase in new debt creation. It's sad to say, but it's nearly impossible to find a Democrat or Republican who can speak seriously about how we can align revenues with expenditures. (And, no, Rep. Paul Ryan, your much-discussed "road map" doesn't count, since it cuts taxes on the rich but doesn't lower deficits over the long term.)

4) The bold and confident assertions made about the links between tax rates and economic growth, market performance, and prosperity are almost certainly wrong. Turn on CNBC or look at the Wall Street Journal op-ed page these days, and you'll learn that we must keep tax rates on capital gains, dividends, and income precisely where they are because shifting them to different levels will retard economic growth. Keep this in mind: The people who designed the current, unsustainable tax system promised us that lower marginal rates, and lower taxes on capital and dividends, would boost the economy, promote investment, create jobs, spur market performance, and raise everybody's income. They were wrong. (It's no coincidence that these same people also warned us that raising taxes in 1993 would kill market returns and the economy. They were wrong then, too. They're pretty much always wrong.) As I've pointed out, the years under the current tax regime have been a lost decade. Pick your metric—median income, employment, stock market returns, economic growth—the low-tax '00s sucked. Yet proponents of keeping the tax cuts persist in making the argument: To avoid a repeat of the past decade, we must have the exact same tax policies as we did for the past decade.

5) Stopping all the tax cuts from expiring requires the passage of legislation. But the people who most want all the tax cuts extended—i.e., Republicans—don't have the ability to enact legislation. They don't control a majority in either legislative body, and for the past two years they've proved successful only at stopping or delaying legislation.

The upshot is this: If you're in the $250,000-per-year-and-up camp, even if you don't think you're rich, I'd start planning to pay higher taxes next year. But I wouldn't discount the scenario of all the tax cuts expiring. Look at what happened with the estate tax, another sop to the rich. In a bizarre turn of events, it was designed to decline throughout the decade, disappear entirely in 2010, and then return at a much higher level in 2011. Rather than compromise with Democrats on a permanent reduction that would leave lots of people better off but still require the richest of the rich to payer higher taxes, Republicans held out for a maximalist, all-or-nothing approach. They ended up with nothing. History may not repeat, but it sometimes rhymes.

Taco John
09-22-2010, 11:48 PM
Hey wow. I haven't seen a strawman bolded in big block letters around here before.

KC native
09-23-2010, 12:58 AM
Hey wow. I haven't seen a strawman bolded in big block letters around here before.

Didn't take Taco "somalia" John long. ROFL So, what's wrong with what was written? Were those not the arguments given for tax cuts?

stevieray
09-23-2010, 01:03 AM
Hey wow. I haven't seen a strawman bolded in big block letters around here before.

he needs some negative attention.

KC native
09-23-2010, 01:04 AM
he needs some negative attention.

hey, dress up suzie makes an appearance too. Nice to see that per your usual posting style that you don't have anything relevant to the op.

stevieray
09-23-2010, 01:06 AM
give him a hug, TJ.

The Mad Crapper
09-23-2010, 08:13 AM
Hey wow. I haven't seen a strawman bolded in big block letters around here before.

:LOL:

KC Naive is a stooge.

KC native
09-23-2010, 08:48 AM
0 comments about the content so far? Color me not surprised.

The Mad Crapper
09-23-2010, 08:49 AM
0 comments about the content so far? Color me not surprised.

What part of "Hey wow. I haven't seen a strawman bolded in big block letters around here before" did you not understand?

:drool:

KC native
09-23-2010, 08:53 AM
What part of "Hey wow. I haven't seen a strawman bolded in big block letters around here before" did you not understand?

:drool:

Except it isn't a strawman. Were those not the arguments given in favor of tax cuts?

The Mad Crapper
09-23-2010, 08:58 AM
Except it isn't a strawman.

If you live in a plastic bubble on Mars, I suppose, but not here on Earth.

:drool:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WpSDBu35K-8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WpSDBu35K-8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Taco John
09-23-2010, 09:03 AM
Except it isn't a strawman. Were those not the arguments given in favor of tax cuts?

It's absolutely a straw man. No conservative in their right mind argues for tax cuts without arguing equally for spending cuts. Nowhere does your little strawman address this. You were probably still in little league when the original debate happened here, but when the original debate about this came up, I was arguing that the tax cuts would be economically fruitless if they weren't also supplemented by spending cuts. All your entire post does is validate that argument.

KC native
09-23-2010, 09:05 AM
If you live in a plastic bubble on Mars, I suppose, but not here on Earth.

:drool:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WpSDBu35K-8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WpSDBu35K-8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I can't see the videos bc i'm on my phone, but I doubt they are relevant. So, since you want to be a bitch about things. Please give the rationale behind shrub's temporary tax cut.

The Mad Crapper
09-23-2010, 09:06 AM
I can't see the videos bc i'm on my phone.

Fine, watch it when you get to the library.

Taco John
09-23-2010, 09:07 AM
In fact my exact quote on this forum was "Tax Cuts without spending cuts will be counter productive."

KC native
09-23-2010, 09:08 AM
It's absolutely a straw man. No conservative in their right mind argues for tax cuts without arguing equally for spending cuts. Nowhere does your little strawman address this. You were probably still in little league when the original debate happened here, but when the original debate about this came up, I was arguing that the tax cuts would be economically fruitless if they weren't also supplemented by spending cuts. All your entire post does is validate that argument.

Oh I wish I was at home right now bc you are full of shit and looking up shit to post on cp is a pain in the ass on my phone. The conservatives have been spreading the myth that tax cuts pay for themselves for years.

Taco John
09-23-2010, 09:10 AM
I can't see the videos bc i'm on my phone, but I doubt they are relevant. So, since you want to be a bitch about things. Please give the rationale behind shrub's temporary tax cut.

They're absolutely relevant. Charlie Gibson notes that when the taxes were raised in different points in time, the government took in LESS revenue, and when they were lowered at different points in time, the government took in more. He asks Obama why raise them.

Obama's answer ridiculously enough is "for purposes of fairness," and went on a class war diatribe.

The Mad Crapper
09-23-2010, 09:11 AM
Oh I wish

Close your eyes and click your heels.

KC native
09-23-2010, 09:14 AM
They're absolutely relevant. Charlie Gibson notes that when the taxes were raised in different points in time, the government took in LESS revenue, and when they were lowered at different points in time, the government took in more. He asks Obama why raise them.

Obama's answer ridiculously enough is "for purposes of fairness," and went on a class war diatribe.

jfc, this shit again.

The Mad Crapper
09-23-2010, 09:15 AM
jfc, this shit again.

The only one you are BSing with your socialist propaganda is yourself.

Bloodbath for dim's in November. ROFL

Saul Good
09-23-2010, 09:22 AM
I'm particularly fond of the "they could have been extended before now" argument. Why do anything now? It could have been done before.


Of course I also like the "Republicans voted for the cuts to be temporary" one. The same guy making this argument probably wants DADT to be repealed.

Iowanian
09-23-2010, 09:44 AM
It's time to implement a Spanish tax.

Every time someone speaks spanish, they owe the federal govt $5.


Someone pass kcnaive a napkin, she's got drool on her chin again.

Brainiac
09-23-2010, 10:06 AM
I can't see the videos bc i'm on my phone, but I doubt they are relevant. So, since you want to be a bitch about things. Please give the rationale behind shrub's temporary tax cut.
Let me summarize it for you.

Charles Gibson: "History shows that when you LOWER the capital gains tax rate, revenues go up. When you raise it, revenues go down."

Obama: "It's not fair to have the rich guys pay lower rates. I want to raise the rates".

Gibson: "But when you raise the capital gains tax rate, revenues go down."

Obama: "I don't give a shit. I just want to stick it to those rich bastards. I don't care what it does to overall tax revenue. What? Oh, I meant to say I don't believe that's how it works. Yeah, that's it. That's the story. I don't believe that's how it works."

Brainiac
09-23-2010, 10:07 AM
jfc, this shit again.
Watch the f*cking video.

BigChiefFan
09-23-2010, 10:12 AM
Hey, here's an idea, BOTH PARTIES are a joke and COLLOBORATE together. The Republicans aren't much better than the Dems. Neo-con or hand-outs isn't much of a choice for the direction of this country. The partisanship is a joke, because it's the same PARTY, with division amongst them. More of the same. It's not like anything is going to change if Republicans get elected, in fact, we are more apt to go to war with Neo-cons in office. The choices are insulting because their crooks and liars in the first place. BOTH PARTIES are to BLAME. BOTH.

Brainiac
09-23-2010, 10:15 AM
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/19/news/economy/what_to_do_economists_survey/index.htm

Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for everyone

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/09/19/news/economy/what_to_do_economists_survey/chart_congress_2.top.gif

By Chris Isidore, senior writer
September 20, 2010: 9:09 AM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- With income tax rates set to go up on Dec. 31, Congress is hotly debating what to do next. But most economists agree: Keep them where they are.

One option, to let the tax cuts passed during the Bush administration expire for only the richest 3% of taxpayers while renewing them for everyone else, is popular among Democrats and the choice of the Obama administration.

But a majority of a panel of leading economists surveyed by CNNMoney.com said that the tax cuts should be renewed for everyone.

The first in a series of economic surveys revealed that extending the tax cuts for all taxpayers is the most important thing Congress can do to help the economy. Of the 31 economists surveyed, 18 chose that from a list of options now being debated on Capitol Hill.

"Extend tax cuts for all income levels and do nothing else," said Sean Snaith, economics professor at the University of Central Florida. "More of the same piecemeal, patchwork policies put forth by this administration will undermine confidence and do little to change the path the economy is on."

Three economists surveyed endorsed the Obama administration's plan to extend the tax cuts only for the lower- and middle-income taxpayers, but allow it to go up on those in the top two brackets -- individuals making more than $200,000 a year or couples earning $250,000 or more. That limited increase in taxes would raise an estimated $700 billion over the next 10 years.

Some experts, such as former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, argue that with the size of U.S. budget deficit, the government can't afford to extend anyone's tax break.

But economists surveyed were in broad agreement that the recovery is still too fragile to allow taxes to go up for the 97% of taxpayers not in the top brackets.

"If those tax cuts expire for everybody, we go into a double-dip recession," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics.

Zandi and some of the economists calling for an extension of cuts for the wealthy want to phase out the lower rates for those taxpayers after a couple of years to limit the cost to the Treasury.

Higher taxes are generally believed to be a drag on the economy since it leaves consumers and businesses with less money to spend. Those who argue for extending the tax cuts for the wealthy say that raising those tax rates would hit many small businesses and could put a crimp in hiring.

Those who want to allow the rates to rise for the top earners argue they are more likely to save the money rather than spend it, and thus the tax cut would have less of an economic impact than would lowering the taxes for most other taxpayers.

"I would prefer that the tax cuts for the two upper brackets would also be extended, but there is much more spending [that needs to be done] and much more of an economic impact from extending the tax cuts for everybody else," said Dana Johnson of Comerica Bank, one of those who endorsed the Obama plan to let taxes rise on the top earners.

Four of the economists surveyed backed the plan that passed the Senate Thursday to provide funding and other incentives to spur more lending to small businesses.

Another five suggested other choices of their own, including taking more steps to stop home foreclosures, reforming the overall tax system, resuming drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and having the Federal Reserve do more to provide credit directly to businesses and consumers.

Only two cited additional help for long-term unemployed and more help to cash-strapped state and local governments as their top priorities.

KC native
09-23-2010, 11:41 AM
Let me summarize it for you.

Charles Gibson: "History shows that when you LOWER the capital gains tax rate, revenues go up. When you raise it, revenues go down."

Obama: "It's not fair to have the rich guys pay lower rates. I want to raise the rates".

Gibson: "But when you raise the capital gains tax rate, revenues go down."

Obama: "I don't give a shit. I just want to stick it to those rich bastards. I don't care what it does to overall tax revenue. What? Oh, I meant to say I don't believe that's how it works. Yeah, that's it. That's the story. I don't believe that's how it works."

Thanks, that would nice it if were that simple but as I have repeatedly shown you that isn't a valid inference. Keep getting financial advice from journalists at your own peril.

KC native
09-23-2010, 11:44 AM
WRT your crap cnn article. Are these the same economists who completely missed the crisis and it's fallout? How many did they survey?

This is a shit article that says nothing. Color me not surprised an economic simpleton such as yourself considers it authoritative.

Calcountry
09-23-2010, 12:47 PM
Except it isn't a strawman. Were those not the arguments given in favor of tax cuts?Tax cuts, although very politically expedient for establishment Republicans to parrot, are not a magic elixer that will always fix every ecnomic hurricane that Fannie, Freddie, Frank and Dodd can dish out.

Surely, you don't want to RAISE taxes in the middle of a GREAT RECESSION.

Calcountry
09-23-2010, 12:49 PM
It's absolutely a straw man. No conservative in their right mind argues for tax cuts without arguing equally for spending cuts. Nowhere does your little strawman address this. You were probably still in little league when the original debate happened here, but when the original debate about this came up, I was arguing that the tax cuts would be economically fruitless if they weren't also supplemented by spending cuts. All your entire post does is validate that argument.Because, the deficits that would ensue would require massive borrowing by the government, WHICH, crowds out the private sector from the lending window, making it impossible to secure funding for expansion projects which leads to less hiring and no new job creation.

vailpass
09-23-2010, 12:55 PM
Posting from the county lock-up?

Chief Henry
09-23-2010, 12:57 PM
In Obama's own words in the video, he claims Bush wasn't "attentive" to the housing bubble.


Do you boys think Obama's been "attentive" to the job creators here in the good ol USA ?

The Mad Crapper
09-23-2010, 01:38 PM
Hey, here's an idea, BOTH PARTIES are a joke and COLLOBORATE together. .

Do you just press rewind and then hit play?

The Mad Crapper
09-23-2010, 01:39 PM
In Obama's own words in the video, he claims Bush wasn't "attentive" to the housing bubble.


Do you boys think Obama's been "attentive" to the job creators here in the good ol USA ?

Are you kidding? He thinks a family of four on Long Island making $250 grand a year is "rich".

The guy is a lunatic scumbag.

KC native
09-23-2010, 01:40 PM
In Obama's own words in the video, he claims Bush wasn't "attentive" to the housing bubble.


Do you boys think Obama's been "attentive" to the job creators here in the good ol USA ?

Apples and oranges retard. Bush and his appointments completely ignored many warning signs. There's nothing the Obama admin can do to force companies to hire.

The Mad Crapper
09-23-2010, 01:41 PM
Oh I wish I was at home right now bc you are full of shit and looking up shit to post on cp

Oooooooooh you just wait until I get home you make me SO ANGRY! :mad:

The Mad Crapper
09-23-2010, 01:42 PM
Is is just me, or has anybody caught this Stalinist BS?

There's nothing the Obama admin can do to force companies to hire.

BigChiefFan
09-23-2010, 01:42 PM
Do you just press rewind and then hit play?Hearing that from you is laughable. Mr. Beater of Dead Horses.

KC native
09-23-2010, 01:56 PM
Are you kidding? He thinks a family of four on Long Island making $250 grand a year is "rich".

The guy is a lunatic scumbag.

Because 250k is rich. If you make that much and you choose to live in a high cost area, they desrve no sympathy. Their wealth allows them to choose to live in an exspensive area.

KC native
09-23-2010, 01:59 PM
Oooooooooh you just wait until I get home you make me SO ANGRY! :mad:

wow, you're so clever. that only took you like 4 hours to come up with. ROFL

Mile High Mania
09-23-2010, 02:02 PM
Because 250k is rich. If you make that much and you choose to live in a high cost area, they desrve no sympathy. Their wealth allows them to choose to live in an exspensive area.

That is so stupid...

KC native
09-23-2010, 02:02 PM
Is is just me, or has anybody caught this Stalinist BS?

ROFL WTF is Stalinist about stating that there is nothing the Obama admin can do to force companies to hire? You need to lay off the meth

vailpass
09-23-2010, 02:04 PM
Because 250k is rich. If you make that much and you choose to live in a high cost area, they desrve no sympathy. Their wealth allows them to choose to live in an exspensive area.

If you would have had any credibility on this board you would have lost it right here.

ChiTown
09-23-2010, 02:10 PM
Because 250k is rich. If you make that much and you choose to live in a high cost area, they desrve no sympathy. Their wealth allows them to choose to live in an exspensive area.

:spock:

SNR
09-23-2010, 02:12 PM
Because 250k is rich. If you make that much and you choose to live in a high cost area, they desrve no sympathy. Their wealth allows them to choose to live in an exspensive area.If you don't like living in a high cost area then you can GEEEEET OOOOUTTT

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nT0OqHr3wHQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nT0OqHr3wHQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Chief Henry
09-23-2010, 02:19 PM
If you would have had any credibility on this board you would have lost it right here.

Its never had any credibilty.

Chief Henry
09-23-2010, 02:21 PM
Apples and oranges retard. Bush and his appointments completely ignored many warning signs. There's nothing the Obama admin can do to force companies to hire.

The more you post, the more clueless you become.

Calcountry
09-23-2010, 02:32 PM
Because 250k is rich. If you make that much and you choose to live in a high cost area, they desrve no sympathy. Their wealth allows them to choose to live in an exspensive area.Or maybe, the job demands the person to be in the vicinity of the job?

Income does not equal wealth, but smart people like you know that.

alnorth
09-23-2010, 07:04 PM
annoying use of bold and font size. Didn't bother to read.

Saul Good
09-23-2010, 07:17 PM
annoying use of bold and font size. Didn't bother to read.

Just be glad that he didn't use giant Olde English lettering for the font like he does on the back windshield of his car.

Mr. Kotter
09-23-2010, 09:50 PM
Jamal needs more carries, and Cassel (to this point) sucks??? :shrug:

Just sayin.... :hmmm:

Taco John
09-23-2010, 09:57 PM
Because 250k is rich. If you make that much and you choose to live in a high cost area, they desrve no sympathy. Their wealth allows them to choose to live in an exspensive area.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Brock
09-23-2010, 10:29 PM
Just be glad that he didn't use giant Olde English lettering for the font like he does on the back windshield of his car.

ROFL

Bwana
09-23-2010, 10:33 PM
Just be glad that he didn't use giant Olde English lettering for the font like he does on the back windshield of his car.

Nice

LMAO

KC native
09-23-2010, 10:54 PM
If you would have had any credibility on this board you would have lost it right here.

:spock:

No one forces them to live on the coasts or in other high cost areas. SNR's post hits the nail on the head.

Saul Good
09-24-2010, 05:59 AM
No one forces them to live on the coasts or in other high cost areas. SNR's post hits the nail on the head.

Commuting from KC to Silicon Valley every day wears on you after a while.