Bush hides report

[Lurker]

Good old shrub hid the report on the balooning deficit until after his tax cuts went through. I am starting to feel like I am on a sinking ship. Does anyone under 40 think we will get any Social Security? Thanks a lot, Bush!

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=us&cat=u_s__budget

(AFP) - In the midst of negotiating a steep tax cuts package, the US government shelved a report that showed the United States faces future federal budget deficits of more than 44.2 trillion dollars. President George W. Bush's administration chose to keep the findings -- commissioned by then-Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill -- out of the 2004 annual budget report, published in February, London's Financial Times reported. The newspaper desribed the study as "the most comprehensive assessment of how the US government is at risk of being overwhelmed by the 'baby boom' generation's future healthcare and retirement costs."

Lurker

[headscratcher4]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/29/politics/29CHIL.html?ex=1054267200&en=c162c320ebbb44f5&ei=5059&partner=AOL

And than there is the above sweet deal...fortunately, Bill gates, who needs the money, will get a tax cut....

[Malachi151]

fortunately, Bill gates, who needs the money, will get a tax cut

Hey, stop attacking the rich, we owe everything to them, we owe them our lives and our freedom. I'm willing to let rich people pay no taxes, I'll pay 70% just so they don't have to. Long live the rich, hail to the king!! Feudalism was the height of humanity, let's bring the Church back in to rule us all, God Bless America! :p

[Samus]

I am always the first to point out that the rich pay the most in taxes, so logic would dictate that cutting tax percentages will give the rich the biggest break in terms of actual dollars.

I am always the first to point out that the government should not be all things to all people, and that we should limit its role; especially that of the federal government.

And, I voted for Bush in 2000 and supported his intentions thus far apropos to foreign policy (intentions != all policy decisions).

But this tax cut is irresponsible, and it proves that he has a severe lack of knowledge on how a government can operate.

Just pass the buck to the next guy, way to go GW. Crikey.

Cutting taxes while running a neverending war is the stupidest idea he's come up with yet. Furthermore, cutting taxes while increasing spending is, well, that's pretty stupid too.

Someone give this guy a quarter so he can get on the clue bus.

Edited to add:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=2&u=/ap/20030529/ap_on_el_pr/deficit_politics

"Most recent polls asking people to select their chief concerns from a menu of issues haven't even listed the deficit as a choice. In one that did, conducted in April by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, the deficit ranked 10th, chosen by 2 percent of the respondents. "

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Lurker
Good old shrub hid the report on the balooning deficit until after his tax cuts went through. I am starting to feel like I am on a sinking ship. Does anyone under 40 think we will get any Social Security? Thanks a lot, Bush!

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=us&cat=u_s__budget

(AFP) - In the midst of negotiating a steep tax cuts package, the US government shelved a report that showed the United States faces future federal budget deficits of more than 44.2 trillion dollars. President George W. Bush's administration chose to keep the findings -- commissioned by then-Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill -- out of the 2004 annual budget report, published in February, London's Financial Times reported. The newspaper desribed the study as "the most comprehensive assessment of how the US government is at risk of being overwhelmed by the 'baby boom' generation's future healthcare and retirement costs."

Lurker

You mean that ' idiot ' Dubya' is the only one who had this information, and by hiding it, he fooled everyone?:eek: :eek: :eek:

Even all those Congressman and Senators who passed this legislation, which he then signed? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Peach Jr.]

Originally posted by Lurker
Good old shrub hid the report on the balooning deficit until after his tax cuts went through. I am starting to feel like I am on a sinking ship. Does anyone under 40 think we will get any Social Security? Thanks a lot, Bush!

Lurker

I hate to tell you this, Lurker, but some of us under 50 don't think we're getting Social Security either.

Jiminy Crickets! 43 TRILLION dollars! "If we don't tell them, they'll never know". Gahhh, what an idiot.
(Sorry about the shouting, this just really gets to me)

[NoZed Avenger]

I do not agree with an increase in spending, but decreasing taxes does not equate to a decrease in revenue at all levels of taxation.

A decrease in the marginal tax rates -- at the present level -- should not decrease revenue to the government. This will be especially true if the tax cut has, as is hoped, a positive effect on the economy in general that helps to fuel the rebound from recession. The effect should than make up for the "loss" of tax revenue in a static model.

The effect held true in the 60's and held true in the 80's -- a decrease in the marginal tax rates led to increased revenue over the next few years.

While we're on it, the top 5% of wage earners pay more than 50% of the taxes currently; and vice versa -- the bottom 50% pay only 5%. This ratio has held (very roughly) true for the last 20 years, AFAIK (too lazy to check, but the irs website will have the numbers). As someone who hopes one day to be part of that group, I must ask: How much more should they be paying? I note that top adjusted rates of 90% taxation did not stimulate the economy, but actually discouraged investment and productivity.

Bottom line: It may be -- and probably is -- fiscally irresponsible to spend more, regardless of any "priming the pump" Keynsian ideas. It is not -- not -- not fiscally irresponsible to let me keep more of my own money. I can decide quite well what to do with it and my purchases in the economy have a more efficient, beneficial effect than government spending.

NA

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
I do not agree with an increase in spending, but decreasing taxes does not equate to a decrease in revenue at all levels of taxation.

A decrease in the marginal tax rates -- at the present level -- should not decrease revenue to the government. This will be especially true if the tax cut has, as is hoped, a positive effect on the economy in general that helps to fuel the rebound from recession. The effect should than make up for the "loss" of tax revenue in a static model.

The effect held true in the 60's and held true in the 80's -- a decrease in the marginal tax rates led to increased revenue over the next few years.

While we're on it, the top 5% of wage earners pay more than 50% of the taxes currently; and vice versa -- the bottom 50% pay only 5%. This ratio has held (very roughly) true for the last 20 years, AFAIK (too lazy to check, but the irs website will have the numbers). As someone who hopes one day to be part of that group, I must ask: How much more should they be paying? I note that top adjusted rates of 90% taxation did not stimulate the economy, but actually discouraged investment and productivity.

Bottom line: It may be -- and probably is -- fiscally irresponsible to spend more, regardless of any "priming the pump" Keynsian ideas. It is not -- not -- not fiscally irresponsible to let me keep more of my own money. I can decide quite well what to do with it and my purchases in the economy have a more efficient, beneficial effect than government spending.

NA

You realize this makes sense, and will be totally ignored by most bush bashers...


But thanks for taking the time.. I thought it was a good read...:)

[Frostbite]

They did a real sloppy job at hiding it if we all know about it from yahoo.com. Imagine all the **** we don't know!

[Tricky]

We don't need to worry too much about Social Security running out of money. Since health benefits are being razed too, people won't live as long. It's a self correcting problem.:rolleyes:

[Peach Jr.]

Originally posted by Lurker
Good old shrub hid the report on the balooning deficit until after his tax cuts went through. I am starting to feel like I am on a sinking ship. Does anyone under 40 think we will get any Social Security? Thanks a lot, Bush!

Lurker

I hate to tell you this, Lurker, but some of us under 50 don't think we're getting Social Security either.

Jiminy Crickets! 43 TRILLION dollars! "If we don't tell them, they'll never know". Gahhh, what an idiot.
(Sorry about the shouting, this just really gets to me)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tricky
We don't need to worry too much about Social Security running out of money. Since health benefits are being razed too, people won't live as long. It's a self correcting problem.:rolleyes:

Gee, maybe if the Federal Government backs off on the " take care of everyone, from the cradle to the grave " philosophy, people will actually start taking care of themselves..:rolleyes:

Do you by chance equate a reduction in growth with a reduction in spending?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky
We don't need to worry too much about Social Security running out of money. Since health benefits are being razed too, people won't live as long. It's a self correcting problem.:rolleyes:


Why dont we deal with the root causes of why healthcare is getting more expensive instead of treating the symptom with more government intrution?

[Samus]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
A decrease in the marginal tax rates -- at the present level -- should not decrease revenue to the government. This will be especially true if the tax cut has, as is hoped, a positive effect on the economy in general that helps to fuel the rebound from recession. The effect should than make up for the "loss" of tax revenue in a static model. Very true. In fact, even during some of the Reagan tax cuts, government tax revenues increased because the economy had grown at a substantial enough rate.

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Bottom line: It may be -- and probably is -- fiscally irresponsible to spend more, regardless of any "priming the pump" Keynsian ideas. It is not -- not -- not fiscally irresponsible to let me keep more of my own money. I can decide quite well what to do with it and my purchases in the economy have a more efficient, beneficial effect than government spending. Absolutely true, and I agree. Unfortunately, spending doesn't even seem to be leveling off any time soon, much less decrease. The problem during the Reagan years (as admitted by the man himself) is that we spent too much; not that we hadn't taxed enough.

Problem is, Bush is getting into a position where, in order to get massive funds for his war on terror and other priorities, he has to concede a lot of other expenditures in Congress (so they will also pass the spending bills he wants). Doing this only bloats the budget more, and whatever increase in tax revenues that can be gained by a tax cut will not cover the additional spending.

In other words, if he wants to keep spending money at this rate, he needs to stop doing things that can potentially decrease tax revenues. He can't have it both ways.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony

Why dont we deal with the root causes of why healthcare is getting more expensive instead of treating the symptom with more government intrution?
You are right that this is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, but I don't think the way to deal with it is to say, "I'm cutting off your health care. Find a less expensive way to stay healthy." Perhaps you could convice the pharmaceutical companies to stop gouging profits. Of course, they are big businesses with a lot of political clout, and politicians don't like to annoy them.

But the biggest among the many reasons why health care is so expensive is because it is so effective. Life spans have increased quite a bit since the government started helping fund health care, and of course, those extra years that are added tend to be ones that require more health care. It is a difficult thing to say, "you can't afford treatment, so we have to let you die, but that may be what we have to do.

However, senior citizens are also a powerful and dedicated voting block. Any politician who cuts health benefits does so at his own peril. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but that's the way it is.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Diogenes


You realize this makes sense, and will be totally ignored by most bush bashers...


But thanks for taking the time.. I thought it was a good read...:)

Sure it made sense. But can NA determine at what level a decrease in taxes will result in a decrease in revenue? It seems someone already has done that and the study was supported by the rather conservative Heritage Foundation. It found to maximize revenue an income tax of about 22% is optimal. We are at 18% currently.

So Diogenes, anything makes sense but wouldn't you prefer to have something behind the words? Does that have any importance in today's debate?

Lurker

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Frostbite
They did a real sloppy job at hiding it if we all know about it from yahoo.com. Imagine all the **** we don't know!

Duh, the value of knowing what was in the report was important fodder for debate BEFORE the tax plan went through.

Sheesh...

Lurker

[Tmy]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Itax rates led to increased revenue over the next few years.

While we're on it, the top 5% of wage earners pay more than 50% of the taxes currentlyNA

Hmmmm so if we double the top 5% taxes then the 95 % of us can living tax free!!!!!!!'

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

Perhaps you could convice the pharmaceutical companies to stop gouging profits.




How do you know they are gouging profits?

But the biggest among the many reasons why health care is so expensive is because it is so effective.

And the high cost of malpractice insurance, over taxation and regulation have nothing to do about it?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Lurker




So Diogenes, anything makes sense but wouldn't you prefer to have something behind the words? Does that have any importance in today's debate?

Lurker

Interesting statement in light of the asinine assumption behind your original post, that this was some big secret that bush witheld from everyone...:rolleyes:

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tricky
........"I'm cutting off your health care. Find a less expensive way to stay healthy."



And the person/s who said this are?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tony


How do you know they are gouging profits?

But the biggest among the many reasons why health care is so expensive is because it is so effective.

And the high cost of malpractice insurance, over taxation and regulation have nothing to do about it?

Lets all cry for the poor pharmasuitical compaines.

What good is effective health care if you cant afford to get it.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Interesting statement in light of the asinine assumption behind your original post, that this was some big secret that bush witheld from everyone...:rolleyes:

OK, Diogenes, when was the report completed? When was it released to the public? When was the tax bill debated and signed? Is there a problem with the timing? :rolleyes:

Lurker

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy


What good is effective health care if you cant afford to get it.


And why cant people afford it? Shouldnt we address the root causes of why healthcare is so expensive?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Lurker


OK, Diogenes, when was the report completed? When was it released to the public? When was the tax bill debated and signed? Is there a problem with the timing? :rolleyes:

Lurker

You don't get it do you? This tax bill is not the sole work of the President....

P.S.

I suppose you are going to refuse your refund, or find a more deserving soul to give it to ?

Maybe you and Tricky could hook up, and use your refunds to supplement someone's healthcare costs...

[Tmy]

Yes we should.. Im tired of hearing every player ion the medical feild claiming that they are broke, doctors, hospitals, insurance compaines all of them cry poverty. Somebody is making money somewhere.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
How do you know they are gouging profits?

Here's just one example. (http://www.publicampaign.org/ouch10_22_01.htm)

Originally posted by tricky

But the biggest among the many reasons why health care is so expensive is because it is so effective.

Originally posted by Tony
And the high cost of malpractice insurance, over taxation and regulation have nothing to do about it?

That speed reading will get you in trouble every time, podnuh!:D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I suppose you are going to refuse your refund, or find a more deserving soul to give it to ?
Yes I will, just as I did with the one George the First sent me. Planned Parenthood is usually my charity of choice, but maybe I will donate it to the Al Sharpton campaign this time. ;)
Originally posted by Diogenes
Maybe you and Tricky could hook up, and use your refunds to supplement someone's healthcare costs...

And I spend several thousand dollars a year supplementing my mother's health care costs. She has been battling cancer for eight years now, and believe me, the government does not cover everything.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes I will, just as I did with the one George the First sent me. Planned Parenthood is usually my charity of choice, but maybe I will donate it to the Al Sharpton campaign this time. ;)

O.k. Now feel bad about the jab.. :( I applaud your charitable spirit..

And I spend several thousand dollars a year supplementing my mother's health care costs. She has been battling cancer for eight years now, and believe me, the government does not cover everything.

Comendable as well. Do you feel like everyone else should contribute to this also? Or just those who choose to?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Comendable as well. Do you feel like everyone else should contribute to this also? Or just those who choose to?
Most people do what they can for their family. I would spend myself into bankruptcy before I would let Mom go without health care, but since she had pretty good insurance, that is not necessary. In a sense, I am very wealthy that I can afford to do this. I don't believe that only wealthy people are entitled to sufficient health care. Yes, this is socialistic (a word that Americans should stop being afraid of). I believe it is better for our country though.

But I don't deny that health care costs are out of control. Some of the reasons Tony mentions contribute to this, as do some of the ones I mentioned. I think controlling profits is one way of reducing costs. Controlling lawsuit abuse is another.

[renata]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes I will, just as I did with the one George the First sent me. Planned Parenthood is usually my charity of choice, but maybe I will donate it to the Al Sharpton campaign this time. ;)





Tricky, are you sure you are not my alternate personality? I donated my rebate last year to PP also! :)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by renata

Tricky, are you sure you are not my alternate personality?
Well, if I am, then I have the hots for myself. :p


I donated my rebate last year to PP also! :)
One of the most important organizations I know, and they are never going to get a dime from United Way.
----
Announcment: I am officially ending my hijacking of this thread. I made the "health care cuts" as a sarcastic (and hopefully humorous) aside, but that is not the topic here. I'll start a new thread.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Diogenes


You don't get it do you? This tax bill is not the sole work of the President....



I guess I am a little slow, Dio. What difference does it make if the President worked on the tax bill with other people or not? If he delayed the release of a report that might have some impact on the tax bill debate...

I guess I am not understanding why you think this is irrelavent?

Lurker

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

Here's just one example. (http://www.publicampaign.org/ouch10_22_01.htm)





That speed reading will get you in trouble every time, podnuh!:D

You cant expect a smot poker to be perfect, can you? ;)


ps, thanks for the link. But it raises a few questions of which I will get back to you about.

[Malachi151]

While we're on it, the top 5% of wage earners pay more than 50% of the taxes currently; and vice versa -- the bottom 50% pay only 5%. This ratio has held (very roughly) true for the last 20 years, AFAIK (too lazy to check, but the irs website will have the numbers). As someone who hopes one day to be part of that group, I must ask: How much more should they be paying? I note that top adjusted rates of 90% taxation did not stimulate the economy, but actually discouraged investment and productivity.

Actually this is not true, as so many have claimed.

Economic growth was very high during the 1950s and 1960s, when the top tax brackets were in the 90% range.

Now, I agree that that was too high, I'm not trying to go there, just saying.

Now, as for the issue of the top 5% paying 50%.

Here is what you don't realize.

That is evidence of a problem in that the top 5% are making such a disproportionate amount of the money. Reducing taxes on the top 5% is not going decrease that condition, its going to increase it.

So, for example, let's say that we went to a flat tax, 20% across the board. Who do you think is going to pay more taxes not? I am willing to bet that if we did a flat tax the top 1% would be paying 50% of the taxes within 20 years.

Right now you could lower the top tax bracket to 5%.

You could say that $27,000 - $130,000 was 25% tax and everything over $130,000 was 5% tax. The top 5% would STILL pay more then 50% of the taxes.

Not right away, but within a few years they would become SO wealthy and the middle class would be so far behind that they would still be paying most of the taxes.

When did the top 5% pay less then 50 % of the tax? When the top tax brackets were high. Because then the middle class was making a larger percentage of the national income.

Instead of executives making $40,000,000 a year and workers making $40,000 a year, executives were making $800,000 a year and workers were making $40,000 a year, or to see it another way executives were making $40,000,000 a year and workers were making $2,000,000 a year. Its all the same due to inflation and the relative value of money.

The difference is in disparity.

Now, what you are saying is that as the rich get richer, they also deserve more. What we are doing is adding to exponential growth of the top 5%, at the expense of the bottom 95%.

Hey, the richer you get, the more you deserve, the poorer you are, the less you deserve. In that situation the only result is the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the rich continue to pay a larger an larger portion of the income tax because the make a larger and larger portion of the money.

Money begets money. The more money you have the more money you can make, and since most people are living in a condition where between taxes and living expenses they have little or nothing left over they are never able to do anything to advance their condition other than work. Once you get rich enough to pay taxes and cover living expenses and have some left over, then you can put that money to work to make more money.

The solution is not to put more burden on the middle class, only ensuring that they can never have extra money to put to work, the solution is to take pressure off the middle class by reducing taxes on the middle class so that the middle class can more easily become rich in the first place.

The purpose of a graduated tax system is to increase economic mobility by putting the burden on those that have become successful so that those who have not yet become successful are able to do so. Once they become successful then they shoulder the burden, and that way resistance to mobility is reduced.

Living expenses are not graduated.

There are basic livings expenses for a decent standard of living. It matters not if you make $4,000 a year or $40,000,000 a year in order to live comfortably is costs about $25,000 a year. (just a guess) So as you get richer the percentage of your money spent on basic living expenses goes down, this frees up capital.

The rich spend a much smaller percentage of their money on living expenses then the poor and middle class.

What really is the difference between taxes and living expenses?

You have a house payment and phone bill, groceries, etc. That is what it costs to live. Taxes are also what it costs to live.

Let's assume that we paid no taxes and everything was private. All roads were toll and schools were private, etc.

Then everything would be private, no tax, no government. Do you think you would be better off? No, living expenses would be much, much higher. In that case we could just group all things together was one cost, living expenses, correct.

We will just assume 100% is the highest.

In that case we see that the poor would pay ~95% in living expenses correct? Correct.

The middle class would pay about 80% in living expenses.

The top 5% would pay about 50% in living expenses.

The top 1% would pay about 5% in living expenses.

So what does this all come down to? Taxes are a form of living expenses.

Its part of what we pay to live in society and keep society working. Its paying for roads and schools and military, etc.

There is rally little difference between taxes and things like phone bills, house payments, groceries, etc. Its all payment for essential needs.

In this we see that the rich pay the smallest percentage of their income for essential needs even now with them paying a higher rate of taxes. The purpose of graduated taxes is to allow so that people who are not rich can get some breathing room and have extra money to use to enjoy life and also to move up the economic ladder and use that capital to advance their own condition.

If we had a flat tax, say 20%.

Then everyone is paying 20% of their income as their essential "public" living expenses. To that the poor add the remaining 80% of their income for private living expenses, leaving them with nothing.

The middle class add about 70% of their income to pay for the private living expenses leaving them with 10% to use for other things, fun or economic advancement.

The top 5% add about 40% of their income to pay private living expenses (which that 40% is also buying higher quality conditions as well) leaving them with 30% left over.

The top 1% add about 5% for living expenses leaving them with 75% of their income to use for other things.

So, this is how it all works. This is WHY a flat tax will always lead to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and middle class stagnation and lack of economic mobility.

The value of money is relative, kept in check by inflation. The more money in the system the less each dollar is worth. That's why if you keep making $40,000 a year for 10 years, but the top 5% average income goes from $200,000 a year to $500,000 a year, you then have lost out, you are now making much less money even though you are making the same in terms of units. That's how tax cuts targeted at the rich actually have sunk the middle class even though the middle class gets small tax cuts too.

In this tax cut, of Bush's the middle class got about a 7% tax cut, and the top 5% got about a 16% tax cut. That's the real deal.

Why would you cut taxes on the rich by 16% and only 7% on the middle? Makes no sense. I could have even been happy with a fair 10% tax cut across the board, but no, he gave a larger percentage of the cut to the rich, flattening the tax brackets.

Hopefully this all makes sense and someone will consider it seriously.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Lurker


I guess I am a little slow, Dio. What difference does it make if the President worked on the tax bill with other people or not? If he delayed the release of a report that might have some impact on the tax bill debate...

I guess I am not understanding why you think this is irrelavent?

Lurker

I think it is irrelevant because the President did not have access to information that was not available to everyone involved, including the American people... He wasn't hiding the stuff in his bedroom closet..

Since it was his proposal, and the report could be viewed as negative.. Why on earth would the President parade out a report that might sabatage his proposal.. ( He only got half of what he asked for anyway..) It sounds like politics as usual to me..

This bill is what was left over after the opposing side had their way also..

I don't feel like wasting my time, but I'm sure could find lots of opposing pork that benefitted from the passing of this bill..


And about that refund? Gonna keep it? Or, do you pay federal taxes?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Lurker


Sure it made sense. But can NA determine at what level a decrease in taxes will result in a decrease in revenue? It seems someone already has done that and the study was supported by the rather conservative Heritage Foundation. It found to maximize revenue an income tax of about 22% is optimal. We are at 18% currently.

So Diogenes, anything makes sense but wouldn't you prefer to have something behind the words? Does that have any importance in today's debate?

Lurker


I'm still at work -- I am giving a drive by bumping of the thread and will try to deal with the more lengthy points below.

[as an aside, Tricky is quite correct in zeroing in on the success of our medicine as one of the huge factors in health care costs -- that and the increasing level of technology (and thus expense) combined with the thrid-party payor system form a fairly massive level of inertia that will have to be dealt with some way -- all other issues regarding regulation, the AMA, and medical malpractice aside.]


I am not familiar with your study, but I have to wonder whether they are looking at the income tax in isolation, as opposed to figuring in state income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, etc. etc. etc. A middle class family can easily pay 50% of income in taxes to one state entity or another, and probably more. The figures get even more confiscatory when you start figuring in the indirect effects of taxes on costs to the consumer -- fuel taxes for transportation anything delivered to a local store, FICA and social security being paid by your "employer" (but really is taken from your paycheck), corporate taxes that must be included in the price of goods and services that they sell, import quotas and tariffs, etc. etc. etc.

A few years ago, I figured that my father (head electrician at a cement plant) paid approximately 60% of his income in taxes -- before figuring in some of those hidden costs.

NA

[OBgac]

Originally posted by Diogenes


I think it is irrelevant because the President did not have access to information that was not available to everyone involved, including the American people... He wasn't hiding the stuff in his bedroom closet..

Since it was his proposal, and the report could be viewed as negative.. Why on earth would the President parade out a report that might sabatage his proposal.. ( He only got half of what he asked for anyway..) It sounds like politics as usual to me..

This bill is what was left over after the opposing side had their way also..

I don't feel like wasting my time, but I'm sure could find lots of opposing pork that benefitted from the passing of this bill..


And about that refund? Gonna keep it? Or, do you pay federal taxes?

Diogenes

Have you ever, I mean ever, been the slightest bit critical of G.W. Bush? Whether it be the lack of WMD in Iraq or his voodoo economics. Everyone of your posts seems to automatically assume his position without critically examining it. Maybe you are Ari Fleisher in disguise? :D

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by OBgac


Diogenes

Have you ever, I mean ever, been the slightest bit critical of G.W. Bush? Whether it be the lack of WMD in Iraq or his voodoo economics. Everyone of your posts seems to automatically assume his position without critically examining it. Maybe you are Ari Fleisher in disguise? :D


I can understand why it might seem that way, but I assure you I am no big fan of Bush..

I think we did the right thing in Iraq and I am glad to have a small part of my taxes returned. Dubya happens to be the one that is making some of this happen. So I am happy with some of his policies in spite of him..

I don't care if people rag on him but IMO it's not being done very rationally most of the time..

I wouldn't want you to waste your time looking, but I assure you, I have hit on him before..:D

[OBgac]

Originally posted by Diogenes



I can understand why it might seem that way, but I assure you I am no big fan of Bush..

I think we did the right thing in Iraq and I am glad to have a small part of my taxes returned. Dubya happens to be the one that is making some of this happen. So I am happy with some of his policies in spite of him..

I don't care if people rag on him but IMO it's not being done very rationally most of the time..

I wouldn't want you to waste your time looking, but I assure you, I have hit on him before..:D

Ok I believe you :-)

I am not a fan of Bush I have to admit. And nothing he has done since he has come to power has persuaded me he is the natural leader of the free world. What really scares me is that the democrats have no-one to challenge him.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Actually this is not true, as so many have claimed.

Economic growth was very high during the 1950s and 1960s, when the top tax brackets were in the 90% range.


Correlation and causation here -- the negative effects were not enough to overcome the post-war boom, but raising the brackets to 90% certainly did not boost the economy. In several areas involving large speculation and expense -- oil wildcatting, for example -- the depressive effect of a 90% rate was enormous.

Further, Kennedy championed a tax cut in the early 60's to stimulate growth -- for much the same reasons as the present one is being touted by the moetarists.


Now, I agree that that was too high, I'm not trying to go there, just saying.

Now, as for the issue of the top 5% paying 50%.

Here is what you don't realize.

That is evidence of a problem in that the top 5% are making such a disproportionate amount of the money. Reducing taxes on the top 5% is not going decrease that condition, its going to increase it.

So, for example, let's say that we went to a flat tax, 20% across the board. Who do you think is going to pay more taxes not? I am willing to bet that if we did a flat tax the top 1% would be paying 50% of the taxes within 20 years.

[snip]

Not right away, but within a few years they would become SO wealthy and the middle class would be so far behind that they would still be paying most of the taxes.



Here you seem to be interchanging wealth and income, which are not synonymous. The truly wealthy are arguably still underpaying income tax because they can afford to use various professionals and tax shelters, plus tax-free investments, to maintain their weath. This is slightly different from someone trying to earn it in income. I do not advocate higher rates, but I would like to see the taxes at this level become flatter -and- fairer at the same time. Eliminate exceptions and exemptions, and the actual rates could be lowered without any problems. Easier system, harder to cheat, easier to police -- but politically possibly impossible to pass.

I see no reason that such a flat tax -- eliminating the various dodges (which deflect the economy from where the money should optimally be going) -- should lead to the scenario you raise. Indeed, a flat tax would probably entail the richest of the rich paying more, which those on the "lower" end (say $100,000 or so) would see a net decrease.




[snip]

Now, what you are saying is that as the rich get richer, they also deserve more. What we are doing is adding to exponential growth of the top 5%, at the expense of the bottom 95%.



No - I am not advocating for any change in the relative amount of payment at all -- just wondering, for those advocating higher taxes weighted to the rich -- what level would be seen as appropriate.



[snip]

The solution is not to put more burden on the middle class, only ensuring that they can never have extra money to put to work, the solution is to take pressure off the middle class by reducing taxes on the middle class so that the middle class can more easily become rich in the first place.

The purpose of a graduated tax system is to increase economic mobility by putting the burden on those that have become successful so that those who have not yet become successful are able to do so. Once they become successful then they shoulder the burden, and that way resistance to mobility is reduced.



I am probably just having a slow moment, but the earlier paert of your message talked about the middle class paying more in the 50's and 60's, when the tax brackets were weighted heavily against the top incomes.

(Note - here, too, you are mixing income and wealth pretty freely. I think we have to make sure that we keep those ideas separate for purposes of the income tax.)

This latest part of your post therefore either seems a bit contradictory, or it seems to assume cause and effect.

Is it possible that raising taxation to 90% ensures that the middle class will pay more as a percentage of total taxation? People hitting the 90% bracket obviously have little incentive to work more during the year, thus effectively limiting the amount of taxes that they will pay.

At the same time, look at the general effect on the economy. "Well, I'd love to start a second factory and employ another 50 people, but I would only get ten cents on the dollar -- It's just not worth doing. I couldn't afford to make a profit."



Living expenses are not graduated.

There are basic livings expenses for a decent standard of living. It matters not if you make $4,000 a year or $40,000,000 a year in order to live comfortably is costs about $25,000 a year. (just a guess) So as you get richer the percentage of your money spent on basic living expenses goes down, this frees up capital.


Depends on how "comfortably" we're talking about, the number of people in the family, the area of the country, and a lot of other factors.


The rich spend a much smaller percentage of their money on living expenses then the poor and middle class.

What really is the difference between taxes and living expenses?

You have a house payment and phone bill, groceries, etc. That is what it costs to live. Taxes are also what it costs to live.

Let's assume that we paid no taxes and everything was private. All roads were toll and schools were private, etc.

Then everything would be private, no tax, no government. Do you think you would be better off? No, living expenses would be much, much higher.



Well, I'll let the libertarians jump on that question. The simple answer is that expenses would not necessariloy be higher as a whole, and certainly would not be higher for some of the population. I -- unlike others -- pay out more in taxes than I will get back from the government -- especially considering social security.

Those requiring government assistance -- i.e., paying no taxes already (perhaps up to a third of the workforce) would certainly have higher costs of living -- because they aren't paying for it now.

Having said all that, I think I am missing your point.


So what does this all come down to? Taxes are a form of living expenses.

Its part of what we pay to live in society and keep society working. Its paying for roads and schools and military, etc.

There is rally little difference between taxes and things like phone bills, house payments, groceries, etc. Its all payment for essential needs.



I can't go along that whole road with you. Too many vague, breezy terms like "essential" being thrown around indiscriminately. I am not necessarily disagreeing with the thrust of this point, but I cannot agree to it as stated. The government takes these "living expenses" away from me at gunpoint and does a heck of a lot that I do not consider "essential" by any stretch of the imagination.



[snip]

If we had a flat tax, say 20%.

Then everyone is paying 20% of their income as their essential "public" living expenses. To that the poor add the remaining 80% of their income for private living expenses, leaving them with nothing.

The middle class add about 70% of their income to pay for the private living expenses leaving them with 10% to use for other things, fun or economic advancement.

The top 5% add about 40% of their income to pay private living expenses (which that 40% is also buying higher quality conditions as well) leaving them with 30% left over.

The top 1% add about 5% for living expenses leaving them with 75% of their income to use for other things.

So, this is how it all works. This is WHY a flat tax will always lead to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and middle class stagnation and lack of economic mobility.


You are missing a LOT of things in between "here's a flat tax" and "the poor will always get poorer." There are just too many gaps here -- even taking the pulled from the air numbers -- for the conclusion to follow from your premise -- you're not showing your work, or at least I am not seeing it.

Additionally, I would state that the present, byzantine tax structure actually means that the richest of the rich are paying less now than they would under a flat tax that eliminated present loopholes. Also, a flat tax could easily simply exempt anyone earning less than a certain amount - preserving a small amount of progressivism for those earning under 15,000, say. Alternatively, a negative income tax below a certain level would provide incentives for people who are not earning enough to at least earn something and better their position.



The value of money is relative, kept in check by inflation. The more money in the system the less each dollar is worth. That's why if you keep making $40,000 a year for 10 years, but the top 5% average income goes from $200,000 a year to $500,000 a year, you then have lost out, you are now making much less money even though you are making the same in terms of units. That's how tax cuts targeted at the rich actually have sunk the middle class even though the middle class gets small tax cuts too.


And yet inflation has been extremely low since the mid-eighties. My $40,000 from 10 years ago is still worth almost $40,000 -- and still has a good amountof its original buying power, plus the interest I earned. You seem to be excluding consideration of the real growth in GNP and productivity that has paced the increase in the money supply.

Also, is it your contention that if a person makes $500,000 a year, but is taxed for $450,000 of it, that M1 is suddenly lower for purposes of inflation? Did that money leave the money supply somehow?

Unless the government burns the money (they usually only do that metaphorically), the money is still in existence and in the money supply. True, the multiplier effect for the governement is smaller because it is less efficient at actually boosting productivity -- but surely your argument is not that we must take money from the hands of people and give it to the government because the governement can stagnate the economy . . . is it?



In this tax cut, of Bush's the middle class got about a 7% tax cut, and the top 5% got about a 16% tax cut. That's the real deal.

Why would you cut taxes on the rich by 16% and only 7% on the middle? Makes no sense. I could have even been happy with a fair 10% tax cut across the board, but no, he gave a larger percentage of the cut to the rich, flattening the tax brackets.

Hopefully this all makes sense and someone will consider it seriously.

I am afraid that I am going to have to look at the details -- the percentages don't mean anything to me out of context. Is that 16% of the money being paid as taxes or 16% less in dollars paid or what? (rhetorical -- I'll go look)


NA

[Malachi151]

I've posted this into a few times already, but here it is again.

This is the type of income taxes that I would propose (actual numbers would obvioiusly have to be adjusted to meet demands):

My plan

$0-$30,000 - 10%
$30,000-$60,000 - 15%
$60,000-$100,000 - 20%
$100,000-$170,000 - 25%
$170,000-$300,000 - 30%
$300,000-$500,000 - 35%
$500,000-$1,000,000 - 40%
$1,000,000-$1,500,000 - 45%
$1,500,000-$2,000,000 - 46%
$2,000,000-$2,500,000 - 47%
$2,500,000-$3,000,000 - 48%
$3,000,000-$4,000,000 - 49%
$4,000,000 and over - 50%

Current Plan

$0-$27,050 - 15%
$27,050-$65,550 - 28%
$65,550-$136,750 - 31%
$136,750-$297,350 - 36%
$297,350 and over - 39%

Bush plan

$0-$6,000 - 10%
$6,000-$27,050 - 15%
$27,550-$136,750 - 25%
$136,750 and over - 33%

The way that capital gains would be taxed is that anyone who’s combined earned income and capital gains income is under $300,000 a year would have their capital gains taxed at the rate equal to their earned income and capital gains combined. Anyone who's combined capital gains and earned income is over $300,000 a year would simply have their capital gains taxed as 30%. The current capital gains tax is 28%.

By taxing dividends in the manner that I have proposed low income earners would not be penalized for capital gains income in the way that they are now, making capital investment more attractive to lower income individuals, as well as lower tax rates which would free up more capital for investing, purchasing, and saving.

This type of taxation would promote a healthier economy by placing a more fair tax burden on those receiving extremely high income, opposed to the current plan and Bush's plan that sets a low top margin which effectively create a flat tax for the wealthy. At the same time a plan like I proposed would create a tax cut for everyone making under $500,000 a year.

Correlation and causation here -- the negative effects were not enough to overcome the post-war boom, but raising the brackets to 90% certainly did not boost the economy. In several areas involving large speculation and expense -- oil wildcatting, for example -- the depressive effect of a 90% rate was enormous.

Further, Kennedy championed a tax cut in the early 60's to stimulate growth -- for much the same reasons as the present one is being touted by the moetarists.

Agreed on all acounts, but at the same time it cultivated a strong middle class.

Here you seem to be interchanging wealth and income, which are not synonymous. The truly wealthy are arguably still underpaying income tax because they can afford to use various professionals and tax shelters, plus tax-free investments, to maintain their weath. This is slightly different from someone trying to earn it in income. I do not advocate higher rates, but I would like to see the taxes at this level become flatter -and- fairer at the same time. Eliminate exceptions and exemptions, and the actual rates could be lowered without any problems. Easier system, harder to cheat, easier to police -- but politically possibly impossible to pass.

I see no reason that such a flat tax -- eliminating the various dodges (which deflect the economy from where the money should optimally be going) -- should lead to the scenario you raise. Indeed, a flat tax would probably entail the richest of the rich paying more, which those on the "lower" end (say $100,000 or so) would see a net decrease.

Well, wealth and income are related obviously. Wealth contrubutes to the ability to make money. Be it through investing, or using your money to start a business, whatever.

The deal with the numbers sayingthat teh top 5% pasy 50% of the taxes. They are talling about MONEY COLLECTED. That means despite whatever tax dodging they do they 50% of the money the IRS brings is comes from the top 5%

No - I am not advocating for any change in the relative amount of payment at all -- just wondering, for those advocating higher taxes weighted to the rich -- what level would be seen as appropriate.

I think that the level depends on economic conditions. Right now I say 50% income tax, which is the same rate as Reagan's first term.

I am probably just having a slow moment, but the earlier paert of your message talked about the middle class paying more in the 50's and 60's, when the tax brackets were weighted heavily against the top incomes.

Two different uses fo middle class. In one I meant the middle class as a group payed more of the country's taxes, in the other I meant each individial paying a smaller share. With middle class taxes significantly lower and taxes on the wealthy higher the middle class would end up paying a larger share of the country's taxes because thre middle class would increase its position relative to the wealthy disparity would decrease.

Is it possible that raising taxation to 90% ensures that the middle class will pay more as a percentage of total taxation? People hitting the 90% bracket obviously have little incentive to work more during the year, thus effectively limiting the amount of taxes that they will pay.

The purpose of those taxes was to encourge people to pay higher wages. I think that 90% was definately too high. The point was not for people to pay 90% tax, but do discourage high incomes. In the 1940s it was in the 90% range on $5 million a ear income, which today would be like 90% on about 20 to 30 million a year. Bush's top tax bracket is like $130,000, so that anyone making more then that never seens an increae. The old way to was to keep increasing.

What is unfair now is that going from $0 to $130,000 a year as you make more money you got up in tax, one of the jumps is a 10% jump, that's pretty hefty if you go from making $25,000 a year to $30,000 a year. Then from $130,00 on out you never see another increase, yet all the people in the middle class have to deal with the increases.

At the same time, look at the general effect on the economy. "Well, I'd love to start a second factory and employ another 50 people, but I would only get ten cents on the dollar -- It's just not worth doing. I couldn't afford to make a profit."

I think there is a balance between sharing oppertunity and having a few people take all the oppertunity. With a flat tax as you get rich, its easier to get more rich, one person can do all kinds of thngs when they have the money, then everyoen else becomes employees instead of owners, etc.

Well, I'll let the libertarians jump on that question. The simple answer is that expenses would not necessariloy be higher as a whole, and certainly would not be higher for some of the population. I -- unlike others -- pay out more in taxes than I will get back from the government -- especially considering social security.

What tax bracket are you in? About 80% - 90% of Americans get back more then they pay. Its more then just social security, its all the benefits you get from everything. The bill for the military is $380,000,000,000 a year alone. You are one of about 100,000,000 American workers. That's comes out to about $3,800 per worker per year. I'm sure that the rich pay a LOT bigger share then $3,800 a year into the military.

The point was that if EVERY was paid for privately then the cost to live would be very high for 80% of Americans. School, roads, military, etc, all that is expensive. The rich pay for most of it. If they didn't we would all be broke paying living expenses.

I can't go along that whole road with you. Too many vague, breezy terms like "essential" being thrown around indiscriminately. I am not necessarily disagreeing with the thrust of this point, but I cannot agree to it as stated. The government takes these "living expenses" away from me at gunpoint and does a heck of a lot that I do not consider "essential" by any stretch of the imagination.

That's the point, taxes are an "essential" expense. You can't get away from paying them any more then you can avoid paying for food.

You are missing a LOT of things in between "here's a flat tax" and "the poor will always get poorer." There are just too many gaps here -- even taking the pulled from the air numbers -- for the conclusion to follow from your premise -- you're not showing your work, or at least I am not seeing it.

Of course I'm pulling numbers from the air, but I think they are good enough to demonstrate the point. What is missing in terms of getting the point?

And yet inflation has been extremely low since the mid-eighties. My $40,000 from 10 years ago is still worth almost $40,000 -- and still has a good amountof its original buying power, plus the interest I earned. You seem to be excluding consideration of the real growth in GNP and productivity that has paced the increase in the money supply.

Well obviously there is more to inflation then just money supply, etc, is also the cost of living, whcih ha sbeen kept low due to increased imports from Asia and South America.

Also, is it your contention that if a person makes $500,000 a year, but is taxed for $450,000 of it, that M1 is suddenly lower for purposes of inflation? Did that money leave the money supply somehow?

No, its that the middle class would be receiving a larger share of the national income, so instead of having a small minority earning so much of the money that contributes to inflation for all of us, the money would be more evenly distributed.

I am afraid that I am going to have to look at the details -- the percentages don't mean anything to me out of context. Is that 16% of the money being paid as taxes or 16% less in dollars paid or what? (rhetorical -- I'll go look)

http://pw1.netcom.com/~rdavis2/bushplan.html

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/this_w10.jpg

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/this_w11.gif

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Diogenes


You don't get it do you? This tax bill is not the sole work of the President....

P.S.

I suppose you are going to refuse your refund, or find a more deserving soul to give it to ?

Maybe you and Tricky could hook up, and use your refunds to supplement someone's healthcare costs...

I would gladly forego my enormous refund.

The problem with you Republicans - one of the MANY problems with you Republicans is that you think everyone is as selfish as you are.

Is your scoutmaster from Philadelphia?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog




The problem with you Republicans - one of the MANY problems with you Republicans is that you think everyone is as selfish as you are.



That may be true, but people should have the right to be as selfish as they want. If I dont want to have my money stolen from me and redirected to the "poor", then I should have the right not to care. As it is, I am forced to care at gunpoint. Screw the poor.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony


That may be true, but people should have the right to be as selfish as they want. If I dont want to have my money stolen from me and redirected to the "poor", then I should have the right not to care. As it is, I am forced to care at gunpoint. Screw the poor.

Another of the MANY problems with you Republicans is that you can't think straight. Screw all our retirements, too?

You guys have this image of Washington stealing your money and giving it all to welfare queens. Are you honestly unable to distinguish between that scenario and the real life monetary catastrophe we're discussing here? Who even brought up the poor?

[a_unique_person]

So, Time Magazine agrees with me, Bush is really a 'Keynesian at heart.



What Bush describes as his key principle is a classic if crude statement of Keynesian theory. A tax cut works, he said, by putting more money into people's pockets — which they will spend and thus create jobs. For 25 years, Republicans have sneered at this as "demand-side" economics. If Bush now embraces it, he ought to remember the corollary: that a tax cut should go mainly to low-income people, who are more likely to spend it. And the President should stop pretending he regrets the huge deficits his tax cuts produce. Deficits are essential to a demand-side stimulus. If he cut government spending to pay for the tax cuts — which he is not even attempting to do — this would reduce demand as much as the tax cut would increase it.



And Keynes was the inventor of modern 'liberal' economic theory.

Of course, his twist is to give the money to the rich, rather than the poor.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030602-454501,00.html?CNN=yes

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog


Another of the MANY problems with you Republicans is that you can't think straight.



Who said I was a republican?


Screw all our retirements, too?

Im 23, I have been saving for my retirement since I was 16. I am going to be just fine as long as the government keeps its hands out of my pockets. Why should I be penalized for the short-sightedness of others?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony


Who said I was a republican?

Who did you vote for in the last election?


Screw all our retirements, too?

Im 23, I have been saving for my retirement since I was 16. I am going to be just fine as long as the government keeps its hands out of my pockets. Why should I be penalized for the short-sightedness of others? [/B]

I'm sorry, I can't deal with someone who thinks that Social Security is some kind of liberal plot to steal their money. That's just too Byzantine for me.

And at 23, sorry, you just don't know enough about the world yet for me to care about your opinions anyway.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I've posted this into a few times already, but here it is again.

This is the type of income taxes that I would propose (actual numbers would obvioiusly have to be adjusted to meet demands):

My plan

$0-$30,000 - 10%
$30,000-$60,000 - 15%
$60,000-$100,000 - 20%
$100,000-$170,000 - 25%
$170,000-$300,000 - 30%
$300,000-$500,000 - 35%
$500,000-$1,000,000 - 40%
$1,000,000-$1,500,000 - 45%
$1,500,000-$2,000,000 - 46%
$2,000,000-$2,500,000 - 47%
$2,500,000-$3,000,000 - 48%
$3,000,000-$4,000,000 - 49%
$4,000,000 and over - 50%



Thanks -- I had not seen your numbers before.

I don't consider those brackets to be outrageous, per se, but do not like a 50% at any level of income -- the incentives to invest and actually produce in the economy takes quite a beating at that level.

I think the devil is in the details on most of this -- the current plans also include a minimum tax credit, deductions for children, mortgages, etc. -- such that the raw numbers by themselves may not be comparable. Do you get rid of tax breaks, such that these numbers are (essentially) absolute?



[snip]

Well, wealth and income are related obviously. Wealth contrubutes to the ability to make money. Be it through investing, or using your money to start a business, whatever.



Related, yes -- but we cannot slip in and out of speaking about "the rich" or "the wealthy" when we really are talking about people with high incomes. Many of the wealthy, through off shore dealings, tax shelters rivaling the tower of Babel, and tax-free investments, actually avoid having taxable income to a large extent. Higher taxes would not materially affect them, except to add a few more to the numbers who don't feel it necessary to invest in the economy or attempt to earn money.


[snip]

I think that the level depends on economic conditions. Right now I say 50% income tax, which is the same rate as Reagan's first term.



as above, I think that 50% is probably above the optimal level. I don't think its wildly out of line or confiscatory, but its high enough in terms of income that I become uncomfortable.



[snip]

At the same time, look at the general effect on the economy. "Well, I'd love to start a second factory and employ another 50 people, but I would only get ten cents on the dollar -- It's just not worth doing. I couldn't afford to make a profit."

I think there is a balance between sharing oppertunity and having a few people take all the oppertunity. With a flat tax as you get rich, its easier to get more rich, one person can do all kinds of thngs when they have the money, then everyoen else becomes employees instead of owners, etc.



I am interested in how these people hog all the opportunities for themselves. Money is nice and all, but it does no real good for us unless it is invested. These people -- with incentives -- will invest the money into businesses, financing the ideas and talent of people who may lack the starting capital, but who have the ideas, knowledge, or skills to make the business work. Largely, that is a win for all involved.




[snip]

That's the point, taxes are an "essential" expense. You can't get away from paying them any more then you can avoid paying for food.

[quote][b]

Well, it is "essential" by force, not by any necessity. The federal government has a national tea tasting board at my expense -- not "essential" in any sense except that armed men show up if I refuse to fund it. I don't see them as equivalent, though many functions of government would fall within the "otherwise essential" category, IMO.

[quote][b]

[snip]

No, its that the middle class would be receiving a larger share of the national income, so instead of having a small minority earning so much of the money that contributes to inflation for all of us, the money would be more evenly distributed.



How is that mandated? (thje bit about the middle class, I mean) The government takes away more money (theoretically) from the people earning more money. What mechanism then forces an increase in the number of people in the middle class? What force drives that change?



NA

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog


I'm sorry, I can't deal with someone who thinks that Social Security is some kind of liberal plot to steal their money.


When did I say that?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony



When did I say that?

Sorry, I don't play these rhetorical games. You are dismissed.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Sundog


I would gladly forego my enormous refund.



You don't expect to get one?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Diogenes


You don't expect to get one?

Yes, I do. But it's not going to jumpstart my own personal economy.

Why don't you guys get it? You don't mortgage the house unless you have a damn good reason. It's called fiscal responsibility. Even many Republicans think Bush's plan is completely irresponsible. WARREN BUFFET calls it voodoo economics, for Heaven's sake!

Is there ANYTHING Bush could come up with that you guys wouldn't support? How can you call yourself a skeptic and simply ignore facts you don't like?

If this were a Democratic president doing this, you'd be screaming bloody murder and you know it.

[NoZed Avenger]

I took a look at the links above, as well as the white house source and a couple of economic sites. I did not spend enough time on the sites to gain a comprehaensive picture, but poked around a bit:

"Percent reduction is for rates only. It does not include doubling of child tax credit, reduction of marriage penalty, or elimination of estate tax."

The rate reduction for people from $0 through just over $25,000 in income is from roughly 33% to 20%, plus the increased exemption, the elimination of the marriage penalty, and a potential child credit of $400 per child. These will obviously skew the figures, percentage-wise, in favor of the lower and lower-middle levelk incomes.

From $30,000 to about $400,000, the percentage reduction hovers between 10% and 12 or 13%, then kicks back to 15-16% at higher levels.

Conclusion: The lower incomes who earn enough to pay taxes pay taxes made out very well, while the middle class to the lower end of the upper-income brackets received the lowest amount of benefit.

I think I agree that the percentage reduction for the upper bracket should probably have been matched to the middle income brackets. While the middle income taxpayers are expected to gain more from the benefits not factored in to the final number, reducing the disparity some, it will not be enough of a factor to seriously affect the weights given -- perhaps a percentage point or so could have been given as a bone, if necessary.


NA

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Sundog


I would gladly forego my enormous refund.

The problem with you Republicans - one of the MANY problems with you Republicans is that you think everyone is as selfish as you are.

Is your scoutmaster from Philadelphia?

Well, what is an even bigger problem is the idea that "its stealing my money", or the idea that if we all get more money back that its better.

This is why we have to have taxes, becuase peopel can't think on the gobal scale, they think the micor scale of me, me, me.

You see, Bill Gates makes MORE MONEy becuase he pays taxes. If the wealthy did not pay taxes they would likely not be wealthy, or as wealthy in the first place.

No taying in one area only cheats yourself in others.

Its the same idea when applied to business. Taxes are a form of business expense. It's also like car maintance.

Its like saying that paying for oil changes is a waste of money. Obviously if you don't pay for oil changes then eventually the car will break down costing you more money.

Its like a business in that you have to spend money to make money. The nation has to spend money so that we can all make money. Paying to train employees. paying to build a place of business, paying for advertising, etc, is all an expense that you have to take in order to make money. Taxes are a national expense that we all have to pay in order to make money.

Image running a business and thinking, well this year I estimate I will have to spend $100,000 to run the business (not salaries). I estimate I will gross $400,000 leaving $300,000 to pay my 10 workers. I have a workers making:

$10,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$100,000

I could meet expenses with these salaries, but I think I will give the guy making $10,000 a $3,000 year raise. The guys making $20,000 a $1,400 year raise. The guys making $30,000 a $2,400 year raise, and the guy making $100,000 a $16,000 a year raise.

(despite the fact that the guy making $100,000 has been implicated in illigal activity in the name of the company)

Putting the business $33,000 deeper into debt at the end of the year, which will increase the expenses of next year as the money going to interest increases.

Obviously the money needs to be spent correctly, but decrying taxes as theft of YOUR money is absurd. If you didn't pay the taxes we would all have a weaker economy where we all made less money in the first place. The creation of wealth is a social function not an individual function. There is no such thing as a self made millionair or self made anything, its all society made. I have my own business in addition to my job. I know that its my work that makes me money and if I didn't work I wouldn't get the money, but if there were no cuspomers I would have no business, if people stole my cars due to lack of law enforcement I woudl have no business, of there were no roads I would have no business. I am able to make money due to the collective work of society to create an environment where I can be successful. I know that taxes are a part of that, taxes are a part of national business expense. I know that ultimately we all pay taxes we make more money. So I don't see it as money taken from me, I see taxes as an investment in society.

It is an investment that pays dividends if used properly. The rich, by definition that reaped the biggest rewards of living in society. Bill gates is worth what, 60 billion. Thats about 1,200,000 TIMES more then I am "worth". That means that Bill Gates has received 1,200,000 times greater advantage of living in America then I have. How is him living in a state over a million times higher then me an unfair burden on him? Why would I feel sorry for poor Bill Gate sand all the taxes he pays. He is getting his money's worth is he not? Is having over a million times more money then the average American not worth the taxes that he pays? Do you think that being the richest man in the world he is somehow being ripped off by high taxes? I mean give me a break.

How can anyone say that the richest man in the world is paying too much taxes :p LOL! Out of over 6 billion people on earth HE, that one person has more then any of those other people, and people want to act like somehow he's the victem in all this! Are you crazy! :D LOL

The Republicans with their class warfare have been spewing so much propaganda for so long, most American see the rich as the victem of the system, lol, what a joke, this is insane.

Yes, the rich people are the poor victems of society because they pay so much taxes. The rich are able to be rich because they pay those taxes, those taxes protect their position. Who has the most interest in government? The rich. The rich are the ones protected by government, they are the ones getting the most benefit, by defintion.

The poor have nothing to lose. If you have nothing you have nothing to lose. The rich are the ones with everything to lose.

How anyone could say that paying more taxes as you get richer is unfair makes no sense to me at all. Being rich is by definition benefiting from society and is a reflection of the degree to which you have benefited from society. Obviously if it becomes stifiling then its a problem, but otherwise, no.The richer you are the more dependant you are on government to protect your property and maintian an society that can support your wealth. Let's say we had anarchy and the government crashed. What would the poor lose? Nothing. The rich, they would lose everything.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Sundog


Is there ANYTHING Bush could come up with that you guys wouldn't support? How can you call yourself a skeptic and simply ignore facts you don't like?



Sun - you undermine your points by this type of attack. Your mortgage analogy may work for the spending side of the matter -- frankly, I'd like to see a 3 year freeze on the size of the budget until our GNP grows to overcome the current debt -- but your argument assumes too much on the tax side.

Namely, you first assume that a reduction in tax rates is going to lead to less money in the government's coffers. Given historical precedent, I personally doubt that outcome. Second, you assume that the deficit/debt is a problem in times of recession or rebound. I don't like deficits -- although I would prefer an attack on the spending end -- but the present level of debt as a percentage of GNP or GDP is not as high as a number of other developed countries. Again, however, assuming arguendo the dangers of the debt, a tax cut is only bad policy vis-a-vis the debt if it lowers the revenue of the government, and that is in doubt.

If you beleieve otherwise, I am more than willing to listen and be persuaded. (For example, Malachi, above, made some points above regarding tax rates and current incentives that are worthwhile, IMO) But the above accusation (I won't call it an argument) is beneath your skills and abilities.


If this were a Democratic president doing this, you'd be screaming bloody murder and you know it.

False on any number of levels, and again not worthy of you.

First, I am conservative, but not republican - so the implication that I am a blind follower of some cult for Newt Gingrich or similar is misplaced. A Demoocrat candidate that would stand up and argue for similar tax cuts, tax fairness, and controls on spending would gain my instant approval, if not my vote.

Let me say that again: A Demoocrat candidate that would stand up and argue for similar tax cuts, tax fairness, and controls on spending would gain my instant approval, if not my vote.

There was at least one Democrat candidate in 1988 that I would have easily voted for over Bush, for example -- Tsongas. I liked him a great deal. Good character; strong on the issues; a smart man.

I have criticized Bush in several areas, and feel that he and the Republicans' record on spending should be heavily criticized.

As far as criticizing a Democrat for reducing my taxes -- Are you MAD?! Dan Rostenkowski -- though I was no fan of his before -- did gain respect from me when he and Reagan managed to put together the tax fairness/reduction package in the early 80's, for example. I thought that the policy was a good one. I simply cannot help it if the Democratic politicians who wish to allow me to retain more of my money are not -- shall we say -- thick upon the ground)

However, I should really not have to type out any of the above to show how I feel about other issues in order to discuss this one, nor establish any "skeptic" credentials in order to discuss politics and economics.

Should I?

NA

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
So, Time Magazine agrees with me, Bush is really a 'Keynesian at heart.

A tax cut works, he said, by putting more money into people's pockets — which they will spend and thus create jobs.

And Keynes was the inventor of modern 'liberal' economic theory.

Of course, his twist is to give the money to the rich, rather than the poor.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030602-454501,00.html?CNN=yes

Well, except he's not doing what he claims he's doing. Its really supply side. The big tax cuts go to the rich. The middle class gets the least, just like under Reagan. The large % cut that the very poor get only amounts to about 300 per person. The cuts for children do something, but with the population problem I would not have increase a tax cut targeted at children.

The biggest tax cuts are again going to the rich, its still supply-side cuts.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Well, what is an even bigger problem is the idea that "its stealing my money", or the idea that if we all get more money back that its better.

This is why we have to have taxes, becuase peopel can't think on the gobal scale, they think the micor scale of me, me, me.



Conversely, the idea that the citizens are too stupid to manage their own money and that the smart people in government need to step in to protect us from ourselves is a tad bit annoying.

And a claim that anyone who dares say that they should be allowed to keep and control more of their own money -- that they earned -- is being selfish and is too dumb to see the big picture is simply offensive.

Equating that position with one demanding no taxes be paid at all is simply a false dichotomy. Saying that an argument for lower taxes equates to that is like me arguing that anyone arguing for a raise in taxes obviously wants to confiscate property and form a cummunist state -- it simply does not correlate with reality.

The claims regarding class warfare and calling anyone victims I would rather not get into -- it doesn't move the discussion forward, but just tempts everyoine to start a round of finger pointing or name-calling.

I will say that I do not agree that there are not "self made" people -- though I think your argument there turns on semantics more than anything else.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


Sun - you undermine your points by this type of attack.
NA

I don't think so. To me it's simple. You apparently choose not to believe the numbers related to the huge and growing deficit. I honestly don't know how to respond to that; it's like talking to Tony, we apparently don't even speak the same language.

A huge tax cut is plainly irresponsible when we don't have the money to spare. I don't know how to put it more plainly than that. You don't spend the rent money on a trip to Jamaica; not if you want a place to live next month.

If we were solvent, if we didn't have a huge deficit looming that threatens all our Social Security, I wouldn't care. Sure, cut the taxes. We can't afford it right now.

I misspoke - what I meant to say was that if a Democrat was being this obviously fiscally irresponsible, you'd be yelling for his head. (Does the phrase "Tax and spend" ring a bell?) The problem is that you Republicans seem to believe Tax Cut = Good Thing, no matter what. I can't accept that, nor can many in your own party.


Just my opinion. Thank you, though, for a calm and reasoned discussion.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Malachi151



This is why we have to have taxes, becuase peopel can't think on the gobal scale, they think the micor scale of me, me, me.




And I guess it's up to authoritarian pricks like yourself to impose your morals on the selfish masses? For their own good, right? Self-righteousness such as yours is the reason for most of the atrocities in history.

[Malachi151]

Thanks -- I had not seen your numbers before.

I don't consider those brackets to be outrageous, per se, but do not like a 50% at any level of income -- the incentives to invest and actually produce in the economy takes quite a beating at that level.

I think the devil is in the details on most of this -- the current plans also include a minimum tax credit, deductions for children, mortgages, etc. -- such that the raw numbers by themselves may not be comparable. Do you get rid of tax breaks, such that these numbers are (essentially) absolute?

What's wrong with 50%?

In 2002 the top tax bracket was essentially 40% 39.6% I think, and it was applied at ~$300,000, I'm only increasing it my 10% and putting of to 4 million dollars a year.

And I would get rid of the child credit altogether, beuase the reduciton in taxes on most people would be more then enough to cover that expense anyway and I think that populaitons issues need to be considered. I'd probably keep most of the other deductions.

Related, yes -- but we cannot slip in and out of speaking about "the rich" or "the wealthy" when we really are talking about people with high incomes. Many of the wealthy, through off shore dealings, tax shelters rivaling the tower of Babel, and tax-free investments, actually avoid having taxable income to a large extent. Higher taxes would not materially affect them, except to add a few more to the numbers who don't feel it necessary to invest in the economy or attempt to earn money.

Yes, exactly, I made comments about capital gains taxes too. I thinkt hat capital gains taxes should be graduated too to encourage investment by lower income people. Over 70% of captial gains income goes to the top 20% and makes up almost 30% of that segments income.

as above, I think that 50% is probably above the optimal level. I don't think its wildly out of line or confiscatory, but its high enough in terms of income that I become uncomfortable.

I don't think so. Anyone making $4 million a year in earned income would still be pocketing at least a million a year with all taxes paid. The problem today is that we have people making $300,000 a year paying the same tax rate as people making $30,000,000 a year. There is a huge difference there. The guys making over a milion a year are are making out like bandits in this country.

I am interested in how these people hog all the opportunities for themselves. Money is nice and all, but it does no real good for us unless it is invested. These people -- with incentives -- will invest the money into businesses, financing the ideas and talent of people who may lack the starting capital, but who have the ideas, knowledge, or skills to make the business work. Largely, that is a win for all involved.

Why should we create a system where the majoirty of people are dependant on a small wealthy minorty for jobs? We need to empower the common man, not make him dependent on the rich man. The whole point is making it easier for more people to have money to invest and make something with. Instead giving more money to invest to a few it is better to give money to more people. The whole point is independant economic mobility, not economic dependance. The problem now is that our economy is to dependant on a small number of people with lots of money and control.

How is that mandated? (thje bit about the middle class, I mean) The government takes away more money (theoretically) from the people earning more money. What mechanism then forces an increase in the number of people in the middle class? What force drives that change?

Well, the theory is that the tax break on the middle and poor gives them more money to use to advance their own interests.

The issues is to make it so the middle is more affluent, well and the poor too for that matter. The more affluent the middle and poor are, ultimately the more affluent the rich are too. The rich can't pull the poor up, the poor and middle can push the rich up though. That's how you make progress pushing the economy up from the bottom not trying to pull it up from the top.

Ultimately in theory you want low disparity, not a lot of difference between rich and poor, but you want everyone living with a high standard of living. The higher everyone standard of living the higher the high point will be too. In other word the rich get richer too, everyone does. Its not about dragging the rich down, its about lifting the bottom up. The rich benefit from the poor's increase in living, there is no question. The "richer" the poor are the richer the rich are too.

When people hear about the "poor" they think of people living poorly, but your really talking about the bottom 20%. In "theory" that bottom 20% can be very well off. There is no reason that the bottom 20% has to be in poverty.

By reducing taxes on the poor you make it easier for them to take care of themselves in the first place. By increasing wages, which I would also encourage you create more incentive to work in the first place and so less need for welfare. I would try to develop a system reduces welfare at all levels, which can be done mostly by increasing wages and through bringing investment to more people. The biggest problem with the American economy is that when the stock market is going up many people are losing out. Al that does is increase the need for welfare. We gotta get investment shares to the poor and middle class so that everyone benefits from a rising stock market, not just the rich while the working classes get the jobs cut and sent over seas.

I mean think about it. A company cuts 5,000 jobs and the stock goes up. How can that ultimately help our economy? It can't. That 5,000 are now getting unemployment some go on welfare, some eventually get new jobs, the rich get richer, the workers create a drain on government refunds. How does that make sense? Welfare benefits the rich! Welfare enables the rich to employ poor employment practices. The rich have no responsibility in our society because of the welfare system.

W/o welfare there is more pressure on private industry to supply well paying jobs. People don't need welfare is they have a good playing job in the first place. People want to talk about lazy people that don't want to work. That's a lot of scapegoat BS. The issue is that the appeal of getting a job that does not pay a living wage vs. welfare is negligent. The only solution is for jobs to pay better then welfare does. You can't get rid of welfare because then you have people dying and rioting and crime goes up, etc. So you have to make work more attractive. Disparity is what makes the situation problematic.

[Malachi151]

I will say that I do not agree that there are not "self made" people -- though I think your argument there turns on semantics more than anything else.

Can you give any example of someone who's wealth or income is not dependant on society?

Can you explain in any way how a person can "make money" that is in no way dependant on anyone else?

Are there any men on deserted islands that are rich?

Wealth and money are social constructs its impossible to have wealth or money without a society.

[WildCat]

Wow, I think everyone's missing the issue here. The tax code is way too complex, too many deductions, credits, etc. too much $ goes into accountants pockets. What's the point in increasing the marginal tax rates if increases in revenue will never be realized because of deductions to special interests, mortgage interest, children, etc.?
How's this for a flat tax proposal (this deals only w/ personal income tax):
All income < $25,000 no taxes.
Income > $25,000 taxed at a 20% rate. No deductions, no credits.
Examples:
You make $25,000 pay no tax.
You make $30,000 pay $1,000 in taxes
You make $100,000 a year pay $15,000 in taxes
You make $1,000,000 a year pay $195,000 in taxes.
Is this fair? Efficient? Simple?
Just trying to get some feedback on this, I haven't crunched any numbers to see how much revenue this would generate.

[corplinx]

It's much easier for a president to push through a tax cut than a spending cut. A tax cut doesn't keep anyone's highway from getting built, anyone's monument from getting made, or someone's federally funded local project from getting completed.

If you propose a tax cut, its not personal to the people who vote on it. If you propose spending cuts, it is going to affect a lot of pet projects and has zero chance of passing. The mere act of proposing specific cuts will create confrontation rather than cooperation.

If you really want goverment spending to go down, elect new congressmen who refuse to "bring the pork home".

[a_unique_person]

Let's face

Clinton gets blow job->Endless Years of Scandal
Bush Borrows Trillions->Ho Hum

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by WildCat
Wow, I think everyone's missing the issue here. The tax code is way too complex, too many deductions, credits, etc. too much $ goes into accountants pockets. What's the point in increasing the marginal tax rates if increases in revenue will never be realized because of deductions to special interests, mortgage interest, children, etc.?
How's this for a flat tax proposal (this deals only w/ personal income tax):
All income < $25,000 no taxes.
Income > $25,000 taxed at a 20% rate. No deductions, no credits.
Examples:
You make $25,000 pay no tax.
You make $30,000 pay $1,000 in taxes
You make $100,000 a year pay $15,000 in taxes
You make $1,000,000 a year pay $195,000 in taxes.
Is this fair? Efficient? Simple?
Just trying to get some feedback on this, I haven't crunched any numbers to see how much revenue this would generate.

I don't see why a flat tax and deuduction have anything to do with eachother.

Flat tax is like a magic wor dor something.

Its equally easy to get rid of deductions and not have a flat tax.

Deductions are used to encourage certian behavior.

For example being able to deduct intrest paid on home loans, is to encourgae home ownership, its really a deduction for the Middle Class. Its not one I think would be a good idea to get rid of.

Being able to deduct business expenses can be abused pretty easily, but its also needed to help people start small businesses.

The deduction for buying an electric car, again, a good incentive.

So overall I don't see the argument for getting rid of deductions altogether, and there are limits to how much you can deduct, so really many earned income tax deduction help the middle class.

Now, when it really comes to a flat tax I think that a real amount that would be required for a flax tax to raise enough money would be about 25%. That ends up being a big tax increase on the poor(which wouldn't really end up rasing any money) and big tax cut on the wealthy, how is that going to help anything? Why do people think flat tax is some kind of magic bullet? It's just raising taxes on the poor and cutting taxes on the rich.

There is really no sense to a flat tax its just BS supported by stupid rich people. Smart rich people aren't for it because they know it would hurt the country and ultimately themselves. I guarentee a smaller percentage of rich people want a flat tax then middle class people because rich people know it would screw us and undermine their wealth. You can't maintain wealth in a totally failing economy. The only reason middle class people want it is out of confusion.

Some links people may be interested in:

http://www.taxhistory.org/default.htm

http://www.responsiblewealth.org/

http://www.fairtaxesforall.org/

Conversely, the idea that the citizens are too stupid to manage their own money and that the smart people in government need to step in to protect us from ourselves is a tad bit annoying.

So are you presuming that the average person, or really anyone who does not spend their life working on the issues would now how to apportion their money to pay for roads, schools, parks, research and development, military, social programs, etc?

How are individuals supposed to do that eh? Running a country is like running a giant business. Does a company let each employee decide how to spend money realted to their job? No, of course not, it takes central administration. There is obviously no way around it. There obviously has to be some level of an objective group with a global view that can decide how best to distribute resources for the best benefit of society, which ultimately benefits us all, when done correctly. The problem of course is making sure that special interests don't get too invovled in that process and that the people making decision remain objective.

Any other idea is like saying that each worker in a company should decide how a portion of company funds are used and that they would be making decision w/o having access to all the information. That obviusly would never work. People that think they can "decide best" how to use all of their money are just kidding themselves. That's not to say that they couldn't decide if given the oppertunity, but every citizen in the country is not goign to study national and global economics and process massive amounts of data and make objective decisions on how to spend money and where.

Not only that, but w/o cooperation you would have many people choosing to spend money in the same areas while other areas went w/o funds.

This is the current problem with charity organizations. Remember 9/11 how the Red Cross got tons of donations and then several charities went out of busniess and many, many went way underfunded. The masses are too reactionary thats why you need central planning, but moderated by democratic opinion. The people have ot let the government know what they want the goverment decided how to do it. To expect anything else to work is just not being rational.

If it were up to people to keep all their money and decide themselves what to do with it we still would not have any highways, we would probbaly still not have even been into space, we would not have any telephones(the wiring for the initial telephones was publicly funded), etc. All of that was public projects that many people actually objected to. It took leaders pressing the issue and using public funds to make those things a reality.

Show me a democratic company or a comapny where workers have control over the budget and I'll believe that kind of system can work. They don't exist. Budgeting and development requires planning by professionals with access to data that make planning and administrion their career. That should be a no braniner.

BTW NoZed Avenger, good discussion. I know I sound hostile sometimes; I don't mean it that way :p

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Sundog


I don't think so. To me it's simple. You apparently choose not to believe the numbers related to the huge and growing deficit. I honestly don't know how to respond to that; it's like talking to Tony, we apparently don't even speak the same language.



We seem to be talking past each other on this point.

IF lower taxes means lower revenue, then lowering taxes is fiscally irresponsible. I think we would both agree here.

IF lowering taxes actually results -- through dynamic forces -- in an increase in revenue, then it is NOT fiscally irresponsible. Would you agree with that - hypothetically speaking?

Every time you say that I am ignoring "the numbers," you go ahead and assume the first scenario as fact. I do not. I have not seen anything to show me that the first scenario is the TRVTH.

A deficit by itself is not the problem -- the fact that it feeds the debt, however, is. I feel that the problem -- a real problem -- should be addressed on the spending side. I blame the present Congress and President Bush for spending increases that I feel DO merit the label of "irresponsible." I said similar things about Reagan and the Congress that failed to deliver on their promise of spending cuts in return for the 80's tax package.

I also feel that at the current marginal rates, a tax decrease will assist in the recovery and generate more revenue. A tax increase right now would further depress the economy and might actually lead to a decrease in real revenue.



A huge tax cut is plainly irresponsible when we don't have the money to spare. I don't know how to put it more plainly than that. You don't spend the rent money on a trip to Jamaica; not if you want a place to live next month.


Your examples all assume that the revenue effect is self evident. Historically, lowering marginal tax rates have not decreased revenue to the government. Isn't that the main point? Lowering taxes increased revenue when it was done in the 60's (with admittedly higher marginal rates, IIRC); it also increased government revenue in the 80's, with levels much closer to the current taxation levels.


Given that, what factors make you assume that a lowered marginal rate now MUST resulty in less revenue? If you can pinpoint that for me, you could win me over.


If we were solvent, if we didn't have a huge deficit looming that threatens all our Social Security, I wouldn't care. Sure, cut the taxes. We can't afford it right now.


Social Security is dead. No 300 billion 600 billion or 1 trillion dollar tax increase -- even assuming an increase would work and would not lead to a depression and lower revenue -- is going to save it.

Mathematics dooms it. Juggling the books and decreasing the benefits and increasing (even further) the taxes for it can keep the system limping along, but mathematically it cannot be sustained past 2020 or so. That is completely separate from the "regular" budget and tax issue.

But again, throwing all that aside -- what factors make you certain that this tax decrease is actually going to decrease money flowing into the government coffers?



I misspoke - what I meant to say was that if a Democrat was being this obviously fiscally irresponsible, you'd be yelling for his head. (Does the phrase "Tax and spend" ring a bell?) The problem is that you Republicans seem to believe Tax Cut = Good Thing, no matter what. I can't accept that, nor can many in your own party.


I don't know how I can rephrase the "I am against spending increases" point. I am an equal-opportunity critic on that issue, though I guess I am simply not believed when I say it, no matter how many times I say it. I am also apparently not believed when I say that I am conservative (with libertarian sympathies), but not necessarily a Republican.


As far as higher taxes -- yes, I am generally against them. I do not believe that marginal rates, as a whole, should increase. I do feel that the tax code needs to be simplified and overhauled. The net result, by closing loopholes, could end up with a net result of an overall "tax increase" -- and if so, then I can accept that. Frankly, the government is taking a lot of money away from the private sector already -- it's track record in the past does not inspire me to send even more money to them.


Just my opinion. Thank you, though, for a calm and reasoned discussion.

I think you and Malachi raise some good issues -- I don't feel that your position is unreasonable, but I think that your level of certainty in the fiscal effects of the tax cut is too certain.


NA

[Malachi151]

See, this is where it get's tricky, this plan is such bulls**t.

More specific info:

http://www.cbpp.org/5-28-03tax3.htm

Because the Child Tax Credit is aimed in part at low- and middle-income working families, the expansion of the credit contained in the new tax law has been seen as having significant benefits for these families. This perception is based on a misreading of the changes the new tax law makes in the credit. In fact, millions of low-income working families with children would receive no benefit from this provision of the new law.

The final bill dropped a child tax credit provision included in the Senate version of the tax bill that would have assisted close to 12 million children in low-income working families, many of which receive no benefit from the final bill. This provision would have cost $3.5 billion, or one percent of the official $350 billion cost of the legislation and 2.3 percent of the bill’s capital gains/dividends provision.

The final legislation accelerates the child tax credit provision of the 2001 tax cut that is targeted on middle- and upper-income families but not the comparable provision of the 2001 law that is targeted on low- and moderate-income families. (Similarly, the final legislation accelerates the marriage penalty relief provisions in the 2001 law for middle- and upper-income families but not the marriage penalty relief provision of that law targeted on low-income working families.) As a result, while some low-income families will benefit from the Child Tax Credit provisions of the new tax law, those provisions — like the new law as a whole — largely ignore low-income working families.

The conference agreement does not accelerate the increase in the credit’s refundability percentage from 10 percent of earnings above $10,500 to 15 percent of earnings above this level. Such an acceleration was part of the Senate-passed bill but was dropped in conference.

For low-income families, the amount of the child tax credit often is limited by the amount of the credit that is refundable. Simply increasing the size of the credit to $1,000 does not increase the amount of the benefit for most of these families.

Its one of those things desinged to look good, but really has limited impact.

$1,000 child tax credit to help low income mothers! Oh, BTW, low income mothers won't actually be able to REALIZE that credit, only wealthier peolpe can actually see the creidt...

I mean this administration lies about EVERYTHING, even single thing they say is lies and deception its just maddening.

For example, consider a married couple with two children and $20,000 in income in 2003. Due to the standard deduction and personal exemptions, this family owes no income tax. Its credit is limited to the amount that can be received in refundable form. And that amount is limited to 10 percent of earned income above $10,500. Since the family has $9,500 in income above the $10,500 threshold, it is limited to a refundable child tax credit of $950 in 2003, which works out to $475 per child. In other words, this family is already unable to use the full $600 per child. Increasing the maximum credit amount to $1,000 does nothing for this family; its credit still cannot exceed $950 (10 percent of earnings above $10,500), or $475 per child.

See, this is the other thing. That whole 10% tax bracket that he created. Thats just or show, because those people pay no taxes anyway.

[Whomp]

I am unable to vote, and thus have ignored the political scene for some time. To my detriment. So, now that my willful ignorance has caught up to me, may I ask a few questions?

I'm having trouble with the concept of trillions of dollars of debt. how do you spend trillions of dollars you don't have?
My bank gets pissed if I spend $20 I don't have.
Where does the money come from?

With spending cuts, why doesn't the president use the power of line item vetos more often? I'm sure there is a reason, I just don't know it.

I have just started to become a political animal in the area of disabilities. Having the IDEA come up for re-authorization has taught me alot, but I'm such a neophyte.

Where do I begin? Can someone point me in a direction to learn about how $$$ in the government works?

Thanks,
Whomp!

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I will say that I do not agree that there are not "self made" people -- though I think your argument there turns on semantics more than anything else.

Can you give any example of someone who's wealth or income is not dependant on society?

Can you explain in any way how a person can "make money" that is in no way dependant on anyone else?

Are there any men on deserted islands that are rich?

Wealth and money are social constructs its impossible to have wealth or money without a society.

That's why I say that your point here turns on semantics. From tax policies and the goivernment vs. persons getting ahead on their own work and merit, we quickly expand out to "society" to "in no way dependent" on "anyone else."

Its just not a point I have any real interest in splitting hairs over -- that's not a slam or anything, I just am not into parsing it. Long week.


NA

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Whomp
With spending cuts, why doesn't the president use the power of line item vetos more often? I'm sure there is a reason, I just don't know it.


That power was denied to the President and has been -- tentatively at least -- declared unconstitutional. Thus, he does not have the power.

NA

[DialecticMaterialist]

All income < $25,000 no taxes.
Income > $25,000 taxed at a 20% rate. No deductions, no credits.
Examples:
You make $25,000 pay no tax.
You make $30,000 pay $1,000 in taxes
You make $100,000 a year pay $15,000 in taxes
You make $1,000,000 a year pay $195,000 in taxes.
Is this fair? Efficient? Simple?

Well that's somewhat of a value judgement, but I like to see it this way.

In our system money represents rescources, labor, commidities etc.

Now when a CEO for example makes 100 times one of his workers, you have to ask yourself, did he work 100 times harder? Did he by himself generate 100 times more wealth? Or is he just cashing in on the way the system is set up?

Let take Bill Gates for example, in a sense he built microsoft. In a deeper sense, Gates didn't.

I guarantee that if you put Gates on a desert island, he will not build microsoft.

Bill Gates relied on an entire superstructure to build his company; public roads for his workers, public hospitals, police and courts to ensure social order and maintain contracts, EPA and other agencies to provide a healthy enviroment, workers, past technologies, a military to protect him, public schools to train his employees etc.

Without these things, Bill Gates would not have microsoft. Bill Gates then didn't generate the wealth or products by himself, other people helped a lot.

I'd argue that they helped almost as much as Gates themselves at times. But Gates makes billions, tens of billions. Many of his workers I imagine make about 100,000 grand a year. Now did Gates really work 1,000 times harder then that person? Enough to earn him that much more wealth?

I believe that the system is a flawed one based largely on a 17th century economic analyses. It really doesn't optimize a 21st century economy.

I believe that taxes help distribute the wealth is a fairer manner. And by fair I don't just mean equal for sake of equality, by fair as in earning by what wealth the person contributed, Bill Gates and other rich people(especially those who inherit wealth) do not work enough or do enough by themselves to merit such a gross level of wealth.

And no, sorry but the rich don't always spend their wealth on improving society. Most would actually rather waste it. I know an architect that designs mansions for the rich, and the rich actually by these million dollar manions and never really live in them. The rich just "visit" them at times, for about 2 weeks I believe. And some build more then one in the area.

They do it partly to have a nice place to stay during horse race season, though there ARE nice hotels, but also partly because it's a sort of game for them. They actually have so much wealth that they compete to see who can buy the best mansion, to show off. Such decadence is just very disguisting.

I believe in meritocracy, pay based on merit. Not equality, as that would ruin incentive. And meritocracy is best served in a more mixed economy based around large taxing of the capitalist sector. Especially the taxing and redistribution of money owned by the rich.

Now the rich can still be rich, like I said we all need merchants and traders to run businesses and increase societies wealth.

But they are earning too much at the moment imo. They should earn more but not so much more as to be able to just waste their wealth while other more important members of our society have to work two jobs just to make ends meet.

We should tax the rich in a progressive manner and redistribute the wealth.

To do otherwise is to create a system of priveledge, not merit.

[Malachi151]

BTW, this site has excellent info, though some of it is a little outdated:

http://pw1.netcom.com/~rdavis2/budget.html


Take some time and browse through some of the data.

This is an interesting graph:

FEDERAL TAXES AS A PERCENT OF FAMILY ECONOMIC INCOME UNDER CURRENT LAW IN 2000

http://pw1.netcom.com/~rdavis2/perinc.gif

Show, this shows, with deductions and everything how much is really being paid by whom, and as you can see its actually less the what the income tax brackets are. It breaks out each kind of tax, Payroll and Individual are both earned income and taxed the same. Bush is gettign rid of the estate tax.

[Whomp]

Thanks Malachi.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Malachi151

What's wrong with 50%?

In 2002 the top tax bracket was essentially 40% 39.6% I think, and it was applied at ~$300,000, I'm only increasing it my 10% and putting of to 4 million dollars a year.


An increase of 10% of the whole income -- a 25% increase in the amount itself. It's been a number of years since my college work in economics, so I cannot supply you with my mathmatic models any longer, but my personal opinion is that a 50% federal income tax level is more than optimal for growth and investment. As I said above, I don't think it's per se unreasonable, but I would peg the optimal number lower.

You also have to remember that the states, counties, cities, and schools all add their taxes into the mix, as well. A 50% federal burden will probably mean 75% of a person's income is taken away before he or she ever sees it.



I am interested in how these people hog all the opportunities for themselves. Money is nice and all, but it does no real good for us unless it is invested. These people -- with incentives -- will invest the money into businesses, financing the ideas and talent of people who may lack the starting capital, but who have the ideas, knowledge, or skills to make the business work. Largely, that is a win for all involved.

Why should we create a system where the majoirty of people are dependant on a small wealthy minorty for jobs? We need to empower the common man, not make him dependent on the rich man. The whole point is making it easier for more people to have money to invest and make something with. Instead giving more money to invest to a few it is better to give money to more people. The whole point is independant economic mobility, not economic dependance. The problem now is that our economy is to dependant on a small number of people with lots of money and control.



Assuming these people use their extra money to invest in corporations -- large, rich corporations -- have you advanced the ball any? I don't see that the people are any more dependent than they are now, either -- If I decide to start a new business, I will have to take out a loan, even if I get a ten percent or thirty percent tax break under your plan. I have to get the money from somewhere; someone has to be willing to invest it.

How is that mandated? (thje bit about the middle class, I mean) The government takes away more money (theoretically) from the people earning more money. What mechanism then forces an increase in the number of people in the middle class? What force drives that change?

Well, the theory is that the tax break on the middle and poor gives them more money to use to advance their own interests.

[/quote]

Hmmm. I will have to do some more thinking on this and run some numbers. Let me ruminate on this a bit.


When people hear about the "poor" they think of people living poorly, but your really talking about the bottom 20%. In "theory" that bottom 20% can be very well off. There is no reason that the bottom 20% has to be in poverty.

By reducing taxes on the poor -

Interruption -- the "poor" don't actually pay taxes now. Almost a third of working people avoid all but nominal taxes right now. We now return you to the quote in progress --


- you make it easier for them to take care of themselves in the first place. By increasing wages, which I would also encourage you create more incentive to work in the first place and so less need for welfare. I would try to develop a system reduces welfare at all levels, which can be done mostly by increasing wages and through bringing investment to more people.


Mandating higher wages, however, will decrease the number of jobs.

Would you consider something along the lines of a "negative" income tax? I.e., we set a level such as $13,000 to start. Anyone making under that receives a negative tax. If they earn zero, they get $13,000. If they earn only $5,000 for the year, their award is reduced by $2,500 (thus netting them $16,500 at the end of the year and giving them an incentive to find work, even if it is low paying.

The level would be adjusted for inflation and designed to put the person above the poverty line if they did no work, but would reward them with some money for working. From $13,000 to $20,000 or higher, there would be effectively no tax.


The biggest problem with the American economy is that when the stock market is going up many people are losing out. Al that does is increase the need for welfare.


I don't think that the number of people actually on the welfare rolls during the stock market upswing actually supports this. Given the weird nature of the market upsurge and its disconnect from reality, however, I don't know how we could really measure that.


W/o welfare there is more pressure on private industry to supply well paying jobs. People don't need welfare is they have a good playing job in the first place. People want to talk about lazy people that don't want to work. That's a lot of scapegoat BS. The issue is that the appeal of getting a job that does not pay a living wage vs. welfare is negligent. The only solution is for jobs to pay better then welfare does. You can't get rid of welfare because then you have people dying and rioting and crime goes up, etc. So you have to make work more attractive. Disparity is what makes the situation problematic.

The problem I see is that higher taxes and mandated higher wages would result in -more- people on the welfare roll, rather than less.

I will think further on your points, however -- I appreciate the links and explanation.


NA

[DialecticMaterialist]

I doubt mandating higher wages would decrease jobs, it would likely only to decrease profits.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Whomp
I am unable to vote, and thus have ignored the political scene for some time. To my detriment. So, now that my willful ignorance has caught up to me, may I ask a few questions?

I'm having trouble with the concept of trillions of dollars of debt. how do you spend trillions of dollars you don't have?
My bank gets pissed if I spend $20 I don't have.
Where does the money come from?

With spending cuts, why doesn't the president use the power of line item vetos more often? I'm sure there is a reason, I just don't know it.

I have just started to become a political animal in the area of disabilities. Having the IDEA come up for re-authorization has taught me alot, but I'm such a neophyte.

Where do I begin? Can someone point me in a direction to learn about how $$$ in the government works?

Thanks,
Whomp!


How old are you?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I doubt mandating higher wages would decrease jobs, it would likely only to decrease profits.

The effect is not really debatable -- higher wages means higher prices (to cover the labor costs) and a lower number of jobs. This effect hits every time, without fail. The only question is how many jobs and how much it affects the economy, not whether it will -- a small enough effect can be tolerated or overcome by other factors.

Unless the government also mandates the amount that a business owner is "allowed" in profits, there is no real way to avoid the effect.

Of course, if the labor gets too expensive and outpaces productivity, the factories and businesses just locate overseas.

NA

[Skeptical Greg]

Well, the theory is that the tax break on the middle and poor gives them more money to use to advance their own interests.

Let me see.. The middle and the poor ( keeping in mind that the poor are poor and very rarely pay much in the way of federal taxes any way ) get to keep and spend their money, the rich don't..

Seems fair to me..

[Lurker]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger



IF lower taxes means lower revenue, then lowering taxes is fiscally irresponsible. I think we would both agree here.

IF lowering taxes actually results -- through dynamic forces -- in an increase in revenue, then it is NOT fiscally irresponsible. Would you agree with that - hypothetically speaking?

Every time you say that I am ignoring "the numbers," you go ahead and assume the first scenario as fact. I do not. I have not seen anything to show me that the first scenario is the TRVTH.

...

But again, throwing all that aside -- what factors make you certain that this tax decrease is actually going to decrease money flowing into the government coffers?

NA

Dude, how many times do I have to post this study? It was sponsored by the rather conservative Heritage Foundation. It found that to MAXIMIZE revenue, an average income tax of 22% should be imposed. Currently the US is at an average income tax of 18%.

http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s159/s159.html

"For specific taxes, governments collect the highest amount of revenue when tax rates equal 22.5 percent for the income tax, 12.5 percent for the sales tax and 13.2 percent for taxes on international trade." The study was over 20 years of data and over 100 countries.

You mention anecdotal evidence which is easily compromised by inflation and government spending. I am quite sure I would find increasing revenue even after taxes have been raised.

Lurker

[DialecticMaterialist]

The effect is not really debatable -- higher wages means higher prices (to cover the labor costs) and a lower number of jobs. This effect hits every time, without fail. The only question is how many jobs and how much it affects the economy, not whether it will -- a small enough effect can be tolerated or overcome by other factors.

Unless the government also mandates the amount that a business owner is "allowed" in profits, there is no real way to avoid the effect.

Of course, if the labor gets too expensive and outpaces productivity, the factories and businesses just locate overseas.

Hmm, guess the only practical solution is some redistribution through taxation.

[Lurker]

Let's crunch a few more numbers here...

Personal income tax rate for top bracket

Years Percent
1945 91%
1946-63 88
1964-81 70
1981-86 50
1988 28
1991 31

And now lets look at income growth:

Income Growth by Quintile:

Quintile 1950-1978 1979-1993
Lowest 20% 138% -15%
2nd 20% 98 -7
3rd 20% 106 -3
4th 20% 111 5
Highest 20% 99 18


So, during the high tax years we saw good income growth all around. Yet as the tax rates were reduced we see income for individuals fall for the poor while the rich got richer. As Monty Burns would say, "Exxxcellent".

Lurker

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Lurker


Dude, how many times do I have to post this study? It was sponsored by the rather conservative Heritage Foundation. It found that to MAXIMIZE revenue, an average income tax of 22% should be imposed. Currently the US is at an average income tax of 18%.

http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s159/s159.html

"For specific taxes, governments collect the highest amount of revenue when tax rates equal 22.5 percent for the income tax, 12.5 percent for the sales tax and 13.2 percent for taxes on international trade." The study was over 20 years of data and over 100 countries.

You mention anecdotal evidence which is easily compromised by inflation and government spending. I am quite sure I would find increasing revenue even after taxes have been raised.

Lurker

Does this account for State income tax ?


Also this assumes " collecting the highest possible revenue " is desirable for everyone..

Is it possible we could have effective government with a lower Federal bugdet? Radical, I know...
I am quite sure I would find increasing revenue even after taxes have been raised.Why are you sure, when the report you link to says otherwise?

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Does this account for State income tax ?


Also this assumes " collecting the highest possible revenue " is desirable for everyone..

Is it possible we could have effective government with a lower Federal bugdet? Radical, I know...
Why are you sure, when the report you link to says otherwise?

Dio:

Good question. I will have to go over the info to find out if it includes state income taxes. Also, you are correct that maximizing revenue is not always best. Especially if you want growth. I merely use this data to show that reducing taxes does NOT ALWAYS increase revenue as some seem to think.

The study did not look at size of govt. I agree a smaller govt might be good in some instances.

Lurker

[Tmy]

When people say that the top 5% provide 50% of the tax revs, does that mean 50% of personal fed income tax revenue? Not 50% of the total tax pot. Business taxes arent included right?

[Malachi151]

The effect is not really debatable -- higher wages means higher prices (to cover the labor costs) and a lower number of jobs.

Not really. Higher wages can mean lower pay for executives and owners.

That's the issue, and that's really what socialism is about setting those levels to keep cost of goods low and wages high. Now just ignore that for a minute.

In the 1950s a corporate execute made about 5 times as much as the average worker.

In the 1970s about 20 times as much.

Since the 1980s they make about 400 times as much.

So, now it is possible to hire about 400 workers for every executive.

Profits for the companies have gone up, incomes for executives have gone up. Wages for workers has stayed the same for 30 years when adjusted for inflation. TAHT is the issue.

Wages CAN go up and costs stay the same, IF profits go down.

That's the whole issue behind profit driven markets. They have advantages and disadvantages,

We have a company where the CEO and other top executives are making over 5 million dollars a year in salary and taking in 20 and 30 million dollar bonuses, while at the same time cutting jobs and telling people they can't afford to give them raises.

That's the whole issue.

That's why high taxes were in place before, so that there would be less incentive to keep razing salaries on the few and instead spread that money among the many workers.

So, is there a problem is executives and owners can keep making more money while keeping wages down? Should we do something to prevent that? Would the wealthy actually get more wealthy by paying workers more, which would create a stronger economy?

What if in 10 year executives and owners are making 1,000 times as much as the average worker. Then what? Is the sky the limit?

Why do executives and owners make more money? Is it because of their contributions to the success of the company or society, or it is simply because of leverage?

Just because someone can fire 5,000 people and still get the company to run does that mean he deserves a 20 million dollar bonus? I mean I guarantee you that given a few years to study an industry I could have gone in to any of these companies and fired a few thousand people and increased efficiency too, does that mean I would have deserved millions of dollars for doing that?

I've looked at the studies, the stuff they did was not difficult or even amazing, it was just getting rid of obvious inefficiency and much was due to modern technology that simply needed to be implemented. Any of hundreds of thousands of people in the country were competent to do what they did.

Leverage obviously plays a big role, being the one in power.

As technology advances the advantage goes more and more to the capitalist. They need fewer and fewer workers to get the same work done. What they do is not to pay the remaining workers more, they pay the remaining workers the same, and they take the profits of technology. Its simply a matter of being in the driver's seat.

As technology makes more and more jobs obsolete people have a harder and harder time finding work or starting their own business. As fewer and fewer people get control of the machinery of society, factories, etc there is less opportunity to be anything other then an employee, and as an employee you are at the mercy of the executives and the labor market.

For example America has had three major car companies for about 90 years now. Its not possible to start a new American car company today. The entry level of competition is so high that upstarts are impossible. The only way it could happen is if some new technology came out that you had a corner on that let you get an advantage somehow, but let's face it that's not realistic because the car companies are the ones developing the new technology.

So, as an industry matures there is little or no opportunity for new players. Those that get in early at the start get a nice advantage but after that your only choice is to be an employee in that industry, not an owner or whatever.

People like Ford, etc were able to start car businesses from the ground up. They could start in a garage and then worked up to factory level. You can't do that today. You can't start a garage car manufacturing business and work up to having a factory.

Computers were the latest thing. Dell was a garage upstart, by today there is no possibility of a garage upstart computer business.

So unless and until some radically new technology comes along that all the big players ignore there is no real opportunity for start a large company like that.

So, in that case employers do have a responsibility to pay decent wages and not to simply jack up their own incomes to outrageous levels. Their ability to do so has much less to do with skill or talent or effort then it does with leverage. Its not to say that they are not skilled, or talented, but the leverage they have gives them extreme advantages over people who are equally skilled and talented but without the capital.

[Malachi151]

You also have to remember that the states, counties, cities, and schools all add their taxes into the mix, as well. A 50% federal burden will probably mean 75% of a person's income is taken away before he or she ever sees it.

This is a misconception. As the graph I showed on page 2 displays even the top 1% currently pasy less then 30% of their income to federal taxes and that inclused ALL federal taxes, not just income tax.

With a top tax bracket of 50% and most of the same deduction the top 1% would still be paying only about 40% or less of their income to federal taxes. Don't forget that capital gains is 30% of the income for the top 20% of Americans, and that is a flat 28% tax.

Also, the intent to to encourage higher wages just as it always was, so that instead of paying an excutive $20,000,000 a year which will be taxes at 50% (really under from deductions) companies would maybe pay a little less there and more to the averge worker. People talk abtou incentives, but there is litel incentive to wantnot be anything other then an exective or top brass these days. Eveyrone is trying to reach that top 2% area and no one is happy with being in teh bottom 80%. When America "was great" it was when that middle 60% of people were living happily and took pride in their job because they were well compensated. Not, the idea is that middle class is just a stepping stool for the super rich, which it is, so being middle class is not being content. Today middle class still means a two worker household that lives paycheck to paycheck and has serious debt. 30 years ago middle class was a one worker household with little or no debt and 6 months savings packed away providing security.

The effect is not really debatable -- higher wages means higher prices (to cover the labor costs) and a lower number of jobs. This effect hits every time, without fail. The only question is how many jobs and how much it affects the economy, not whether it will -- a small enough effect can be tolerated or overcome by other factors.

There are zero examples of an economy with low wages, and high employment. What has been shown is that low wages cause unemployment and that unemployment causes low wages.

When people make a decent about of money they have money to spend and money to invest. The more people have more money the higher spending and investment is. Havng a mass of cheap labor just means you have a lot of people who do nothing but work and buy food and pay rent. They aren't really doing much for the economy, they can't create demand, they have no means to demand anything.

As individuals are able to earn enough money to have some left over they tend to eaither start their own business, invest, or spend it on goods and services that they ultimately end up buying from the wealthy anyway. Who really makes money from a tax cut for the middle class? The rich do. You take the money, you buy a stereo, etc, that money goes to SONY corp or you buy a car, that goes to Ford, etc. Virtually everything there is to buy comes from a major corporation so they get the money no matter what.

Then you hear people talk about well, everyone will just save the money. First of all, American savings are at an all time low. Secondly the rich save more money then anyone. The rich have the highest percentge of their money in savings. The middle and poor spend the higher percentage fo their money. That whole savings argument is totally bogus. Not only that, but people like to talk about not telling "me" what do to with my money. Are those same people endorcing a policy that they claim is designed to prevent people from saving money! Talk about being a money Nazi! No, we don't want you to save money middle class so we are not going to give you as big a tax break as the rich. I mean thats absurd, and that kind of thinking is really disgusting.

[Skeptical Greg]

Virtually everything there is to buy comes from a major corporation so they get the money no matter what.

It is my understanding that this is called capitalism...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Sundog
If this were a Democratic president doing this, you'd be screaming bloody murder and you know it.

About getting a refund check? I don't think so..


I don't have a problem with democrats, just a lot of their ideas, like taking my money and giving it to someone else.. The republicans do this just as well, but don't seem to make it as obvious..

Our government is way too top heavy and wastes billions of dollars.. I'm not really sure what we can do about that, but I suspect it won't be cured with a democratic ( party ) leadership...

If you were sincere about the tax cut being a bad idea, you would refuse your share...

I can't wait to spend mind.. Of course a nice chunk of it will go for sales tax on the things I spend it on..

[thaiboxerken]

I'm all for the tax cut. Anything to bring the tax situation closer to being fair is fine. The way it is now, people are fined for being successful with having to pay higher taxes while the unsuccessful are being rewarded. I think we should be all paying a flat-percentage, regardless of income, without any tax-breaks.

I'm a capitalist, but only because I succeed.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Lurker
Good old shrub hid the report on the balooning deficit until after his tax cuts went through. I am starting to feel like I am on a sinking ship. Does anyone under 40 think we will get any Social Security? Thanks a lot, Bush!

Meanwhile, others (http://pherrett.blogspot.com/2003_05_25_pherrett_archive.html) are checking (http://poorandstupid.com/2003_05_25_chronArchive.asp#200362091) the claims against the facts, and Financial Times article begins to look like a smear job.

edit: here (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/003501.php) is a somewhat shorter version of the two critiques above.

The report, by Jagdeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters, is highly technical and certainly has not been read, let alone understood, by most of the reporters who have used it as another pretext to bludgeon the Administration and to discredit tax cuts. The point of the report, titled "Fiscal and Generational Imbalances: New Budget Measures for New Budget Priorities," is to propose a new method of measuring the federal government's long-term budget obligations. The Administration did not include this paper or its findings in the 2004 budget report; instead, it included the 75-year projections for Medicare and Social Security which have been used by the federal government for a number of years. In other words, the current budget used exactly the same projections that have been used in past years, rather than adopting the new measure argued for by Gokhale and Smetters. Some scandal.

...

What the authors recommend, however, is not tax increases which on their face are out of the question. Rather, they advocate reform of entitlement programs. In particular, they argue for establishing personal retirement accounts to replace the current Social Security system; see the discussion beginning at page 13 of the report.

MattJ

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Diogenes


About getting a refund check? I don't think so..


I don't have a problem with democrats, just a lot of their ideas, like taking my money and giving it to someone else.. The republicans do this just as well, but don't seem to make it as obvious..

Our government is way too top heavy and wastes billions of dollars.. I'm not really sure what we can do about that, but I suspect it won't be cured with a democratic ( party ) leadership...

If you were sincere about the tax cut being a bad idea, you would refuse your share...

I can't wait to spend mind.. Of course a nice chunk of it will go for sales tax on the things I spend it on..

Are you channeling De_Bunk or something?

I really don't think my sincerity is in question, and I really don't think YOU think it is, either.

Have a good weekend. :D

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Lurker


Dude, how many times do I have to post this study? It was sponsored by the rather conservative Heritage Foundation. It found that to MAXIMIZE revenue, an average income tax of 22% should be imposed. Currently the US is at an average income tax of 18%.

http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s159/s159.html



You mean the study that says this?


Countries that try to increase government revenues at the expense of economic growth expose their citizens to a form of double taxation. People pay once through direct taxes and again through a lower standard of living caused by lower economic growth. For example:

A country that chooses a tax rate of 43.2 percent (to maximize revenue) rather than a tax rate of 19.3 percent (to maximize economic growth) will see its growth rate plunge from 2.4 percent per year to 0.4 percent, on the average.

The burden of the "growth tax" (causing a lower standard of living) exceeds the amount of the direct tax in only 20 years.
After 40 years, a country that maximizes economic growth will have almost the same government revenues as a country that tries to maximize tax collections, and its citizens have more than three times as much aftertax income.

* * *

These results have strong implications for policymakers. Virtually every country in the world could increase government revenue and economic growth by reducing its highest marginal tax rates. After a period equal to an average person's work life, countries which choose tax rates to promote economic growth will have just as much government revenue and their citizens will have three times as much aftertax income as countries which choose tax rates in order to maximize tax revenues in the short run.

* * *

Moreover, this pattern is not confined to the richest taxpayers. As Figure I shows, the share of tax payments increased for every high-income group over the past decade, even though tax rates were reduced. Similarly, there has almost always been an inverse relationship between capital gains tax rates and capital gains revenues

* * *

Because the tax rate that maximizes tax revenue exceeds the tax rate that maximizes economic growth by a large factor, governments tend to grow to levels that reduce the potential future income of their citizens. On the basis of the empirical estimates produced in this study, any public sector larger than about 19 percent of GNP imposes a "growth tax" on its citizens.



(1) As I stated above, when you figure in the other taxes from state and local government, I think you go above the numbers listed, even for "maximizing revenue" as opposed to growth.

(2) The "maximize" short term government revenue is inferior to a lower tax rate that maximizes growth. In the long run, you get just as much government revenue -- but in the mean time you get an expanding economy, more jobs, and less need for the public sector.

I don't know how many times you need to publish the reference, either, but for the love of Ed keep doing so -- the study sure seems to confirm my opinions regarding expanding the economy.

NA

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Lurker


Dio:

Good question. I will have to go over the info to find out if it includes state income taxes. Also, you are correct that maximizing revenue is not always best. Especially if you want growth. I merely use this data to show that reducing taxes does NOT ALWAYS increase revenue as some seem to think.



I assume that this isn't aimed at me -- since I have stated that I believe that . . . " at the current marginal rates, a tax decrease will assist in the recovery and generate more revenue. A tax increase right now would further depress the economy and might actually lead to a decrease in real revenue."




NA

[Lurker]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


You mean the study that says this?

(1) As I stated above, when you figure in the other taxes from state and local government, I think you go above the numbers listed, even for "maximizing revenue" as opposed to growth.

(2) The "maximize" short term government revenue is inferior to a lower tax rate that maximizes growth. In the long run, you get just as much government revenue -- but in the mean time you get an expanding economy, more jobs, and less need for the public sector.

I don't know how many times you need to publish the reference, either, but for the love of Ed keep doing so -- the study sure seems to confirm my opinions regarding expanding the economy.

NA

Well, I am unsure whether hte study is including state/local taxes in their figures. And yes, according to the study, lowering taxes would encourage more growth. But, that is not what I was arguing. I was arguing whether lowering taxes would increase revenue, which it looks like, it would not.

Your (2) is just conjecture on your part.

Lurker