Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you saying that jobs and revenue were lost WITH cuts and credits in place, and a few of deflation lingering? May be we should try to find out why we're in a doo-doo to begin with, with some of the lowest tax rates in history. Where will it stop, at 1% tax rate?
Enough with this fear mongering. If you're wary of deficits and debt, you better be prepared for some tough decisions. And I'm not ruling out spending cuts which should go hand in hand.
Quote:
May be we should try to find out why we're in a doo-doo to begin with, with some of the lowest tax rates in history.
1. lowest tax rates in history????? maybe the lowest in the last 40 years....before 1916 there was ZERO federal income tax
2. we are higher than a lot of other countries...in fact our corporate tax is the 2nd highest in the world
3. a big part of our 'doo-doo' was the loss of jobs since 1994, when our government ( both parties) passed all these 'free-trade' agreements
4. a bigger part of the 'doo-doo' is the housing bubble caused by cisneros, and cuomo under clinton
what do you want???? a 90% tax rate???? well the 90% rate was BEFORE all the taxes we have today (ie state,local, high property, gas, etc) so it could never happpen.........would you even want to to be rich in you earned 1 million and the fed's took 900k and then the state took another 100k (the average 10% state tax)...you would have ZERO......is that what you want????
allowing the current taxes and CREDITS to expire will cause more undo hardship on the poor and the middleclass.....is that what you want????
allowing these cuts/CREDITS to expire will cause more jobs to go out the window........is that what you want????
1. Not necessarily the lowest. Note that I said, some of the lowest. For example, look at the historical top marginal federal tax rate (1913-2009):
That rate is about as low, if not lower, than the rate in the 1920s and lowest since.
2. Corporate tax rate comes with deductions. The effective corporate tax is quite low, and lower than a lot of countries. The effective corporate tax rate is in upper teens. Most arguments placed against corporate tax rate conveniently leave deductions out.
3. 22 million jobs were added in the 1990s. And while offshoring (at my company) had picked up in the 1980s, those jobs actually returned in the 1990s. They went back (and in a big way) over last 7-8 years.
BTW, NAFTA isn't really responsible for outsourcing and job growth in China, India and the Philippines.
4. Explain.
5. I don't expect or want tax increases. I do expect the temporary tax cuts to expire. They have gone well beyond their usefulness, obviously. It is time to let that happen, freeze discretionary spending, trim fat off defense and other spending, and strive towards balancing the budget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by truthsayer2
1. lowest tax rates in history????? maybe the lowest in the last 40 years....before 1916 there was ZERO federal income tax
2. we are higher than a lot of other countries...in fact our corporate tax is the 2nd highest in the world
3. a big part of our 'doo-doo' was the loss of jobs since 1994, when our government ( both parties) passed all these 'free-trade' agreements
4. a bigger part of the 'doo-doo' is the housing bubble caused by cisneros, and cuomo under clinton
what do you want???? a 90% tax rate???? well the 90% rate was BEFORE all the taxes we have today (ie state,local, high property, gas, etc) so it could never happpen.........would you even want to to be rich in you earned 1 million and the fed's took 900k and then the state took another 100k (the average 10% state tax)...you would have ZERO......is that what you want????
allowing the current taxes and CREDITS to expire will cause more undo hardship on the poor and the middleclass.....is that what you want????
allowing these cuts/CREDITS to expire will cause more jobs to go out the window........is that what you want????
3. 22 million jobs were added in the 1990s. And while offshoring (at my company) had picked up in the 1980s, those jobs actually returned in the 1990s. They went back (and in a big way) over last 7-8 years.
BTW, NAFTA isn't really responsible for outsourcing and job growth in China, India and the Philippines.
uhmm
not quite
the 90's under newt and clinton are wrongly credited with creating 22 million jobs.....
about 25 million new low paying jobs were created while our population also expanded.....but about 15 million high paying jobs left the country...so the total increase was a pidly 5 million....and we lost more high paying jobs
and who said NAFTA....I said 'free-trade' agreement(S), to include the OFTA of obama with his 'free-trade' to Oman
the free trade, screwed us because companies like GE can have their product "made in" mexico or maylaisia and not have to pay any import tarriffs, and corporateions like Walmart (that used to sell only made in america) can import from china (due to clinton helping get them into the world bank, and becoming favored
Nope. 22 million jobs created right here, and wages also grew quite a bit (unlike what happened earlier this decade). Population growth has always been a part of the economy, and any nation ought to keep up with it in terms of job growth and we certainly did in the 1990s. Not quite in the 2000s though.
The outsourcing crap didn't catch up until earlier this decade, although manufacturing had been moving out and that too was well before NAFTA.
Are you anti-free trade? I assumed you were for free market that knew no bounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by truthsayer2
uhmm
not quite
the 90's under newt and clinton are wrongly credited with creating 22 million jobs.....
about 25 million new low paying jobs were created while our population also expanded.....but about 15 million high paying jobs left the country...so the total increase was a pidly 5 million....and we lost more high paying jobs
and who said NAFTA....I said 'free-trade' agreement(S), to include the OFTA of obama with his 'free-trade' to Oman
the free trade, screwed us because companies like GE can have their product "made in" mexico or maylaisia and not have to pay any import tarriffs, and corporateions like Walmart (that used to sell only made in america) can import from china (due to clinton helping get them into the world bank, and becoming favored
These aren't liberals who are saying tax cuts do not pay for themselves. These are people who were in the Reagan administration, Bush the elder administration, and Bush the younger's administration. It's just a fact that tax cuts do not pay for themselves because debt increases faster then revenue increases unless you "pay" for tax cuts by cutting an equal amount of spending.
Isn't it funny how Alan Greenspan and all of these conservative practicing economists agree with virtually all other economists that tax cuts do not pay for themselves? Yet here on CDF we have posters with no experience in economics claiming tax cuts magically pay for themselves because Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (neither of whom ever finished college much less were trained as economists) conveniently pretend they do. It's a joke come back to reality.
Tax cuts, by definition, will reduce revenue. And it is simple mathematics to compute how much revenue does not come into the treasury as a result of the tax cuts. The question is, however, whether the effect of the tax cuts is to spur economic growth that would not have occurred without the tax cuts and the amount of revenue generated as a result of that growth. And does this revenue equal or even exceed the revenue lost because of the tax cuts. Those questions are harder to answer. BUT, this we know beyond dispute: when Kennedy, Reagan and GWB cut tax rates at the low point of a recession the economy came roaring back (more modestly following the Bush cuts) and that resulted in more tax revenue than would otherwise have been the case. The fact that the budget was on track to being balanced by 2012, notwithstanding the government spending spree of the Bush years, is empirical evidence of the salutary effects of tax cutting. Economists don't like to acknowledge this fact or to make projections based upon it because the numbers are harder to pin down. But don't deny reality because it doesn't conform neatly to your formulas.
Are you anti-free trade? I assumed you were for free market that knew no bounds.
I am very anti free trade, especially when it is one way
we (the us) always get screwed on these political deals...even the 'nuke disarmement' deals...we agree to reduce ours AND DO, but we dont force the other to do it
why is there no tv's made in the usa
why is there no applainces still made in the usa.....the number one seller....LG.....Lucky-GOLDSTAR...a korean company
when we make it cheaper to import crap from outside, than to make it here...we have a problem...and that is what free-trade, and high taxes has got us
He's right too as proven by just about every single peer reviewed economist in every country on the planet. This right wing myth that you don't have to pay for tax cuts with off setting cuts is not just wrong it is retarded and proven wrong over and over again.
For the reality impaired neo-cons who keep claiming tax cuts pay for themselves here is what Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan had to say today:
Greenspan also said he is generally in favor of tax cuts but warned that tax cuts must be paid for or they are "disastrous". He warned that we can't keep borrowing money to pay for tax cuts and that the highest priority must be to balance the budget.
February 23, 2004 WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Monday that Americans' preference for long-term, fixed-rate mortgages means many are paying more than necessary for their homes and suggested consumers would benefit if lenders offered more alternatives.
Tax cuts, by definition, will reduce revenue. And it is simple mathematics to compute how much revenue does not come into the treasury as a result of the tax cuts. The question is, however, whether the effect of the tax cuts is to spur economic growth that would not have occurred without the tax cuts and the amount of revenue generated as a result of that growth. And does this revenue equal or even exceed the revenue lost because of the tax cuts. Those questions are harder to answer. BUT, this we know beyond dispute: when Kennedy, Reagan and GWB cut tax rates at the low point of a recession the economy came roaring back (more modestly following the Bush cuts) and that resulted in more tax revenue than would otherwise have been the case. The fact that the budget was on track to being balanced by 2012, notwithstanding the government spending spree of the Bush years, is empirical evidence of the salutary effects of tax cutting. Economists don't like to acknowledge this fact or to make projections based upon it because the numbers are harder to pin down. But don't deny reality because it doesn't conform neatly to your formulas.
Reagan tax cuts were instituted a year before the economy went into recession. Kennedy tax cuts were implemented in the middle of a nine-year economic expansion and it still showed reduced collections. First Bush tax cut (2001) was the only one passed during a recession, and the second tax cut nearly two years after the recession was over (2003).
The major concern with tax cuts has to be around deficits. It is not even debatable that tax cuts reduce receipts. If they ever increased receipts, the government should implement tax cuts when it needs the revenue the most, not increase it, whereas it was tax increases that were used to finance WWI, WWII and the Korean war.
It is understandable to see tax receipts decline during recession. Perfectly acceptable in 1982, in 2001 and since Dec 2007 for the current recession. But, despite economic growth (or claims made along the lines), the tax receipts still lags implying a deficit issue.
Federal income tax receipts around 1981 tax cuts were as follows (billions, constant 1987 dollars):
1981: 367.7
1982: 356.4
1983: 332.0
1984: 328.5
1985: 354.7
It wasn't until 1986 that the 1981 levels was reached. A similar story follows 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
Corporate tax collections during the same period showed a decline down from $78B in 1981 to $59B in 1982 to $42B in 1983 and picking up and stagnating between $60B and $65B in 1984-1986. It tax reform of 1986 (which basically shifted some tax burden from individuals to businesses) that helped the collections grow past the 1981 level in 1987.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
