U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-10-2011, 11:54 PM
 
66,240 posts, read 30,153,135 times
Reputation: 8607

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
On Reagan's tax-cuts, as I've shown before, revenue dropped after Reagan's tax-cuts.
No, it did not.
Quote:
If revenues rose after his tax-cut, then why did Reagan need to reverse course and increase taxes so many times?
Reagan didn't increase the tax rate; he made it tougher to evade taxes, and broadened the tax base, reduced tax breaks, and closed loopholes.

We need to broaden the tax base now. Currently, 51% pay no federal income tax.
http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/r...1-ffc00b5c00ef
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-11-2011, 01:12 PM
 
2,515 posts, read 1,718,767 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Spend away. Your ideas are looney at this point. The debtors that we borrowed money from are asking for $1.9 trillion from the west to the east, basically.
Have you really though through what a large increase in the minimum wage would do to the economy? As I see it the price of everything would go up, and that includes houses. With the price of houses going up we undo the bad effects of the housing bubble. They printed that much money and loaned it to us so we should print that much money and give it back. Fair enough?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Personal consumption expenditures are 70% of our GDP.
That is what I understand as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post

Government consumption expenditures and gross investment is 19% of our GDP.

What do you think a national savings plan would do to the GDP?
It would cause a contraction based on the amount of savings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Right, take even more money out of the economy. You're still planning on another spend-fest. They're not interested in your spending sprees anymore.
How you get expansion in the economy is you print money and give it to everyone. When you have inflation the people that get their hands on the money first benefit the most so give the money that is printed to everyone evenly and the poor get the most out of the new money as it is a larger part of their wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post

I'm surprised you haven't mentioned tariffs so we can immediately go into WWIV.
I don’t want WWIV A national savings plan does most of what tariffs does but without being as obvious about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post

Well, go petition and gather enough votes to get congress to abolish the Federal Reserve. Most people don't even know how money works, so good luck with that.
With a national savings plan we will be in a position to not care about what foreign people think so much because we are buying our own debt. Also we will be having balanced trade. With the prices of houses going up then we will be having an expanding economy. With printed money to everyone we will be having a prompt increase in employment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by newonecoming2 View Post
We need to change the ratio between debt and income. We don’t have enough income to service the debt we have. We need more savings. With more savings comes less consumption and more production, balanced trade. We need cash to spend. Printing money and giving it to everyone to spend will tend to drive employment. The government has outgrown its tax base, so we need a bigger tax base or a smaller government or both.

So upping the minimum wage to $30/hr

Starting a national savings program in banks not the stock market.

Taxing the payment of debts.

And giving people money to spend.

Those four things will get the economy growing sustainable.
What theory of economics is this from???????? It doesn't sound at all feasible to me. You can't pay workers more money unless your profits are sufficient to do so. You can't HIRE workers unless you have enough customer demand for your product where the revenue from the extra purchases of product are more than enough to cover the wages of the worker. YOU CAN'T PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE like you are suggesting.
Mine, I did some research and thought the problem through for myself and came up with what should work fast and well. Giving people money to spend is the key. The money comes from the printing press at no cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh View Post
They don't really need us as much as people think. They have their own people who right now can't afford products manufactured there due to artificial manipulation of the money supply there. They sell it to us for cheap prices but don't do the same for their own people. All they'd need to do is stop that. Let the market control the value of their currency and prices would drop and the chinese could start spending. Unlike Americans the Chinese have jobs and are working and have savings. They'd stop selling to us in an instant since all they are getting paid back in are next to worthless dollars.
They have been printing money and using that printed money to buy debt in the US with. This is an act of economic warfare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,523,903 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No, it did not.Reagan didn't increase the tax rate; he made it tougher to evade taxes, and broadened the tax base, reduced tax breaks, and closed loopholes.

We need to broaden the tax base now. Currently, 51% pay no federal income tax.
http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/r...1-ffc00b5c00ef
From Money.com:

Quote:
Soon after taking office in 1981, Reagan signed into law one of the largest tax cuts in the postwar period.

That legislation -- phased in over three years -- pushed through a 23% across-the-board cut of individual income tax rates. It also called for tax brackets, the standard deduction and personal exemptions to be adjusted for inflation starting in 1984. That would reduce "bracket creep" since the high inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s meant incomes rose very fast, pushing taxpayers into ever higher brackets even though the real value of their income hadn't changed.

The 1981 bill also made certain business deductions more generous.

In 1986, Reagan lowered individual income tax rates again, this time in landmark tax reform legislation.

As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from 70% to 28%.

Despite the aggressive tax cutting, Reagan couldn't ignore the budget deficit, which was burgeoning.
...
So, despite his public opposition to higher taxes, Reagan ended up signing off on several measures intended to raise more revenue.

"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime,"
Thorndike said.
Believe what you want to believe. Th facts speak for themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 01:30 PM
 
2,515 posts, read 1,718,767 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No, it did not.Reagan didn't increase the tax rate; he made it tougher to evade taxes, and broadened the tax base, reduced tax breaks, and closed loopholes.

We need to broaden the tax base now. Currently, 51% pay no federal income tax.
http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/r...1-ffc00b5c00ef
And about 1/2 pay no payroll tax or very little it all balances out in the end as the revenue is split between the two at about 50~50. And there was a payroll tax increase followed buy an income tax brake. Go figure. What we need is a payroll tax cut followed by an income tax increase.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,523,903 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Incorrect. I'll post it again. The top 1%'s share of the wealth (total net worth; assets minus liabilities) has declined from its high in 1995. Clinton's policies favored the top 1%, Bush's did not.

Table 1, here:
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
The top 20% own 80% of the wealth:



and with the top% incomes growing comes more wealth:



Workers Share of US Income–Falling Rapidly Since 2001
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,523,903 times
Reputation: 5606
Oh, and this just in:

Per the annual Capgemini/Merrill Lynch World Wealth Report (http://www.capgemini.com/services-and-solutions/by-industry/financial-services/solutions/wealth/regional_facts/regional_facts_namerica/ - broken link):

Quote:
The population of High Net Worth Individuals in North America rose 8.6% in 2010 to 3.4 million, after rising 16.6% in 2009. Their wealth rose 9.1% to US$11.6 trillion. [Ed note: Per Capgemini's 2010, the HNWI gain in 2009 was 17.8%.]
North America remained the single largest home to HNWIs, with its 3.4 million HNWIs accounting for 31% of the global HNWI population.
So, let's not buy this nonsense that we should pity the poor rich people.

Or how much additional wealth they need to amass before a minimal tax increase is considered within the realm of the possible?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 06:23 PM
 
27,903 posts, read 34,347,414 times
Reputation: 4031
Quote:
Originally Posted by newonecoming2 View Post
Have you really though through what a large increase in the minimum wage would do to the economy? As I see it the price of everything would go up, and that includes houses. With the price of houses going up we undo the bad effects of the housing bubble. They printed that much money and loaned it to us so we should print that much money and give it back. Fair enough?
Yeah, because it's silly. You're going to try and monetize the debt and add more to it at the same time. The people lending to us aren't interested in that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newonecoming2 View Post
That is what I understand as well.
It would cause a contraction based on the amount of savings. How you get expansion in the economy is you print money and give it to everyone. When you have inflation the people that get their hands on the money first benefit the most so give the money that is printed to everyone evenly and the poor get the most out of the new money as it is a larger part of their wealth.
That's how you expand money, not the economy. With a fractional reserve based system money is mainly created by banks with savings and loans. When someone puts in $1,000 into savings the bank can loan out about $10,000 on that.

That used to mean someone took on a business loan to start a business or someone took on a house loan which is better than no savings plan at all. Buying that home causes a decrease in the market and with a growing population, and a limit on land, that would tend to put upper pressures on the housing market. But you can't just give them away.

That would bring back jobs but no one wants a loan right now and as many people as possible are trying to get out of debt.

Your massive inflation would help that but it would utterly eroded any savings people already did have.

Quote:
"My father was a lawyer," says Walter Levy, an internationally known German-born oil consultant in New York, "and he had taken out an insurance policy in 1903, and every month he had made the payments faithfully. It was a 20-year policy, and when it came due, he cashed it in and bought a single loaf of bread."
Commanding Heights : The German Hyperinflation, 1923 | on PBS

Quote:
Originally Posted by newonecoming2 View Post
I don’t want WWIV A national savings plan does most of what tariffs does but without being as obvious about it. With a national savings plan we will be in a position to not care about what foreign people think so much because we are buying our own debt. Also we will be having balanced trade. With the prices of houses going up then we will be having an expanding economy. With printed money to everyone we will be having a prompt increase in employment.
Yup. But none of that flows with the natural direction of things. We can change that with WWIV, for a bit.

Last edited by BigJon3475; 07-11-2011 at 06:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 06:25 PM
 
66,240 posts, read 30,153,135 times
Reputation: 8607
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
The facts speak for themselves.
They sure do and these are the actual facts, posted in the very article you linked, no less :
Quote:
The bills didn't raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through "base broadening" -- that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes.
And like I already said, we need to broaden the tax base like Reagan did, now. The JCT's latest data indicate that 51% pay no federal income tax. That's clearly unsustainable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 06:34 PM
 
66,240 posts, read 30,153,135 times
Reputation: 8607
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Oh, and this just in:

Per the annual Capgemini/Merrill Lynch World Wealth Report (http://www.capgemini.com/services-and-solutions/by-industry/financial-services/solutions/wealth/regional_facts/regional_facts_namerica/ - broken link):
Quote:
The population of High Net Worth Individuals in North America rose 8.6% in 2010 to 3.4 million, after rising 16.6% in 2009.
Exactly right! More people are acquiring wealth.

Not sure why you're complaining about that. Would you rather fewer people acquire wealth?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 06:36 PM
 
66,240 posts, read 30,153,135 times
Reputation: 8607
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
and with the top% incomes growing comes more wealth
Nope. I've already posted the facts numerous times. The top 1%'s share of net worth wealth DECLINED from the 1995 high. Table 1, here:
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:38 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top