U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [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 10-12-2010, 07:55 PM
 
10,854 posts, read 8,532,765 times
Reputation: 3121

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
You are so wrong. It was on ABC and the question was asked by Charlie Gibson.......

[SIZE=3][SIZE=3]Gibson: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

[/SIZE][/SIZE]OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

So, it appears that Obama is about "fairness". In his pea sized progressive brain, he would rather lower revenues than act responsibly.
What Gibson's question failed to address is that tax revenues also rose in the 1990's when tax rates were higher than they were in the 1980's. The raising and lowering of tax rates is NOT the only factor involved in raising tax revenue. Economic growth is a much more critical factor. In fact tax revenue increased more than 90% between 1992 and 2000 at higher tax rates. Even with the Bush tax cuts tax revenue between 2000 to 2009 rose from 2.025 trillion to 2.105 trillion on 2009. The best year for tax revenues during the Bush Administration was 2005 with tax revenues of 2.5668 trillion which is about a 25% increase over the tax revenue of 2000. The fact is the lower tax rates from the Bush tax cuts were not enough to spur a significant increase in tax revenues in comparison to the growth in tax revenues during the 1990’s. Economic growth is much more effective way to raise tax revenue than lowering taxes.

You can look at the tax revenue figures here:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-13-2010, 03:20 AM
 
4,747 posts, read 3,271,805 times
Reputation: 3006
It seems to me that all these federal flat tax proposals fail to take into account what will happen at the state and local level when federal funding is cut off. Either they will have to massively raise taxes on the local level or massively layoff public workers. And they are all not bureaucrats that I am referring to - teachers, law enforcement, public works, public health workers will be put out of work in droves. Point of fact, there was virtually no homelessness in America until Reagan enacted his tax and budget cuts. For every action...

Thing is, that everyone would prefer less taxation and more growth and smaller government. Some just seem to think this can be accomplished without destroying millions of average peoples lives, I am not so certain and would be unwilling to experiment with peoples lives on such a grand scale. And since both political parties exercise control through the advent of new laws who is going to give up their pet issues first?

Either way, it will never happen. Even if conservative lawmakers could pull off such a shift in tax policy, there is no way they would want to take the chance it could backfire on them. What do they stand to gain when simply tossing about the rhetoric achieves their goal of pitting voters against one another?

Last edited by shaker281; 10-13-2010 at 03:34 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2010, 06:42 AM
 
5,387 posts, read 5,116,496 times
Reputation: 4713
Something just occurred to me...Member1, the original poster to this thread, hasn't posted anything else to this thread .

In fact, Member1 seems to only originate threads containing web links. There's no common theme to the postings and there's no common/favorite forum. And web links help improve search engine rankings - the more links, the better the Google search ranking...

It seems to me that we're all possibly getting knotted up over something initiated by an automated web-link generator .
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2010, 09:41 AM
 
16,434 posts, read 20,271,585 times
Reputation: 9566
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
It seems to me that we're all possibly getting knotted up over something initiated by an automated web-link generator .
Dang. Snookered again...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2010, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Troy, Il
764 posts, read 1,462,053 times
Reputation: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
Something just occurred to me...Member1, the original poster to this thread, hasn't posted anything else to this thread .

In fact, Member1 seems to only originate threads containing web links. There's no common theme to the postings and there's no common/favorite forum. And web links help improve search engine rankings - the more links, the better the Google search ranking...

It seems to me that we're all possibly getting knotted up over something initiated by an automated web-link generator .
Thats pretty funny
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2010, 11:13 PM
 
4,747 posts, read 3,271,805 times
Reputation: 3006
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
Something just occurred to me...Member1, the original poster to this thread, hasn't posted anything else to this thread .

In fact, Member1 seems to only originate threads containing web links. There's no common theme to the postings and there's no common/favorite forum. And web links help improve search engine rankings - the more links, the better the Google search ranking...

It seems to me that we're all possibly getting knotted up over something initiated by an automated web-link generator .
It doesn't matter. Plus, we have some actual members who do the exact same thing.

It makes for a healthy exchange of ideas anyhow.

But, good catch.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2010, 06:11 PM
 
5,387 posts, read 5,116,496 times
Reputation: 4713
Well, might as well continue the discussion with Maschuette...

I had not heard of Stuart Chase and his theories before. His wikipedia page lists 18 neo-socialist tendencies (five more than you had listed).

The thing is that Mr. Chase (and you, Maschuette) seem to be viewing the economic landscape as either capitalism or socialism. Isn't it conceiveable that in between those two polar opposites there can be other options?

Just because I favor a progressive tax rate, social safety nets and corporate regulation doesn't necessarily mean that I'm a socialist who fully supports the implementation of all 18 of Mr. Stuart's defined neo-socialist tendencies. In fact, I happily look forward to the day that companies like G.M. and Chrysler can offer stock shares to the general public and the federal government can sell off its shares in those automobile businesses.

You've said that there's no completely capitalistic country in the world. But the United States of the 1890's was extremely close to being a completely capitalistic country - and Progressivism was the response. Progressives didn't want to destroy capitalism, they wanted to regulate it; and because of that, progressives were actually despised by the socialists of the time.

Maschuette, you fear a large and unaccountable government, you fear being dependent upon such a government. That's why you want to shrink the size of government.

But you don't seem to fear large and unaccountable corporation, you don't seem to fear being dependent upon those corporations - why is that?

I don't know exactly what the right size is for a government, but I want a government that's large enough to act as a check against unrestrained corporate capitalism.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2010, 08:06 PM
 
5,387 posts, read 5,116,496 times
Reputation: 4713
Oops, almost forgot the tax discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette View Post
As for my 13% flat tax rate, i still can't find the study but i Steve Forbes ran on it for is bid of president in 2004. He ran on a flat tax of 17%, the extra 4% was to pay off the deficit.
I seem to recall Steve Forbes tax plan, so I dug up this (A Kinder, Gentler Flat Tax - Forbes.com). Forbes' plan was 17%, but it pretty much exempted the first $46K of income and didn't tax income that was invested or saved. Forbes' plan also kept the FICA taxes in place, so the actual tax rate for a family of four is about 30% (17% plus 12.4%) on their money spent AFTER their first $46K.

So pretty much all that got taxed for most people was money that they spent above $46K on larger housing, second cars, vacations, etc. In other words (like the author of the above link points out), it was pretty much a consumption tax. Seeing as our current economic crisis is being prolonged because the majority of people are saving and not consuming, I have to wonder whether Mr. Forbes' plan is really all that good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette View Post
In 2008, the US government took in 2.5 trillion dollars in taxes, 1 trillion of that was from income tax. If we enacted a flat tax of 13% and reduced our revenue to 750 billion (your number) plus 1.5 trillion then we could still easily manage with spending cuts put in place.
Let's use 2010 numbers.


Of the $2.381 billion in revenue that the federal government is projected to receive in 2010:
  • $1.061 trillion was from the income tax
  • $940 billion was from payroll taxes
  • $222 billion was from corporate taxes
  • $77 billion was from excise taxes
  • $23 billion was from customs duties
  • $20 billion was from estate and gift taxes
  • $16 billion was from all other sources
Those payroll taxes - that's paying Social Security/Medicare. And that's in the red right now - $1.131 trillion will be spent on Social Security and Medicare in 2010, more than was taken in. The retirees are starting to cash in those IOU's left in the lock-box.

So we drop $1.061 trillion in income taxes but pick up $750 million...with all other forms of revenue (less the $191 billion due the retirees) that's roughly $917 billion in revenue.


Mandatory spending for 2010 is projected to be $844 billion (not including Social Security or Medicare, accounted for above)
  • $571 billion for Unemployment/Welfare/Other
  • $290 billion for Medicaid
  • $11 billion for Potential Disaster Costs
  • $164 billion for Interest on National Debt
Eliminate Medicaid, Unemployment, Welfare, Disaster Costs, etc and we only pay the $164 million for interest on the national debt. That leaves, what, about $807 billion?


Discretionary Spending in 2010 is projected to be $1.368 trillion. If we simply cut entire departments and/or line items:
  • $140 billion - Global War on Terror
  • $78.7 billion - Department of Health and Human Services
  • $72.5 billion - Department of Transportation
  • $52.5 billion - Department of Veteran Affairs
  • $47.5 billion - Department of Housing and Urban Development
  • $46.7 billion - Department of Education
  • $26.3 billion - Department of Energy
  • $26.0 billion - Department of Agriculture
  • $18.7 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • $13.8 billion - Department of Commerce
  • $13.3 billion - Department of Labor
  • $12.0 billion - Department of the Interior
  • $10.5 billion - Environmental Protection Agency
that's $558.5 billion in savings, brings discretionary spending down to only $809.5 trillion and leaving a budget deficit of $2.5 billion. We can probably cut that from either the DoD or from the State Department.

So, using the 13% flat tax for 2010 I've managed to balance the 2010 budget.

And I've thrown the unemployed, the injured/disabled veterans and the poor (including their kids) out into the street to find food, clothing and shelter on their own. I've eliminated airline travel, the Interstate Highway System, and any assurance that existed for clean water, breathable air, safe food and medicine, or a safe workplace. And I've ceded space to the Chinese and surrendered to the terrorists.

And I haven't allowed for paying off the federal debt nor refunding the lockbox IOU's.

And...probably triggered the Second Great Depression.

Not good...anybody got any better ideas?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette View Post
But i still believe that revenue would go up with the flat tax in place.
If you're basing that on the Laffer Curve, then I've got bad news for you.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 01:04 AM
 
3,853 posts, read 12,078,697 times
Reputation: 2522
If you incorporate offshore no need to pay US income taxes anymore, your out of US jurisdiction. At least until you bring your profits back home.

Why we tax business/corporations is beyond me.
Rate this post positively 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 > Economics
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top