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 08-04-2011, 09:45 AM
 
58,984 posts, read 46,144,950 times
Reputation: 36598

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenScoutII View Post
This is one area where I agree with the conservatives to a great extent. I have no problem with the various social programs and saftey nets, BUT, I also think that everyone should have to contribute something to the system.

A country in which nearly half of it's citizens pay no taxes at all is going to have a tough time funding much of anything at all.
Actually, everyone in the country pays taxes, just not federal income taxes.

Why not slap a federal sales tax on things instead. Then people pay in accordance with their consumption and the fed inc. tax cheats, illegals etc. that you would never get income tax from also get to contribute.

P.S. AMTI is a pretty big issue for a lot of "wealthier" working folks on the coasts which includes an awful lot of democrats. I guess this means that topic is dead as a duck because increasing that would be a tax cut for the rich.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-04-2011, 10:00 AM
 
5,409 posts, read 10,331,858 times
Reputation: 4478
Quote:
Originally Posted by las vegas drunk View Post
Definitely not. It has been proven when taxes are lowered revenue increases.
So let me see about that "proven," . . . if the tax rates were set to Zero -- that should make revenue go through the roof?

Ok, let's skip the mocking. Ever hear of the Laffer Curve?

Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are now on the lower, left end of it. Any decrease at this point leads to lower .gov income.

Sorry, so much for the proof not proving out.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2011, 10:06 AM
 
48,508 posts, read 88,455,406 times
Reputation: 18187
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
im all for making a minimum tax as well on that 49% of america that pay no income taxes at all as well.

no one should live in this country and pay zero. even if its a minimum of .50 cents a day. i worked in one of the lowest income areas of nyc and see the locals daily with beer, lottery tickets, cell phones and smoking.
no one should pay zero.
That is the real probelm tooo mnay wanting to spend ;spend ;spend when they have no skin in the game. Its the same with proejcts of prok bills. Today peopelo are eelcted to steal form the public welth chest not run governamnt efficently. The only way money will be spent well is if people realise they have to pay for the increased cost for wanting.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2011, 10:18 AM
 
28,900 posts, read 49,099,920 times
Reputation: 46320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip T View Post
So let me see about that "proven," . . . if the tax rates were set to Zero -- that should make revenue go through the roof?

Ok, let's skip the mocking. Ever hear of the Laffer Curve?

Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are now on the lower, left end of it. Any decrease at this point leads to lower .gov income.

Sorry, so much for the proof not proving out.
Actually, my post on the Capital Gains taxes illustrates the Laffer Curve quite nicely.

Look, I know you want to indulge in a simplification, but the Laffer Curve doesn't contend that taxes should be taken down to zero. Instead, it contends that there is a 'sweet spot' where taxes are low enough to not retard economic activity but high enough to not starve the government.

The thing about the current debate is that we're really dealing with a metastasizing growth of government. And the Raise The Taxes crowd is really trying to find a way to fund their utopian dreams of government as the End All Be All Solution To Everything.

Last edited by cpg35223; 08-04-2011 at 10:26 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2011, 10:31 AM
 
5,409 posts, read 10,331,858 times
Reputation: 4478
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223 View Post
Actually, my post on the Capital Gains taxes illustrates the Laffer Curve quite nicely.

Look, I know you want to indulge in a simplification, but the Laffer Curve doesn't contend that taxes should be taken down to zero.
Sure.

Just poking holes in the claim that lower taxes always = higher revenue.

Depends far more where things are on the curve and overall economy. Nuance things, as User-ID might say.

Quote:
Instead, it contends that there is a 'sweet spot' where taxes are low enough to not retard economic activity but high enough to not starve the government.
Sure, also. And it was fine back in its day when it was being used to . . . . start US down this path to Endless Debt.

Recall that the Laffer Curve was a founding principle of Reagonomics?

Quote:
The thing about the current debate is that we're really dealing with a metastasizing growth of government. And the Raise The Taxes crowd is really trying to find a way to fund their utopian dreams of government.
Matters not when the overall economy is Still collapsing, anyway. It is no longer about right-sizing, down-sizing, or in anyway optimizing .gov.

It is Still about arresting collapse before the bottom falls out. All this nonsense is just about as silly as re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

All the paths being considered still wind up in overall system failure.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2011, 10:40 AM
 
512 posts, read 449,270 times
Reputation: 857
4. A committee should be created to identify waste and fraud in government and make specific targeted recommendations to cut spending in certain areas.


You mean like Simpson-Bowles??? They sure were listened to, weren't they?

Remember Clinton & Gore having a big press conference on the White House lawn with all the "wasteful spending" and stacks of binders? They were going to end gov't waste, too.

We've had committee upon committee on waste, fraud, etc for decades - what makes your new "committee" different??
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2011, 10:49 AM
 
28,900 posts, read 49,099,920 times
Reputation: 46320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip T View Post
Matters not when the overall economy is Still collapsing, anyway. It is no longer about right-sizing, down-sizing, or in anyway optimizing .gov.

It is Still about arresting collapse before the bottom falls out. All this nonsense is just about as silly as re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

All the paths being considered still wind up in overall system failure.
Actually, it matters a great deal. Because the things that will pull the economy out of the tailspin are the following:

1) Faith in long-term business climate
2) Viability of long-term investments
3) Availability of credit
4) Stability of currency

What we are facing here is an economy and overall government posture that satisfies none of these basics.

1) We have a government that is heaping new regulations atop the old ones, with little apparent understanding of long-term market effects
2) A Tax The Rich crowd that refuses to hold the line on any kind of restraint in spending and wants those with wealth to pay for it, which in turn affects belief in return
3) A tight money policy by the Fed that is choking off lending by banks despite historically low interest rates (Try being a small business and borrow money nowadays)
4) The continued borrowing of the Federal government and its subsequent corrosive effect on the value of the dollar.

Now, a dishonest person, a hack, would sit here and point the finger of blame at either the Republicans or the Democrats, depending on where they sit on the political divide. But the problem has multiple authors, from the Democrats making government the ultimate solution to every possible need to the Republicans who felt the need to involve us in a military conflict that was wholly unrelated to our vital national interests. Just as the war in Iraq cost taxpayers trillions, the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle resulted in history's biggest economic bubble. So the sacred cows of both political parties have proven millstones around the country's economic neck and no one seems to have the political integrity to admit as much.

It has been pretty evident for decades that government growth would outstrip economic growth in this country. What's more, the growth has been propelled by the entitlement boom. I mean, people love to jump up and down shreiking, "Cut the military budget!" But the DoD only accounts for 17% of government expenditures.

Yet we could muster out every single soldier and dismantle every single weapon system and STILL not fix the budget problem. Instead, what needs to happen in this country is more cultural than anything. We have to realize that every government program has a price in terms of costs and the slowing of economic growth--and we then need to weigh the needs versus the consequences. We have to be prepared to take a jaundiced look at every government expenditure and decide 'Is this truly necessary?' not just the government programs we disagree with.

Last edited by cpg35223; 08-04-2011 at 11:33 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2011, 11:46 AM
 
85,377 posts, read 82,887,213 times
Reputation: 61125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Actually, everyone in the country pays taxes, just not federal income taxes.

Why not slap a federal sales tax on things instead. Then people pay in accordance with their consumption and the fed inc. tax cheats, illegals etc. that you would never get income tax from also get to contribute.

P.S. AMTI is a pretty big issue for a lot of "wealthier" working folks on the coasts which includes an awful lot of democrats. I guess this means that topic is dead as a duck because increasing that would be a tax cut for the rich.
if you want to get less of something tax it.

for a country thats 70% consumer spending im not so sure a national sales tax wont do that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2011, 11:48 AM
 
28,900 posts, read 49,099,920 times
Reputation: 46320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Actually, everyone in the country pays taxes, just not federal income taxes.

Why not slap a federal sales tax on things instead. Then people pay in accordance with their consumption and the fed inc. tax cheats, illegals etc. that you would never get income tax from also get to contribute.

P.S. AMTI is a pretty big issue for a lot of "wealthier" working folks on the coasts which includes an awful lot of democrats. I guess this means that topic is dead as a duck because increasing that would be a tax cut for the rich.
Well, a sales tax disproportionately punishes the poor. Then again, they pay no Federal taxes in the first place.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2011, 02:19 PM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,797 posts, read 6,626,572 times
Reputation: 5180
The whole issue of taxing the rich is skewed to confuse the people. The 2 main points are that the burden of government has to be paid by someone. We are currently only paying for 60% of government while we are borrowing the other 40%. The wealthy are enjoying the lowest tax rates in history while the national debt is skyrocketing.
The other issue is the effect of wealth disparity. When the wealthy have the majority of the money, it causes economic contraction. The working class does not have enough disposable income to keep the economy going.
To level the playing field, you raise taxes on the wealthy, and shift the burden of government from the backs of the working people freeing up disposable income for them to spend.
At the same time, you need to reform election financing to correct the access to government that is being monopolized by the wealthy, in order to tilt laws and regulations in their favor at the expense of the regular people.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:01 AM.

© 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