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.
Agreed. The underlying principle is valid but the threshold for it to apply should be adjusted to current realities (be set a LOT higher).
The principle reason that doesn't happen...
seems to be the efforts of those who want to see it eliminated entirely.
(This conundrum is a common theme.)
Because outside of Defense, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, all other spending is chump change. If we don't come to grips with the reality that ALL OF THE ABOVE will need spending cuts, then we are in serious trouble. That is just the plain and simple mathematics of it.
On this, I'm with you 100% . I suspect the reason we haven't done this is because an elite few don't want people to be financially literate. It's the ulaimate way to control peoople. My dad used to call this "going off half-cocked". And that's what most of these actors are like and why most should not be taken seriously.
He's certainly entitled to voice his opinion. But most of these actors don't have anything to back up what they're saying. They just go off their feelings without looking deeply into the issues. My dad's saying for this was "going off half-cocked". And that's how most of these actors are...and that's why most shouldn't be taken seriously.
They are movie stars. Is there anything they DON’T know!?”
AMT is insane, and should be fixed. no one has the balls to do anything about it though.
it sure is and until your hit with it you dont realize the 28% amt tax is nothing like the marginal 25% tax rate we all think in terms of. the regular marginal rate has some going through at 10%, then some at 15% then some at 25% and thats after all our exemptions and deductions.
with the amt once you pass through the phase out ,with few exceptions its from dollar 1 and a flat 28% if i remember..
the biggest joke is the capital gain that triggered it is at 15% but it trips the amt on every other penny you earn or bring in.
its usually for 2 years also because the amt has you owing quite a bit in state and local taxes. that amount if payed in the year when you send in your taxes can trip it on next years taxes just on the state and local tax deductions you take even if you have no large gains that year.
most folks who complain about the taxes not being high enough dont understand how our tax system works. there are 2 tax systems going on at the same time and one of them can be is quite painful
no, we really aren't. we'd just like to be able to pay for the wars that were waged over the past 10 years. the medicare Part D plan that was passed. The funds that have been "borrowed" from Social Security over the past couple decades...etc.etc.etc.
You'd be amazed at how many of us are fiscally conservative. That doesn't mean everyone thinks government should spend less as the only solution. It means that if government votes to spend something, government should pay for it. We've had decades of spending without corresponding decades of revenue. Blame whomever you'd like for the spending, but we are now at a point where cutting spending will only get you so far. We've got aged infrastructure in transportation that needs to be updated. We've got a national debt that is close to 100% of GDP. Sure, there are areas we can cut, and cut a lot. But unless you think math is just a theory...that's not the only part needed to be done to address the issue.
Exactly. The majority of the country believe that a combined approach (spending cuts and increased revenues) are what is called for. Almost 70%, from the last poll I observed. It's also why the majority of Americans blame the Republicans more for not compromising on tax reform.
I'm always amazed at the number of people who think that raising taxes is the panacea. Yet nobody really looks back to lessons of the other catastrophic economic event of the past 100 years--The Great Depression.
Roosevelt's New Deal wasn't getting the traction he wanted so, by 1936, he decided to crank up taxes on the rich.
Guess what happened? The economy went back into a tailspin and the employment numbers were almost as dismal as the darkest days of 1932. In fact, the only thing that salvaged the economy was World War II. And let's hope history doesn't repeat itself in that fashion.
I always enjoy selective history lessons. You forgot the part where he also decreased government spending by 17%, largely at the request of Henry Morgenthau, wall street darling.
maybe i should post something saying that FDR cut gov spending in 1936, and guess what happened? economy went back into a tailspin.
yes...we should hope history doesn't repeat itself, but we should also hope that people know history!
Exactly. The majority of the country believe that a combined approach (spending cuts and increased revenues) are what is called for. Almost 70%, from the last poll I observed. It's also why the majority of Americans blame the Republicans more for not compromising on tax reform.
but the republicans are better at spinning ****, and the democrats are big pussycats. so we are fairly screwed
1) We have a government that is heaping new regulations atop the old ones, with little apparent understanding of long-term market effects - What new regulations have been implemented that go on top of old ones?
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 -
In the recent debt ceiling discussion, didn't we see a proposal for a much larger cut in spending, and an increase in revenues, put forth by this so-called "Tax The Rich crowd"?
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) What is the government doing that's choking off lending by banks? Banks are sitting on wads of cash right now. Honest question, please tell me how the current government actions are choking off lending.
Heck, I won't even refer to a news article to answer this question. If you knew about banking, you'd know that the Federal Reserve is essentially a government-endorsed cartel, one that dictates the lending practices and operating principles of the nation's banks. Since 2008, the Federal Reserve has gone from the most loosey-goosey oversight of banks to super-strict, to the point that even profitable businesses, ones that have paid their bills over the past three years, are practically having to beg banks for credit.
Case in point? My wife is the CFO for a very large commercial real estate company, a highly conservative one that controls 90 different subsidiaries throughout the region. The company has impeccable credit and has never been so much as one minute late with a mortgage payment. Yet the Federal Reserve arbitrarily changed lending profiles to the point that this well-managed, highly-solvent company with an exemplary track record was forced to beg to loan committees for fundamental lending, all because of the host of new lending regs by the Federal Reserve.
Now, imagine just about every company in America jumping through an equivalent set of hoops and you'll begin to understand.
4) The continued borrowing of the Federal government and its subsequent corrosive effect on the value of the dollar. -
I agree with you on this, which is why we need to balance the budget. Which requires significant spending cuts, and sadly, raising taxes on us ALL, not just "the rich"
See, I would say that the solution doesn't lie with tax hikes at all, but draconian cuts in the extraordinarily fat public sector. There is very much an economic precedent here from 90 years ago, when Calvin Coolidge was president. The United States went into a very sharp Depression in 1920, with some indicators actually registering a more severe drop than the initial stages of the Great Depression. His solution? Cut government spending to the bone and slash taxes. That is the reason why the Depression of 1920 is a largely forgotten footnote.
Meanwhile, the Great Depression was the result of government taking the opposite response. While the Federal Reserve's policy of jacking up interest rates was the equivalent of spraying gasoline on a brush fire, it is a myth that Herbert Hoover sat on his hands in the Oval Office doing nothing. Government spending increased 50% during the last two years of his administration, and had absolutely no effect. In fact, Roosevelt's New Deal program was of dubious effectiveness, when you realize that unemployment was almost as high in 1938 as it was in 1933. In fact, when tax rates were ratcheted higher (Following precisely your same logic) the country underwent yet another severe downturn. So the notion that increased spending and tax hikes will get us out of this is a highly dubious one. We have a historical precedent that raises grave doubts.
I always enjoy selective history lessons. You forgot the part where he also decreased government spending by 17%, largely at the request of Henry Morgenthau, wall street darling.
maybe i should post something saying that FDR cut gov spending in 1936, and guess what happened? economy went back into a tailspin.
yes...we should hope history doesn't repeat itself, but we should also hope that people know history!
Seems like you're more selective in your history than I am. The 1937 spending drop is murky, because part of it might have been through political calculation while a good deal was because of the Supreme Court ruling over the unconstitutionality of many of FDRs programs such as the NRA. And if you're going to quote Morgenthau, then you should at least be honest and quote the man fully. To wit, he wrote this in 1940: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. … We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … and an enormous debt to boot!" I mean just because the man was pro Wall Street doesn't necessarily mean that he was wrong. In 1940, unemployment remained at 15% despite a full decade of heavy government intervention--I'd say the man had a point.
The key issue to me at hand was the large increase in top-income tax rates during 1936 to 79%. I suppose since there was no control group, there's no way to assess which did the most damage, but my bet is on increased taxes which essentially stifled investment. I mean, if you're only going to keep 21 cents out of every dollar you make, then why invest at all? And, overall, Federal tax collections increased 72% from 1936 to 1937 due to the introduction of the Federal payroll tax. To ignore what effect that might have had on the economy isn't giving us a clear and comprehensive picture.
Now, on to Herbert Hoover. From 1930 to 1931 alone, government share of GDP soared from 16.4% to 21.5% Further, lest you indulge in the fantasy that Herbert Hoover was a laissez-faire capitalist, perhaps I should remind you that Hoover signed the Hawley Smoot Tariff Act into law, which gutted American overseas trade and increased taxes on imported goods of all kinds. Just as stupid a move as can be imagined.
Then of course, there was the Revenue Act of 1932, which raised top income tax rates from 24% to 63%. Exemptions were lowered. Estate taxes were raised, and new gasoline, gift, and auto taxes were imposed. Does any of this sound familiar to you? Or did this salient fact escape your notice while you were busy knocking out condescending little posts?
So let's see. Massive expansion of the government. Protectionist policies. Huge tax increases. And all these actually happened before FDR was sworn into office. And, if you add the bumbling Federal Reserve at the time with its big interest rate hikes, you had the perfect economic storm. And as Twain is purported to have said, History doesn't repeat itself. But it often rhymes.
Last edited by cpg35223; 08-04-2011 at 06:53 PM..
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.
. I suspect the reason we haven't done this is because an elite few don't want people to be financially literate. It's the ulaimate way to control peoople. My dad used to call this "going off half-cocked". And that's what most of these actors are like and why most should not be taken seriously.
