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.
The other $252 billion of the actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth. As a result, receipts as a share of GDP rose from 16.5 percent in 2003 to 18.4 percent in 2006, an increase of 1.9 percentage points (see Table 1).
Wouldn't an increase in the proportion of aggregate income at the top yield an increase in the ratio of tax revenue to GDP?
When my employer makes an extra Benjamin, that's $35 more in tax revenue. That same Benjamin in my pocket yields only $10 additional tax revenue.
Wouldn't an increase in the proportion of aggregate income at the top yield an increase in the ratio of tax revenue to GDP?
No, which has been proven many times. Do you need to be reminded that Clinton also cut taxes for 90% of american businesses, and slashed capital gains tax rates from 26% to 20%, which increased revenues as well? Clinton exercised the exact same strategy Bush did to grow revenues, the only difference is, Clinton supported decreasing the growth in expenses, Bush increased it. The problem isnt revenue, its excess spending.
You see what you guys fail to understand is that increase taxes "at the top", means the top can go without paying taxes. The top doesnt live off of income, their wealth can continue to grow and accumulate tax free, because it isnt taxable until those investments are cashed in. Increase the tax rate, they will simply prolong their investment, thereby reducing those who "cash in", and thus reducing federal revenues. Even worse, this reduction in "cashing in", reduces the economy (note current economic conditions for verification), and the rest of the nation grinds to a hault, further decreasing tax revenues at the federal level.
Look at the CBO reports for verification. Federal government revenue increased $252B because they cut the tax rate, encouraging economic spending to take place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
When my employer makes an extra Benjamin, that's $35 more in tax revenue. That same Benjamin in my pocket yields only $10 additional tax revenue.
Thats not true because your employer doesnt profit in the same manner you do.
First, they arent taxed $35, they are actually taxed $15, because their business is a long term investment which would be taxed at a capital gains tax rate.
Business owners/the rich, they can roll over those profits into different investments and pay zero. Even worse is if you make the tax rate too high, your employer decides to either move to a lower tax area, which not only doesnt yield that $35, but it also wont yield your $10. Furthermore, you are now dependant upon government and instead of paying $10, you are now taking $10. You have now turned what would have been a $10 credit, into a $10 deficit. Again, look at current situations for an example. The problem isnt that the federal govenrment isnt spending enough, its that the spending is being spent in a manner that doesnt allow people to switch from being a taker from government, to being a producer. This "get the rich" is prolonging those deficits and not allowing them to generate revenues.
No, which has been proven many times. Do you need to be reminded that Clinton also cut taxes for 90% of american businesses, and slashed capital gains tax rates from 26% to 20%, which increased revenues as well? Clinton exercised the exact same strategy Bush did to grow revenues, the only difference is, Clinton supported decreasing the growth in expenses, Bush increased it. The problem isnt revenue, its excess spending.
You see what you guys fail to understand is that increase taxes "at the top", means the top can go without paying taxes. The top doesnt live off of income, their wealth can continue to grow and accumulate tax free, because it isnt taxable until those investments are cashed in. Increase the tax rate, they will simply prolong their investment, thereby reducing those who "cash in", and thus reducing federal revenues. Even worse, this reduction in "cashing in", reduces the economy (note current economic conditions for verification), and the rest of the nation grinds to a hault, further decreasing tax revenues at the federal level.
Look at the CBO reports for verification. Federal government revenue increased $252B because they cut the tax rate, encouraging economic spending to take place.
Thats not true because your employer doesnt profit in the same manner you do.
First, they arent taxed $35, they are actually taxed $15, because their business is a long term investment which would be taxed at a capital gains tax rate.
Business owners/the rich, they can roll over those profits into different investments and pay zero. Even worse is if you make the tax rate too high, your employer decides to either move to a lower tax area, which not only doesnt yield that $35, but it also wont yield your $10. Furthermore, you are now dependant upon government and instead of paying $10, you are now taking $10. You have now turned what would have been a $10 credit, into a $10 deficit. Again, look at current situations for an example. The problem isnt that the federal govenrment isnt spending enough, its that the spending is being spent in a manner that doesnt allow people to switch from being a taker from government, to being a producer. This "get the rich" is prolonging those deficits and not allowing them to generate revenues.
My employer owns convenience stores. He also owns investments which kick off capital gains at 15%. But his store operating profit is taxed at 35% is it not? And if his stores are not generating a healthy ongoing profit, he's not going to be taking a half dozen overseas vacations a year.
Somehow I don't think a "too high" tax rate is going drive him to ship his business overseas. His wealth can certainly continue to grow tax free, but he needs income on which to live.
My employer owns convenience stores. He also owns investments which kick off capital gains at 15%. But his store operating profit is taxed at 35% is it not?
No its not. His stores are considered long term capital investments, and are taxed at capital gains tax rates. Futhermore, his stores are more than likely corporations, and he is able to keep those profits in the corporations and not collect on them, thereby his rate is 0%. Once he does decide to collect those profits, they would be income, but it would be taxed at a similar rate to yours, just like he's an employee, because in the eyes of the law, he is an employee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
And if his stores are not generating a healthy ongoing profit, he's not going to be taking a half dozen overseas vacations a year.
Meaningless to the topic. I've taken numerous month long vacations and my businesses net $0 a year.. On purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Somehow I don't think a "too high" tax rate is going drive him to ship his business overseas.
You are right, it wont drive local convenient stores overseas, but it does limit his ability to increase your salary, it does limit his ability to create more stores, thereby hiring less people, it requires him to increase costs on products, thereby minimizing the consumer spending, and finally, it does allow him to reduce his "net" profits and LOWER the amount he pays in taxes, not increase it..
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
His wealth can certainly continue to grow tax free, but he needs income on which to live.
Actually there is where you are wrong. Just like your boss, rather than take a salary from your company, thereby paying 35% in taxes, he can simply switch over to taking cash from his other investments, thereby paying 15%. While yo uthought you were getting over on the boss by saying he should be paying 40%, he just nailed you by actually paying 25% less.
You see what you fail to comprehend, is that people like us, (i.e. those with multiple streams of income), will go to great lenghts to reduce our tax liability as you increase the tax rate.
I'm in the process of selling a hotel I had. Rather than pay the $150K or so in capital gains taxes, I'm renting the property to the buyer for 15 years and having a sales price in the end, lower than I paid for the property, thus $0 in capital gains liability owed. With the lease in place I can go refinance the property now, allowing me to cash out, and since borrowed money isnt taxed, I wont owe taxes now either. The 15 years in rent I'll get, will cover the debt, and taxes wont be owed either at any given time during the transaction.
I just AVOIDED paying $150K in taxes legally, while you guys sat here and whined that we need to raise the tax rate. You could raise my tax rates to 100%, and I'll STILL pay $0 in taxes. You didnt do anything to raise revenues, you just made it more beneficial for people like me, to think outside the box to REDUCE the amount we pay, not increase it.
OK, a few things there roysoldboy. Firstly I don't have one single poster on ignore. I'm interested in what even the most far out there person has to say.
About Coulter being threatened in Canada. Canadians are one of the most laid back people in the world. Bush comes here and not a peep is heard from anyone. It takes a particular odious person to get Canadian's dander up and in the case of Coulter she certainly is an odious person through and through.
I have listened to Coulter and I have read excerps from her books. I don't need to read the link. I know very well who she is and what she advocates. Out of everything she says and does the one thing that bothers me the most and in fact I loath her for it is she claims to be a Christian. She is no more a Christian than I'm a lamp post. From a Christian standpoint everything she says is dishounering to God. Everything she teaches is 180 degrees away from the teachings of Jesus. You can't get more than 180 degrees away from anything and that is just how far from knowing God Coulter is. She's disgusting, hateful, full of herself, jealous, A liar, faction creating person. How could you possible regard anything this horrible person says in anything but contempt. Here are a few of the more mild things she has said.
"We just want the Jews to be perfect" Speaking of why Jews need to become Christian.
"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish that he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot".
Do you think there is one single true Christian that could utter such hate?
"I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go to rehab if you use the word ******". Horrible term for a gay person.
"These broads are millionares, lionized on TV and in articles about them. Reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief parrazies, {Whatever that is}, I have never seen people enjoying their husbands deaths so much".
You know, those widows should not be celebs but they are one million times more worthy than the skank that uttered these words.
"We need someone to put rat poison in Justice Stevens creme brule".
She truly would be arrested here for such a threat.
"WE should invade their countries,Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"
Speaking on the Muslim countries of the world. Am I interested in anything this person consumed with hate has to say. NOT!!!!!
God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants animals and trees. God said, the earth is yours, Take it, RAPE IT, It's yours.
God never said this at all and it's a particular horrible sin to attribute to and to put words into God's mouth
These things are just the tiny tip of thousands and thousands of hate filled utterences from this person. I'm actually surprised that the Canadian government does not brand her as "Persona non grata" and let her in at all.
Oh hell, I will just help you attack the messenger and at the same time admit that you didn't read the link. All the work you went to discredit Coulter took much more time than it would have taken for you to read and then discuss what she said that was so bad. I am sorry for you but don't seem to get through so I will stop trying.
I am a conservative and would gladly discuss her words with you but you never know any of them. That is your fault.
How many threads have you posted like this? Feel free to worship Coulter if you want to, but realize most people think she's a joke. What does that make people think you are by extension?
I don't see the reasoning. I think rioting is going to promote a backlash which will result in government retrenchment, not expansion. Cloward and Piven are misguided or worse.
really? what happens when riots on the streets occur? usually someone in government calls for stricter laws to prevent such rioting. sometimes those laws get passed, sometimes they dont. sometimes the people call for stricter laws, and again sometimes those laws get passed sometimes they dont.
also when rioting happens, the progressives try to blame conservatives because somehow we are the ones preventing these people from exercising their rights, or keeping them down, or not giving them enough money, or what ever. and the system then continues to degrade. the progressive cry is "we neeed more government spending/control to prevent these things in the future".
Oh hell, I will just help you attack the messenger and at the same time admit that you didn't read the link. All the work you went to discredit Coulter took much more time than it would have taken for you to read and then discuss what she said that was so bad. I am sorry for you but don't seem to get through so I will stop trying.
You totally miss my point. I have read many things that Coulter has said. Those things make it so that anything she says is irrelevant to me. I'm not interested in anything a person like she has proven to me she is has to say about anything. Even the rantings of the insane make some sence sometimes but that fact does in no way mean that they have earned an audience. It used to be that people like her got up on a soapbox in some public park somewhere and ranted to the squirrels and birds. Very, very few would ever listen to them and for sure NO ONE would pay them anything for their hate filled rants.
It's just such a bad joke in your country. The idiot rantings of near psychotic people earn them an audience of millions and millions of dollars to boot. What a country you have there.
The only historical example of anything like it in a modern western society is what happened in the Weimar republic which culminated in the coming to power of Hitler. Now I am in no way saying anything about these screwballs being Nazis because in my example of Weimar the crazyness came from both sides. The Nazis just won out, that's all. It could have been the communists that won, they just didn't have enough $$$ to beat the Nazis. Anyway it's scary looking at America today. It's not the recession or the unemployment or any of the current problems facing the country that is scary at all. These problems have occured before and will occur again, the country can deal with that. What's scary is the fracturing of the American spirit into too totally hostile camps that care far more for their ideology than they do for their fellow Americans or for their country.
How many threads have you posted like this? Feel free to worship Coulter if you want to, but realize most people think she's a joke. What does that make people think you are by extension?
Two threads in a row you call me less intelligent than you are. Of course, you aren't able to see that she writes one column per week on current events and i tend to post them so people like you can read them, knowing all the time that you won't take a chance and open the link. You just attack the mesenger all the time without mentioning word one about the message. Now old Saul Alinsky and Vladimir Lenin suggested that that is the way you keep from actually knowing what the messenger said. You call me stupider than you and never read those things, because one of the Soros sites tells you what she said with a bit of spiinning before telling you.
I don't intend to stop posting her articles unless the forum heads cut me off from doing it. You will continue to show your ignorance about what she said just as your buddies do. I wonder how much you get paid to try to discredit this messenger. What is it? Just look at the author and drive on by and thn you won't have to insinuate that I am stupider than you are. Will any of you progs ever see what you are doing with your methods. Good little Alinskyite.
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.
