Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
2,500,000 members. Thank you!
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 05-10-2012, 06:14 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,718 posts, read 40,732,369 times
Reputation: 61869

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
So, you think you can spend your tax money better than the government, huh?

Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with taxes — and surely it would be better to let the public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.

The same thing is true for meat inspectors — fire the meat inspectors and take your chances at the supermarket — but you get to keep your tax money. The same analogy holds for FBI agents; TSA agents; and virtually everything the federal government does.
You must have missed the "more responsibly" part.

I'm fine with what you mentioned, only raising taxes so they can spend it on the stupid stuff I mentioned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-10-2012, 07:13 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,855,467 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw30000 View Post
Clinton raise tax on the dot com revolution which created millions of NEW jobs.

I know you want to say raising tax creates new job and sorry to tell you, it doesn't.

Government have this linear model on taxation.

If they the total income is $100, if they have 10% tax, government will get $10. If they raise it to 25%, government will get $25. So to get a $75 income for the government, they just need to raise the tax rate to 75%. However, real world just don't work like that.

When you raise tax so high, people just refuse to work and just stop paying all together. The IRS is not exactly know for their efficiency and smart.

The only way to solve this problem is push the Federal government in the state shoe, no more money printing. Get rid of the federal reserves and government will have to face reality.
If you think that economic activity is suppressed with higher taxes and lower taxes spur economic activity, then it comes to reason that theory should be obvious in GDP growth over time. However, look at this chart below of real changes to GDP over the Clinton and Bush Administrations.

Clinton raised the top marginal rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.

President George W. Bush later lowered the top marginal rate to 39.1 percent in 2001 and 38.6 percent in 2002 by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. And then he lowered the top rate again, to 35 percent, with the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.



I see evidence that GDP grew dramatically during the Clinton terms and no evidence that GDP grew slower after Bush lowered taxes.

Thus, there is no evidence that non-confiscatory tax-rates have any effect on people 'refusing to work.'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2012, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 59,486,462 times
Reputation: 24856
The reality is the strivers that make the huge incomes, along with the inheritors, will always strive or inherit no matter what the tax rate. These people are addicted to striving or lucky enough to inherit. Either way they will strive and the taxes will be paid.

The problem with cutting spending in the most appropriate place is our military spending is supporting too much of our “capitalist” industry and substantial cuts would result in a stock market crash and substantial unemployment. Cutting this socialist spending would be a disaster. Cutting anywhere else would be worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2012, 07:47 AM
 
9 posts, read 11,671 times
Reputation: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
THREAD TITLE: "Why does it seem so few support tax increases AND spending cuts together."

Your assertion isn't even true. It took me a whole 2 minutes to find evidence debunking the thread's initial falsehood.

Wrong. I said AGGRESSIVE CUTS IN SPENDING similiar to the Clinton Administration. IUnemployment and welfare are more robust under Obama..under Clinton they were slashed. The defense budget was stripped aggressively under Clinton, not under Obama. Additionally, under Clinton EVERYBODY shared in the tax burden, it wasnt just thrust on one class of people inciting class warfare and pandering for votyes by attacking the wealthy! Shared sacrifice all DAY!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2012, 07:54 AM
 
3,566 posts, read 3,715,710 times
Reputation: 1364
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyBats View Post
That's what Clinton did and imo it worked pretty damn well. My right wing buddies say they want spending cuts and no tax increases, and my left wing buddies want tax increases and no spending cuts. Doesn't it make sense that if there is a large deficit to both increase taxes minimally (back to Clinton era rates) and cut spending aggressively?
The better question is why there is such a large deficit in the first place? Let's assume. for the sake of the argument, that deficit spending of the size that Obama produced in his first year in office (almost a $trillion and a half) was necessary to get us out of the recession. That was almost four times the size of Bush's largest deficit. But economists tell us that the recession officially ended in June 2009. So the rationale for Obama's budget-busting deficit was gone. What then is the rationale for continued $trillion plus deficits as far as the eye can see? There is only one reason: redistribution of wealth. Fiscal sanity demands that we return to the levels of spending that we were seeing before Obama took office. And, frankly, I would prefer even deeper cuts so that we arrive fairly quickly at a balanced budget. Guess what! When spending and revenues are in balance you don't need to increase taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2012, 08:46 AM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,020,254 times
Reputation: 8526
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyBats View Post
That's what Clinton did and imo it worked pretty damn well. My right wing buddies say they want spending cuts and no tax increases, and my left wing buddies want tax increases and no spending cuts. Doesn't it make sense that if there is a large deficit to both increase taxes minimally (back to Clinton era rates) and cut spending aggressively?

Yes, but people don't want programs that affect them cut. It's the Not in my back yard syndrome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2012, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,676,137 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMe View Post
The better question is why there is such a large deficit in the first place?
Here is why, using 1999 as a baseline, against 2009.

Tax Revenue: -$300 Billion (eventhough, GDP supposedly grew by ~18%, population grew by 10%, tax revenue declined).

Defense Spending + Healthcare Spending: +$520 Billion

Ongoing war spending: ~200 Billion

And there's nearly a trillion dollar in deficit.

Next, consider that tax revenue in 1999 was 19.8% of the GDP. Following the tax cuts, it has never been that high. It was just 15.1% in GDP, a loss of nearly $450 billion in tax revenue.

That shouldn't count?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2012, 09:55 AM
 
3,566 posts, read 3,715,710 times
Reputation: 1364
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Here is why, using 1999 as a baseline, against 2009.

Tax Revenue: -$300 Billion (eventhough, GDP supposedly grew by ~18%, population grew by 10%, tax revenue declined).

Defense Spending + Healthcare Spending: +$520 Billion

Ongoing war spending: ~200 Billion

And there's nearly a trillion dollar in deficit.

Next, consider that tax revenue in 1999 was 19.8% of the GDP. Following the tax cuts, it has never been that high. It was just 15.1% in GDP, a loss of nearly $450 billion in tax revenue.

That shouldn't count?
All I know is that in 2007 Bush's deficit was $162 billion. That mushroomed to $455 billion (his highest deficit) in 2008 as the economy soured. Obama's deficits have more than quadrupled Bush's. And that has been in the midst of an economic recovery. When Bush left office the national debt was just over $9 trillion. The debt is projected to surpass $16 trillion just before the election. We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2012, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,676,137 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMe View Post
All I know is that in 2007 Bush's deficit was $162 billion. That mushroomed to $455 billion (his highest deficit) in 2008 as the economy soured. Obama's deficits have more than quadrupled Bush's. And that has been in the midst of an economic recovery. When Bush left office the national debt was just over $9 trillion. The debt is projected to surpass $16 trillion just before the election. We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
That's the problem. Live with it if you want to. But when responding to me, you might want to point at any disagreement you have with the numbers I presented.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2012, 10:25 AM
 
Location: South Carolina - The Palmetto State
1,161 posts, read 1,850,710 times
Reputation: 1521
Because the "spending cuts" magically never happen.

I know, I know - too adult an answer for this board - I'll go away now...
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, 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