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.
So Afghanistan, the war that Obama called "The Good War" was dumb?
You seem to have a problem admitting the FACT that government tax revenues hit an ALL-TIME HIGH after the Bush Tax Cuts were passed.
Yeah, both wars are dumb. We're not Obama's spokespeople. Government revenues were high after the tax cuts because the economy hadn't yet fallen off the cliff and we were in the middle of a housing bubble. Do you remember that? Same as we had a budget SURPLUS during the beginning Bush's presidency, but it certainly wasn't because of HIM.
Were (tax) revenues at an all-time high in 2007? Strictly speaking, yes.
According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, total federal tax receipts hit $2.57 trillion in 2007.
The 2007 level was the highest recorded since 1934, when statistics were first collected.
It is hard to get my support for any of my money going to the government when they spend it like they do.
For example, I see an expired tax cut costing me an extra $100 a month, and I see the gov giving billions to Jordan, or spending millions on some farm workers housing, etc; I just do not see why I should have to fork over an extra $100 of my labor to support those things.
I've always found surprising how the Alternative Minimum Tax is never debated, ever. There are a huge number of people making something between 75k-500k who are paying this huge tax. People making these types of salaries are often small business owners, professionals, etc. But, as my tax professor said, no one is going to touch the AMT because it's such a big source of revenue. Same with capital gains and carried interest... these are just freebies to the richest of the rich. But they don't appear to be going anywhere.
The income tax, estate tax, and AMT are all examples of taxes peddled to the people as taxes upon "the rich" which came back to bite the middle class in the backside.
Have to disagree with you about capital gains taxes and carried interest being "freebies to the richest of the rich". These taxes hit anyone in the middle class who attempts to invest their money to work for them as well as retirees on fixed income selling off their investments to cover daily living and medical expenses.
Here's some honesty about Obama's tax speech (no cuts...just extention of his current rates along with hikes) Obama
This whole thread is based on your ignorance of how the tax system has changed since the Clinton era. To use one percentage and call it the same is rediculous. State taxes alone have doubled in Cali. Now we have at least 22 new tax hikes coming in 2014.
You lead off with "Let's be honest" yet you haven't been.
Vote for a flat out liar and narcicisst in chief for another four? I don't think so.
It seems odd to allow the big tax folks to say "these are tax cuts" like the previous much higher rates are the norm. The norm should be much lower, say, no more than 20 percent.
Let's be honest for a minute. Even if all the Bush II tax cuts were relaxed, we would only be going back the the Clinton era tax levels. This was not the end of the world. I understand the logic of extending the cuts a bit because of the recession and constrained demand. But it is only a defibrillator treatment for the economy, not a sustainable tax policy.
The drive by the GOP to make all the tax cuts permanent, and to call any sensible expiration of these tax cuts to be a massive tax hike, is nothing less than an insurgent strategy straight from Grover Norquist.
...and the left thinks the Clinton tax increases should be permanent. Even Clinton himself said of his tax increase:
"Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."
The only way to balance the budget at such low tax rates is to axe thousands of federal jobs and benefits for the poorest in society in these difficult times, permanently. Taking the axe to the government is a far right wet dream, but undermining basic services and destroying middle class jobs is not going to make our country stronger. It is an aggressive, almost fascist agenda, and considering the dire straights of the middle class, spectacularly foolish.
I know that I, and I suspect most of you, were doing better in the Clinton years. So returning to some fo those fiscal policies sounds much better than what we have now.[/quote]
In 2010, the top 2% paid about $500 billion in income taxes, how much do you think Obama will squeeze out of them by increasing their taxes from 35% to 39%? Whatever annual that amount is, Obama will out spend it with about $20 billion in one week of his deficit spending.
I'm part of the Democratic voting base, and I wouldn't mind if all of the Bush tax cuts were eliminated. They were not planned for and poorly thought out. In fact, as a married person with a child and a not-so-high-income, we'll probably be harder hit. I'll pay higher taxes. So what. I'll adjust. There needs to be more revenue. I'd rather things get straightened out now than later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
I'm a democrat, and I would support it. I don't think taxes should be as low as they are for upper or lower earners.
Is there anything stoppping you from writing a nice big check to the IRS? I bet they would be happy to accept your money. In fact, I think we should make it as simple as possible for all people that think taxes should be raised to pay more.
We don't have a revenue problem...we have a spending problem. Brought to you by both parties.
Fixed dollar, per person spending by the feds:
Per person federal tax receipts.
The federal government has taken an ever rising amount of money from each and every American taxpayer (granted, with some dips and peaks depending on recessions). Yet still, spending growth outstrips revenue growth.
I'd support going back to Clinton-era tax rates...if Dems would support going back to Clinton-era spending. Per person federal spending (in fixed $) was flat at about $7k per person during the 90s. Our current revenue is ~$8k per person...if we just trimmed spending a bit to the level of the 90s, we would have a surplus of ~$1000 per person or $300 billion per year. That would start to make a dent in the debt.
Were revenues at an all-time high in 2007? Strictly speaking, yes.
According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, total federal tax receipts hit $2.57 trillion in 2007, before declining in 2008 and 2009, when the current recession was under way. (Tax revenues almost always sink during a recession.) The 2007 level was the highest recorded since 1934, when statistics were first collected.
So on that score, Gillespie's right. But using this particular statistic neglects a key factor -- the size of the economy as a whole. Though recessions and expansions produce volatility in tax collections, as do changes in tax policy, one would expect that a bigger economy would generally produce greater tax revenues than a smaller one. And indeed, in the 57 tax years between 1951 and 2007, tax collections grew 49 times on a year-to-year basis -- a consistent trend despite frequent changes in tax rates and periodic recessions.
You can easily factor out the size of the U.S. economy if you divide revenue by gross domestic product, or GDP. The Tax Policy Center has also calculated these numbers.
In 2007, tax revenues represented 18.5 percent of GDP. That's high by historical standards but hardly a record. It only ties for 16th place going back to 1934, and within the 14-year stretch between 1996 and 2009 it only rises to 7th place.
So if Gillespie's point is that Bush's tax cuts led to record revenues, they did -- for 2007 at least -- but that was a record aided by a the largest, non-recession economy in American history.
Yes, the economy is in better shape. Admittedly, not in great shape with Europe, high UE and all, but it is much better than 2009.
And no, Clinton and Obama were not wrong, but the GOP wants to have their cake and eat it too. Cut taxes to the bone, launch wars, brew up a bubble, cut programs, and blame the Democrats for the deficit and unemployment.
"Yes the economy is in better shape"
What planet are you on. My business is not doing bad right now but the only reasons for that is I have no debt, had no debt coming into 2008 and most of my competition is out of business. My profit keeps falling because my overhead keeps rising.
You are either retired, work for a government office, or are in love with the Democrats so much you can't see reality.
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.
