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.
You think that this administration wouldn't consider raising rates here? Obama has already said before he supports the idea.
That isn't my question. Obviously the current administration wants to raise taxes across the board. I am asking how that would possibly be a good idea for our economy.
O.K. so I will ask why it is that you wish to tax the working class at a higher rate?
You can not beat the Chinese in any of those.
Taxes should be higher on everyone and gross spending should be lower I believe (BUT ONLY when the economy is recovered). No one LIKES to pay taxes but they are remarkably low compared to our national average and we need revenue to fund our obligations. I'm all for being a deficit hawk but austerity now isn't the answer but thats beside the point.
Further...the loopholes available to the rich are exploited beyond recognition. The skew the sh*t out of any semblance of tax equality. For example: hedge fund manager and mutual fund managers have the ability to have their "annual fee" listed as their only regular income which in most cases is remarkably low (some as low as 10k annually) and the rest of their income (the commision from the growth of the mutual fund which makes up over 99% of their real income) as a capital gain despite it not being from THEIR personal investment.
Complete B.S.! Lowerig tax rates has the effect of increasing revenue. Our massive deficit has been caused by overspending, and Barack Obama has increased spending by orders of magnitude more than Bush. This isn't even arguable.
Yet, Barack Obama wants to keep spending more, because he thinks we don't have a spending problem.
What we don't have is a revenue problem.
If in your personal finances you continue to spend more than you take in in salary, you don't try to convince your creditors that you don't have a spending problem. They won't buy it, I guarantee it. And if you continue to spend more, your headed for bankruptcy. It's that simple.
The only real solution to our problems is to cut spending! And we need to do that BIG TIME.
Not only IS it arguable, it isn't even true. The deficit is a creation of the sagging economy, which caused revenues to drop and and automatic social spending to increase. But as the economy improves, which it is, we are seeing those effects reverse.
On your spurious claim that lowering tax rates has the effect of increasing revenue, that's a zombie lie -- no matter how many times it's killed it is repeated again.
But here it goes again:
What you see above is a chart of government revenue factoring out the effect of both inflation and population growth, both which increase government revenue regardless of policy. Removing those factors shows the effect of tax-cuts only.
Had your theory that cutting taxes increases revenue we would have seen an increase in revenue after the 2001 and 2004 tax-cuts. But we see a dramatic lose in revenue, not a gain, for two years after the 2001 cut and only see it starting to rise in 2004 (when the housing bubble started.) But what we NEVER see is the revenue even achieving the level before the tax-cuts. This, all when GDP was rising, giving us one of the lowest revenue to GDP ratios in modern times.
That isn't my question. Obviously the current administration wants to raise taxes across the board. I am asking how that would possibly be a good idea for our economy.
Raising taxes on the economy, i.e. slamming on the brakes, is NEVER good for the economy. It is tolerable in some cases, but never "GOOG".
Raising taxes on the economy, i.e. slamming on the brakes, is NEVER good for the economy. It is tolerable in some cases, but never "GOOG".
I don't know about GOOG, but it is good in many cases. First, at times when the economy is near full employment and overheating, raising taxes is quite good by cooling off the economy.
Second, small tax increases, especially on those that have high savings rates, does not dampen economic activity. If you disagree, show evidence that it has in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
That isn't my question. Obviously the current administration wants to raise taxes across the board. I am asking how that would possibly be a good idea for our economy.
That's an assertion not based in facts. Every statement from the Administration was that they wanted to keep taxes low on the bottom 95%. So it isn't obvious at all.
Not only IS it arguable, it isn't even true. The deficit is a creation of the sagging economy, which caused revenues to drop and and automatic social spending to increase. But as the economy improves, which it is, we are seeing those effects reverse.
On your spurious claim that lowering tax rates has the effect of increasing revenue, that's a zombie lie -- no matter how many times it's killed it is repeated again.
But here it goes again:
What you see above is a chart of government revenue factoring out the effect of both inflation and population growth, both which increase government revenue regardless of policy. Removing those factors shows the effect of tax-cuts only.
Had your theory that cutting taxes increases revenue we would have seen an increase in revenue after the 2001 and 2004 tax-cuts. But we see a dramatic lose in revenue, not a gain, for two years after the 2001 cut and only see it starting to rise in 2004 (when the housing bubble started.) But what we NEVER see is the revenue even achieving the level before the tax-cuts. This, all when GDP was rising, giving us one of the lowest revenue to GDP ratios in modern times.
So first you take corporate taxes as a 1:1 relationship to corporate profits from taxes (instead of looking at the economic effect on individuals that a corporate tax brings), and second you claim that 2001-2004 is a valid time period for comparison?
You DO realize that a major bubble just burst, and normal economic cycles are invalid during sector-specific recovery periods, don't you? Why on earth would you pick 2001 - 2004 as what you would use to prove your (completely incorrect) point?
And can you respond to my previous post asking you to look at the greater macroeconomic effects of corporate taxes? You seem to be stuck with your typical "google to find a graph and don't analyze the bigger picture" way of thinking again
That isn't my question. Obviously the current administration wants to raise taxes across the board. I am asking how that would possibly be a good idea for our economy.
I'm not arguing it is. Just that the way things are now are not necessarily how they will always be.
Taxes should be higher on everyone and gross spending should be lower I believe (BUT ONLY when the economy is recovered). No one LIKES to pay taxes but they are remarkably low compared to our national average and we need revenue to fund our obligations. I'm all for being a deficit hawk but austerity now isn't the answer but thats beside the point.
Further...the loopholes available to the rich are exploited beyond recognition. The skew the sh*t out of any semblance of tax equality. For example: hedge fund manager and mutual fund managers have the ability to have their "annual fee" listed as their only regular income which in most cases is remarkably low (some as low as 10k annually) and the rest of their income (the commision from the growth of the mutual fund which makes up over 99% of their real income) as a capital gain despite it not being from THEIR personal investment.
I'm sorry...but that is blatantly ridiculous.
You didn't answer my question. We were not discussing the rich or mutual fund managers. I imagine my thoughts there wouldn't be far off from yours.
I asked why you were for things that were going to raise costs on the working class? You did note that taxes should be higher on everyone but you will note that it's being noted that the return to the old tax rates have already had a negative impact on the economy.
I have a better idea, let's lower the corporate tax rates to at least be competitive with places like Denmark and Sweden, and go from there.
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.
