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.
No, it wouldn't. Everyone who buys gasoline already pays it. The same people would be paying the same tax at a higher rate.
Not even close. You must have failed elementary math.
if someone pays ZERO in income tax, and you raise the gasoline tax, they will start paying, and if you drop other individuals income tax rates, they will LOWER what they pay. Yes, they will pay more gasoline taxes than they were previously, but their net tax obligation would go down. If you disagree then show me how the hell you get there because if someone makes $100K a year, and they pay a 18% tax rate now, they pay $18,000, but if you lower their rate to 17%, thats only $17,000 a year
Do you really think they'd use up that much extra gas? If you charge $.10 more a gallon, it would take about $10,000 worth of gas to even come close to what they were paying..
Not even close. You must have failed elementary math.
if someone pays ZERO in income tax, and you raise the gasoline tax, they will start paying, and if you drop other individuals income tax rates, they will LOWER what they pay. Yes, they will pay more gasoline taxes than they were previously, but their net tax obligation would go down. If you disagree then show me how the hell you get there because if someone makes $100K a year, and they pay a 18% tax rate now, they pay $18,000, but if you lower their rate to 17%, thats only $17,000 a year
Do you really think they'd use up that much extra gas? If you charge $.10 more a gallon, it would take about $10,000 worth of gas to even come close to what they were paying..
Dems cheering a 800 billion dollar deficit when just a few short years ago they were calling for Bush to be impeached for carrying half that. Oh and don't forget how horrible 4.5% unemployment was back then. I mean what the hell was Bush doing. Liberalism is nothing but brain damage.
Dems cheering a 800 billion dollar deficit when just a few short years ago they were calling for Bush to be impeached for carrying half that. Oh and don't forget how horrible 4.5% unemployment was back then. I mean what the hell was Bush doing. Liberalism is nothing but brain damage.
More like we're recognizing it as a step in the right direction. And nobody rational was calling for Bush's impeachment for carrying debt. And the deficits created during the recession are far more acceptable because they were created... in a recession.
And of course you have to throw in an insult. Apparently you can't have a discussion without immature name calling.
A stock market that is soaring to new heights every day.
Not relevant, and as a point of fact, the stock market often performs in a stellar manner while the economy is struggling or tanking. I notice you failed the Stock Market IQ Test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
Unemployment continues to move lower ... now down to 7.5%
That is not a sign of a recovering economy.
The current E-Pop Ratio is 58.2% which is most unfortunate, because it needs to be 64.0+%...but then I'm assuming you want to keep Social Security Programs.
With a population of 244,995,000 the number of employed should range between....
.... 156,796,800 and 159,001,755 employed Americans.
Actual employment is 142,698,000.
That means you are short 14,098,800 to 16,303,755 workers.
You desperately need those 14 Million to 16 Million workers paying that 6.2% FICA payroll tax ---- assuming you want to keep Social Security.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
Housing prices are recovering
While wages are flat or declining....that's brilliant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
Annual Deficit that is dropping
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Wait, but your argument is more people on welfare stimulates.. So now that less people will be on welfare, according to YOU, this would crash the economy..
Once again, thats YOUR argument, and has been for YEARS..
But, of course!
They don't understand the difference between spending and transfer payments. Welfare "spending" is not spending --- it is a transfer payment ---- merely the government taking money from one and giving it to others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
It depends upon how much is cut. But the belief that cutting doesn't have any effect on the economy is economic voodoo.
Let's review some economics:
where:
C = private consumption
I = gross investment
G = government spending
X = exports
M = imports
When "G" is reduced, GDP is reduced as well.
Regarding what we are discussing, the sequester is cutting government spending. As such, it necessarily drops GDP.
Let's review some economics?
Are you for real?
In order to review Economics, you have to be knowledgeable about Economics, and since I am, I'll fill in the missing details that you either ignorantly or deceptively (knowingly) omitted.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOVERNMENT PUR- CHASES AND GOVERNMENT TRANSFER PAYMENTS:
Government spending on goods and services (G)
and government transfer payments are fundamen- tally different. Both involve payments by the gov- ernment, but transfer payments are not payments for goods and services. Instead, they are simply a flow of money. Transfer payments are like gifts; they do not buy a good or service for the govern- ment in exchange. Transfer payments are not pay- ment for a good or service, so they are not part of the G component of aggregate expenditure,
C + I + G + NX
because aggregate expenditure measures purchases of goods and services.
That's standard first year ECON 101 straight from a text-book.
So......what did the government spend in Fiscal Year 2012?
$1.214 TRILLION
Source: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/nati...dp1q13_adv.txt
But, wait a minute......if the government spent only $1.214 TRILLION in Fiscal Year 2012, then how could there possibly be a $1.089 TRILLION budget deficit?
The government collected $2.449 TRILLION and paid out $3.538 TRILLION......
...and that's the issue that none of you get.
$3.538 TRILLION in government expenditures for Fiscal Year 2012
$1.214 TRILLION in government spending for Fiscal Year 2012
---------------- $2.324 TRILLION in transfer payments.
Transfer payments do nothing for the economies......except create inefficiency and waste money, causing harm to the economies.
When intelligent people talk about Austerity-related budget cuts, we're talking about cutting transfer payments, which are not the same thing as government spending.
Date: 11-13-2011, 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
I can cut $1 TRILLION and your economy would never even blink.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
One word for you: "Europe."
Europe is a geographical region, not a State, nation-State or country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF
Republicans love to blather on about austerity. Which is fine, except that the study they use to justify it was based on - at best - extremely sloppy work, and likely outright academic fraud.
I had no knowledge of the study and never based any claims on the study.
So....why don't you impress all of us by explaining how Greece and Spain are going to spend more money?
That should be really amusing (and I could use a good laugh).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF
They love to ignore the abject failure of deep austerity measures in other countries, which just made their problems even worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Reinhart-Rogoff are honest academicians they just got their Excel formula wrong and it gave them the exact wrong result for the question of whether austerity worked. The argument over whether austerity works is over. It doesn't.
And you love to ignore those Euro-States which successfully used Austerity measures.
Your arguments fail, because you don't understand what constitutes government spending ---- those States that successfully implemented Austerity measures cut down the amount of transfer payments, while those States that failed cut spending, instead of cutting transfer payments.
You can create your own rationale, but that doesn't change the fact that raising the gas tax is a rate increase and not a base broadening tax.
If person A pays less, and person B pays more, thats in fact broadening the base.. Especially if you do it in a manner that one cant "write it off" as a deduction.
By definition, thats what it is.. You can sit there and pretend its not, but your fantasy doesnt seem to be based on a whole lot of reality.
If person A pays less, and person B pays more, thats in fact broadening the base.. Especially if you do it in a manner that one cant "write it off" as a deduction.
By definition, thats what it is.. You can sit there and pretend its not, but your fantasy doesnt seem to be based on a whole lot of reality.
Your hypothetical person A and B both already pay the same federal gas tax rate, if you raise the gas tax both person A and B will be paying the higher gas tax.
OH!!! Don't worry about that. It's the only thing they are halfway good at.
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.
If person A pays less, and person B pays more, thats in fact broadening the base.. Especially if you do it in a manner that one cant "write it off" as a deduction.