Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Feb 14, 2012 11:01:53 GMT -5
In the past when more revenue was needed to fund government expenditures, taxes were raised. This is not a new or big issue. So, this makes an increase the right thing to do? No. The Government has constantly raised taxes over the decades, and raised spending at a higher rate of increase over the same period. We eventually reach a point of no return where the tax rate is out of control. We have reached that point. The Government at some point has to make sacrifices, cut spending and reduce tax revenue for the good of the country. If not, we are Athens in a decade. You cannot tax 20% of the wage earners to support the 80%. The 80% have to learn to fend for themselves. Harsh, but true.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Feb 14, 2012 11:02:41 GMT -5
As should this chart: Let's see, revenue less than 15% of GDP. Expenditures more than 25% of GDP...... Huston, we have a problem.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,299
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 14, 2012 12:28:23 GMT -5
In the past when more revenue was needed to fund government expenditures, taxes were raised. This is not a new or big issue. So, this makes an increase the right thing to do? No. The Government has constantly raised taxes over the decades wtf are you talking about?
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Feb 14, 2012 16:43:41 GMT -5
So, this makes an increase the right thing to do? No. The Government has constantly raised taxes over the decades wtf are you talking about? lol, I was wondering the same thing. I do agree on a point that if we increase taxes that the idiots in Washington will just find a way to spend it the wrong way.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 14, 2012 17:13:48 GMT -5
These two charts are the are excellent examples to illustrate our current problems. While there are many other contributing factor that also have an affect on the final outcome these charts clearly show that while taxation as a percentage of GDP has been reduced the spending compared to GDP has been increased even more. What really should scare every American is that straight up line about three years ago. I agree with many who say it will require a change in both spending and revenue to balance our budget but this administration has broken all records for spending and I would never support raising revenues in general until they come to the table and agree on long term, meaningful reductions that result in financial stability.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Feb 14, 2012 17:28:52 GMT -5
These two charts are the are excellent examples to illustrate our current problems. While there are many other contributing factor that also have an affect on the final outcome these charts clearly show that while taxation as a percentage of GDP has been reduced the spending compared to GDP has been increased even more. What really should scare every American is that straight up line about three years ago. I agree with many who say it will require a change in both spending and revenue to balance our budget but this administration has broken all records for spending and I would never support raising revenues in general until they come to the table and agree on long term, meaningful reductions that result in financial stability.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Feb 14, 2012 17:51:51 GMT -5
Congratulations on the 8K income. That won't be too easy to duplicate in today's interest rate environment.
|
|
beenherebefore
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2012 17:07:23 GMT -5
Posts: 761
|
Post by beenherebefore on Feb 14, 2012 17:54:59 GMT -5
We "the US" is on the verge of bankruptcy and Mr. O's budget is nothingmore than an excuse to spend more and more.
Why in the world would Congress pass this stupid budget, especially now, with the upcoming elections?
Mr. O looks more and more like a one term President.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Feb 14, 2012 18:20:20 GMT -5
We "the US" is on the verge of bankruptcy and Mr. O's budget is nothingmore than an excuse to spend more and more. Why in the world would Congress pass this stupid budget, especially now, with the upcoming elections? Mr. O looks more and more like a one term President. I would rather be bankrupt than owe 15.3 trillion.
|
|
beenherebefore
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2012 17:07:23 GMT -5
Posts: 761
|
Post by beenherebefore on Feb 14, 2012 20:02:12 GMT -5
Yes floridayankee, we do have a problem. That's why Mr. O wants to drastically increase governement spending, in order to increase that part of GDP. The problem is that is doesn't work.
|
|
beenherebefore
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2012 17:07:23 GMT -5
Posts: 761
|
Post by beenherebefore on Feb 14, 2012 20:03:22 GMT -5
He can't cut spending because he knows in order to be re elected he needs to 'buy' votes and he knows that he can't change positions because his core group of supporters will stop supporting him.
You see, it's all about him, not about my country.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Feb 14, 2012 20:37:51 GMT -5
But they will be affected by companies changing the way they distribute income by cutting or eliminating dividends
That's the beauty of a market system, for every company that cuts dividends another company will be compelled to jump in and fill the void. Honestly, if I have the chance to make $10k in dividends do you really think I'll pass on the opportunity because I have to pay $3000 in taxes instead of $1500? Again the market steps in, for every person who answer "yes, I'll pass" another will step in and happily accept the $7k ROI.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 14, 2012 20:48:26 GMT -5
"That's the beauty of a market system, for every company that cuts dividends another company will be compelled to jump in and fill the void." ?
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Feb 14, 2012 21:02:50 GMT -5
?Companies use dividends to attract investors. As the pool of dividend offering companies shrinks, other companies who thought they couldn't compete with those leaving the pool will jump in. [disclaimer..this makes perfect sense to me however having an incredible cold, the meds are kicking in so I admit that I may not be making sense to others not benefiting from the same cold medications.]
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 14, 2012 21:22:06 GMT -5
LOL on the cold meds. But that probably has some merit, just not sure if investors would be drawn to companies who pay dividends as much if the advantage was not there. I still support the concept though since I have issues with the way our tax structure is used to control behavior or habits to this degree, would like to see a more fair and uniform tax rate and think in the short term we will have to raise more revenue.. after.. we agree on a plan to hhave major reductions in spending.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Feb 14, 2012 21:29:57 GMT -5
The way I look at it, I'm tax as income on money I earn working, if I have to pay the same amount of tax on the money I earn investing, I'm still going to invest. Personally, I prefer a system that taxed me 15% on money that I worked for and 30% on investments that I didn't "work" for.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Feb 14, 2012 21:30:17 GMT -5
And it would increase by about 1.5% if not for the discount on SS tax that employees have received in 2011.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 14, 2012 21:42:23 GMT -5
"Personally, I prefer a system that taxed me 15% on money that I worked for and 30% on investments that I didn't "work" for. "
Yea on that one too or at least make them equal!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,299
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 14, 2012 23:00:54 GMT -5
Yes floridayankee, we do have a problem. That's why Mr. O wants to drastically increase governement spending, in order to increase that part of GDP. The problem is that is doesn't work. what doesn't work?
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Feb 15, 2012 6:46:36 GMT -5
Tell me CME is it easier to achieve a decent rate of return on safe investments in a climate where interest rates are higher or one where they are lower? Are you so invested in insulting me that you deny basic facts of mathematics? I do not play the market, there are those who do who are making very good money, basic facts are some win some lose, don't play if you can't afford to win big or lose big. Your "basic" math is not reality, your basic math is flawed.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Feb 15, 2012 8:10:00 GMT -5
Message deleted by moonbeam.
cme, a 'regular' poster isn't allowed to say what you did, and neither are you. Personal attacks aren't necessary.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 9:03:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2012 8:13:53 GMT -5
"what doesn't work?"
I think it means that gov't spending generally doesn't increase the GDP. Probably the opposite. I'm sure there are some types of spending (those that produce a positive return) that do increase the GDP, but that is rare.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 15, 2012 9:17:46 GMT -5
It was interesting to listen to George Soros in a recent interview talking about stimulus spending actually admit that this only can make sense when it is invested into something that has a "payback". The idea that we can just money into any shovel ready public project or indefinitely fund unemployed people to just sit at home will not only not be effective it simply makes our long term problems worse. Any additional revenue can only be helpful if there is strategic planning and spending restraints in place prior to the event.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Feb 15, 2012 9:31:30 GMT -5
"what doesn't work?" I think it means that gov't spending generally doesn't increase the GDP. Probably the opposite. I'm sure there are some types of spending (those that produce a positive return) that do increase the GDP, but that is rare. Most of the time, government spending increases GDP. Sometimes it doesn't.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 15, 2012 9:45:20 GMT -5
GDP is only one measurement used to monitor activity and a simple correlation of GDP with or without government spending would not necessarily determine its benefit. For instance taking money from ones economy and spending it to produce something not useful or important could show an increase in GDP but could actually be detrimental to long term stability.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Feb 15, 2012 9:48:52 GMT -5
In the past when more revenue was needed to fund government expenditures, taxes were raised. This is not a new or big issue. So, this makes an increase the right thing to do? No. The Government has constantly raised taxes over the decades, and raised spending at a higher rate of increase over the same period. We eventually reach a point of no return where the tax rate is out of control. We have reached that point. The Government at some point has to make sacrifices, cut spending and reduce tax revenue for the good of the country. If not, we are Athens in a decade. You cannot tax 20% of the wage earners to support the 80%. The 80% have to learn to fend for themselves. Harsh, but true. We have been raising taxes over the last several decades? Top tax rates were 91% in the early 1980's. Now they are 36%.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 15, 2012 10:05:39 GMT -5
"Public spending works best when it addresses long-standing problems like necessary transportation infrastructure. "
Absolutely but there are some key words like "necessary" , "strategic", "efficient" to make sure that it actually serves a useful purpose. Also it is much more prudent and effective to "plan and save" for this type of spending when the economy is good rather then to borrow or increase tax when the economy is already bad.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 9:03:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2012 10:21:44 GMT -5
"Most of the time, government spending increases GDP. Sometimes it doesn't."
That's because they're not paying for what they're spending. If they raise taxes and then spend that money, it's a net negative to GDP.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,299
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 15, 2012 11:07:46 GMT -5
So, this makes an increase the right thing to do? No. The Government has constantly raised taxes over the decades, and raised spending at a higher rate of increase over the same period. We eventually reach a point of no return where the tax rate is out of control. We have reached that point. The Government at some point has to make sacrifices, cut spending and reduce tax revenue for the good of the country. If not, we are Athens in a decade. You cannot tax 20% of the wage earners to support the 80%. The 80% have to learn to fend for themselves. Harsh, but true. We have been raising taxes over the last several decades? Top tax rates were 91% in the early 1980's. Now they are 36%. you are the third person to point this out. tax rates have been FALLING for three decades, not INCREASING. how a person gets from one place to the other is beyond me. oh, and it s 70% to 35%, btw. but who's quibbling?
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 15, 2012 12:51:01 GMT -5
you are the third person to point this out. tax rates have been FALLING for three decades, not INCREASING. how a person gets from one place to the other is beyond me.
oh, and it s 70% to 35%, btw. but who's quibbling?
Yet tax receipts have remained stable at 18 to 20% of GDP. Incidentally, back in th 50s/60s, there were many more tax loopholes and methods to avoid taxes, many of which have been eliminated.
|
|