Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 8:37:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2012 12:54:15 GMT -5
Deficit or debt?
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Sept 1, 2012 14:00:01 GMT -5
ETA: 1% of GDP is 150 billion, even if we raised it enough for the 4% higher that's 600 billion. Our deficit is in the trillions, 600 billion won't solve the problem, Again - this is not a linear relationship, when you raise rates 4% that does NOT add 4% to the revenue. An extreme example to demonstrate the point - when capital gains rate is at about 25%, no one sells anything, investors hold onto their stocks, real estate investors use 1031 tax-deferred ed exchanges to trade real estate - literally no one moves capital. So the tax revenue from capital gains drops precipitously. Conversely, when cap gains rate is dropped to 15% (after a period at 25%) investors clamor to unload their holdings and book their profits - and tax revenue from capital gains leaps.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 8:37:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 7:52:04 GMT -5
The GDP has gone up every year except the beginning of the recession... regardless of tax rate, so how you can say the % of GDP would not result in higher taxes collected ? Go to this site and look at % GDP annual growth and you'll see it was better under Clinton than Bush or Reagan, when taxes were higher... www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-annualAnd since i didn't get my answer earlier... our debt is trillions... our deficit has been a trillion only in years of greatest recession, even if the deficit was a trillion, 600 billion more in taxes, the 4% increase taking tax rate from 14-15% of GDP to 18-19% of GDP, means cutting that in half... which also cuts our debt considerably.... I'd actually advocate 18%, 20% is where things start to slow down... but the current 14-15% is just not reasonable or effective.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Sept 2, 2012 8:23:37 GMT -5
I'd actually advocate 18%, 20% is where things start to slow down... but the current 14-15% is just not reasonable or effective. Yes, 18% to 19% seems to be where things run smoothly, historically, for the last 3 to 5 generations. But it's not linear, in the extreme, you can't just slam it from 14% to 28% and expect to double tax revenue, more likely commerce will grind to a halt and tax revenue will die with it. The other extreme is to leave the 14% as is, and grow the GDP by 25%, that way you get 25% more tax revenue. Most likely, neither extreme is desirable - need some of both. We should set the tax rate at the optimal point for our era (the peak on Laffer's Curve) and then grow the GDP. BTW - The blue line (1980 to 2005) grew at 6.6%/yr for those 25 years. If you look at the violet line, you see some extended flat spots - eg, 1979 to 1983. And the 2%/yr mess that we are currently in.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 8:37:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 8:37:41 GMT -5
Oh yes, agreed. We are talking about a very small window... which is why it looks so flat on certain graphs. You can't go above 20... but 14-15% where we've been the last few years, while i understand it coincided with the severe recession at first, is just not sustainable either. Just a few more percentage points in taxes, coupled with thoughtful, deliberate spending cuts, will do wonders, in my opinion.
|
|
DVM gone riding
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:04:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,383
Favorite Drink: Coffee!!
|
Post by DVM gone riding on Sept 2, 2012 9:34:16 GMT -5
tskeeter please note that I said change children to a deduction--not any of "your" money going to them but rather their parents money going back to them to raise them. I don't think it is right that children are a credit I don't know when that changed exactly but I am very against PAYING people to have children. I have no objection to the parents of children getting a tax break
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 8:37:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 10:09:11 GMT -5
tskeeter please note that I said change children to a deduction--not any of "your" money going to them but rather their parents money going back to them to raise them. I don't think it is right that children are a credit I don't know when that changed exactly but I am very against PAYING people to have children. I have no objection to the parents of children getting a tax break Children are a deduction as of now, federally. You include them on your personal exceptions.
|
|
DVM gone riding
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:04:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,383
Favorite Drink: Coffee!!
|
Post by DVM gone riding on Sept 2, 2012 18:39:04 GMT -5
You might claim them with "exceptions" but they are most certainly a CREDIT not a deduction. A credit is like a refund, A deduction lowers your burden. ie the mortgage is a deduction it lowers your taxable income. Some people get more money then the put in because of the child tax credit www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Credit
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 8:37:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 18:44:07 GMT -5
They can be both. As an exemption there is an amount deducted from income, ie a deduction for each child. In addition you might qualify for a credit... An amount taken from the taxes you owe... Both...
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Sept 3, 2012 10:50:47 GMT -5
tskeeter please note that I said change children to a deduction--not any of "your" money going to them but rather their parents money going back to them to raise them. I don't think it is right that children are a credit I don't know when that changed exactly but I am very against PAYING people to have children. I have no objection to the parents of children getting a tax break DVM, child tax deduction or child tax credit, it doesn't really make any difference. Child related tax credits or deductions reduce the federal income taxes parents pay. If parents contribute less to the federal coffers, by virtue of child tax credits and deductions, other taxpayers (including the childless) must contribute more to offset the shortfall created by the credits and deductions that parents received. It's not as if a tax credit affects other taxpayers, while a tax deduction does not. Any kind of reduction in taxes for one taxpayer means that other taxpayers must contribute more. So my fundamental argument is that, if we are going to eliminate preferential tax treatment, we should eliminate all preferential tax treatment. Not just the preferential tax treatments that we, personally, don't benefit from.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Sept 3, 2012 11:58:19 GMT -5
tskeeter please note that I said change children to a deduction--not any of "your" money going to them but rather their parents money going back to them to raise them. I don't think it is right that children are a credit I don't know when that changed exactly but I am very against PAYING people to have children. I have no objection to the parents of children getting a tax break DVM, child tax deduction or child tax credit, it doesn't really make any difference. Child related tax credits or deductions reduce the federal income taxes parents pay. If parents contribute less to the federal coffers, by virtue of child tax credits and deductions, other taxpayers (including the childless) must contribute more to offset the shortfall created by the credits and deductions that parents received. It's not as if a tax credit affects other taxpayers, while a tax deduction does not. Any kind of reduction in taxes for one taxpayer means that other taxpayers must contribute more. So my fundamental argument is that, if we are going to eliminate preferential tax treatment, we should eliminate all preferential tax treatment. Not just the preferential tax treatments that we, personally, don't benefit from.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Sept 3, 2012 12:01:08 GMT -5
Penalize companies for taking jobs overseas, make it punitive. Increased jobs here, increased tax revenues, so prices are higher when we have good jobs we can afford to pay them. I would also penalize people like romney taking most of his money overseas. Why penalize all of us that donot have the means to escape taxes like those of his income level. You don't want to pay, you don't want to stay. ...but why? due to economic reasons? ideological? like you're an isolationist? just curious...
|
|
TD2K
Senior Associate
Once you kill a cow, you gotta make a burger
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 1:19:25 GMT -5
Posts: 10,931
|
Post by TD2K on Sept 3, 2012 12:04:38 GMT -5
I guess we should shut down all those Honda and Toyota car factories to return those jobs to their 'home' countries.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 8:37:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2012 12:04:43 GMT -5
Penalize companies for taking jobs overseas, make it punitive. Increased jobs here, increased tax revenues, so prices are higher when we have good jobs we can afford to pay them. I would also penalize people like romney taking most of his money overseas. Why penalize all of us that donot have the means to escape taxes like those of his income level. You don't want to pay, you don't want to stay. Even if we don't officially penalize, something like the Dem's idea of tax credit for companies who moved some of their workforce back here, would be quite useful. Sadly the credit was voted down.
|
|
TD2K
Senior Associate
Once you kill a cow, you gotta make a burger
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 1:19:25 GMT -5
Posts: 10,931
|
Post by TD2K on Sept 3, 2012 12:05:09 GMT -5
And PS, bring your husband home, he's taking jobs from those countries he's working in.
|
|