|
Post by straydog on Mar 26, 2011 5:10:40 GMT -5
SS: And, I also do not like the attempt of the Us vs Them and pitting of working Americans versus other working Americans.
SD: In the early 90's I needed some information from the state DOT. I did not have a land line at that time and only the super rich had cell phones back then.
I had about $10.00 in quarters so I went to a pay phone and called the DOT. To make a long story short, by the time all my quarters were spent, I had been transfered so many times (sorry, it's not my dept), that I ended up talking to the very first person that transfered me in the beginning of all this-and then he transfered me again! I just gave up after that.
SS: And, I don't get it. Don't we WANT other Americans to have good jobs?
SD: I do. But the government getting into the job creating business just doesn't work. If it did, then all the states that have the most government employees would all be financially solvent.
My solution is to get rid of the current tax code and put a tariff on all imports. Who cares if it starts a trade war-most counties look out for their own interests first anyway-why shouldn't we?
SS: ANd, the last time i checked, govt workers and teachers and police and sanitation workers, etc all have families, homes, children and would like to make a decent living and help their kids in college, etc.
SD: I know pizza delivery men in their thirties, forties, and fifties, some who even have degrees. They too would like to be able to support their families, pay their mortgages, etc. However, nobody is forcing the person who calls up and wants a pizza delivered to do so-they do it by their own free will.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 26, 2011 10:24:52 GMT -5
LOL, LOL, and more LULZ. I really don't know what to say about a comment like this. Sometimes a person says something so ridiculous that it's just better to shake one's head, giggle a little, and walk away. Without question, this is one of those times. I would've been less shocked if you had said the moon is made out of green cheese. You know, the point about earned / not earned is an important one. I'm determined to get it across so that you understand it. We can still disagree later. You can still say, "Yeah, but..." and rationalize it, but you have to understand it. The government run schools take money from taxpayers that they have basically conned into the false premise that they don't take your money, no schools will be built, and children won't get an education, and we will have a nation full of illiterate criminals. I'd say that end result is closer to what we have now with the failed government run schools, but I digress... They take the money. They don't compete for it. They don't produce a product or provide a service that people in a market can look at along side other similar services, and make a choice. They just take the money. They don't have to educate a single kid. They're closing Barrack H. Obama middle school due to low enrollment. How nice. But the money still got spent. The building still got built. I guarantee no teachers will be fired or lose their jobs- they'll just be transferred. And taxpayers, I can guantee you, are still going to pay for that building until some inane decision is made to do something stupid with the building. It doesn't happen this way in the private sector. Wal-Mart would NEVER open up a store that wasn't going to succeed. They study the market first. McDonalds has a handful of failed franchisees-- those stores are closed, employees are gone, and the property liquidated relatively quickly. They don't have the luxury of sitting around taking money from the people that didn't eat there in the first place. The schools have NO competition. It's like a person loving the aforementions McDonalds, but being forced at gun point to buy a whopper. They don't have to eat the whopper- they can still get a Big Mac, but they have to also pay for the whopper. That's government run schools in a nutshell. It's an unsustainable moral hazard to set up a system that is allowed to take money from people at gun point and then keep that money, and keep taking more money whether they succeed or fail. If you don't understand that, if you're incapable of grasping this, and if you're not reasonable enough to at least disagree with us while at least understanding why we might think of it the way we do- then really, I don't see the point of discussing anything with you. You have to open your mind to see a different view. You have to at least see where we're coming from. We've all been indoctrinated with your view our whole lives, and the story line continues to this day. I know where you're coming from. You're wrong, but I'm capable of understanding what you think and why you think it. Do the same.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,459
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 26, 2011 10:37:54 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 26, 2011 10:43:51 GMT -5
Listen, I am a flaming conservative. I want fiscal responsibility and know that cuts have to be made. But, sorry, i also know what teachers make in my area and their salaries and bennies and have seen them throughout the state and country. I hardly think starting salaries of $20-30K with the hope of rising to make $60-70K is "overpaid" in any sense of the term. Yeah, they have good benefits. So what? Don't we all want good benefits? The "only work" 9 months. Again, so what? Is there something wrong with someone working 9 months to make $40K versus someone working year round and making $100K? Teachers are professionals with degrees. I just don't understand why the constant focus is on them as if they are the "evil meanies" of the world. And regarding school spending, i can look at our school and see waste upon waste and that certainly is NOT money going to the teachers. Our school recently spent $40K to erect an electronic School billboard which has our school logo and tells us the date and time. Back in my district in IL, the lowest paid teacher started at a base salary of $38K not including the gold plated benefits, tenure after 3 years, with a top salary of $174K and retirement at 54.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 26, 2011 11:27:05 GMT -5
I don't see how anybody can look at Public Schools in the United States and defend them, they are an unmitigated disaster.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Mar 26, 2011 11:30:04 GMT -5
You're sorely mistaken if you think I don't understand where you're coming from. I went through the teaching program for secondary education (social studies) at a 4 year university. And you know what?
They actually teach what you just said. That's right, they teach it to us. Do you know why? It's because many believe that teaching isn't a real profession. We were given a list of reasons why, and that list included your entire opinion. I don't buy it.
For one thing, teachers do produce a product. It's called an education. Unless you went to a private school, you're capable of writing posts to me because you learned how to read and write in a public school. I doubt you taught yourself. The vast majority of people learned what they know in a public school. There's your product.
Unfortunately, in this country, we don't see to value knowledge unless it somehow produces a profit. You talk about indoctrination, well, it seems to me those on your side of the fence are only interested in churning out good little corporate drones.
But when you say that teachers don't earn their money, and yes you did say that, I call BS. It's that simple. What you said was ludicrous, and don't think for a nanosecond that I won't call you to the carpet for such a boneheaded statement like that. I do understand your position, but what you said was beyond the pale, hence the reason for my less than meaningful response to you.
Explain to me, then, where children will be educated? Should one parent drop their job, regardless of the financial repercussions, to home school their children? And how many parents these days know the first thing about quadratic equations? Most parents aren't even qualified.
Yes they do. They're called private schools.
Wal-Mart opened a super center in Titusville, PA not long ago. This town has a population of 7,000. The only reason why this store will "succeed" is because money from more profitable stores will be used to keep this one open. A corporation the size of Wal-Mart has no compunction about opening parasite stores if it means driving everyone else out of business and hoarding the market share. Then where will the competition be that you so desperately crave?
Do government agents routinely show up with weapons at your home to collect property/school taxes? I can't say that I've ever had that happen to me.
As I've said, I understand it quite well. However, I think your view is somewhat warped. Name one country in the world that does not have government-run schools. Do you know why there are very few - if any at all?
It's because privatizing the school system will generate competition, that is true. However, why would any businessman go into the school business if there was little to no profit in it? Thus a school would have to charge tuition - which is NOT the same thing as paying taxes, by the way. This might seem like a peachy keen idea until half the kids in America can't afford a basic education. What use are good teachers if only a small percentage of kids ever set foot inside of a classroom? Do we turn education into just another luxury for the rich?
I suppose a school could generate money through corporate sponsors, but then schools would be nothing more than platforms for marketers to advertise their products to the students. Schools would be pawns of the corporations, which are no better than the government. Worse, in fact, because you don't get a vote to decide who sits on the boards and committees or who chairs them. You will be told by the corporate masters how to teach and what to teach or that precious funding will be pulled.
Oh wait, maybe we could get the government to subsidize privately owned schools! Except ... that would put us right back at square one, wouldn't it.
So what do you suggest, PBP? How do these privatized schools make a profit without pricing most kids right out of school altogether, relying on corporate sponsors, or relying on the government?
I've already given your side of the argument serious thought, after which time, I rejected it as unfeasible. In fact, we would have to abolish the whole idea of compulsory education - unless, of course, you're suggesting that the government can force you to buy services from a private company. That should sound familiar to you - and one idea I'm sure you're dead-set against.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,459
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 26, 2011 11:33:11 GMT -5
I don't see how anybody can look at Public Schools in the United States and defend them, they are an unmitigated disaster. Are you looking at Public Schools or are you looking at media reports about Public Schools?
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 26, 2011 13:02:58 GMT -5
Shirina, In regard to your comment re: whether schools produce a "product" or not. No. Schools provide a "service." People, even educated people, are not a "product," although some would argue that in the socialist/communist context that they are. People, in the view of some, are the "purpose" of both "products" and 'services." "Products" generally require "services" to fulfill their purpose, at least delivery. The point is not to diminish the value of "services," but only to point out that an imbalance of "services/products" is not sustainable. An economy cannot exist without both "products" and "services" and, in any sort of society some of those "services" must be provided by the State. Again, not to diminish the importance of either the State or the private sector, but to emphasize that it is balance that is essential. You just can't afford some things, or all you'd like of some things. Sometimes we have to set priorities in order to avoid "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs."
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Mar 26, 2011 13:39:15 GMT -5
A loaf of bread is still a quarter. That extra $3 bucks is taxes
****************
so I guess you are not only an expert in the baking industry, but also know exactly how much the costs of wheat flour & other ingredients have increased in the past 5 years? Because if you aren't, then I can get my hubby here to discuss with you how that industry runs and the increases in ingredients affects the price of bread & other bread products. You see, he actually works in that industry and actually has a clue as to what goes on, outside costs rising, upgrading plants to meet higher working standards, plant shut downs, employee turn over, health & safety regulations that have changed since 9/11, the additions of security measures directly related to 9/11 and how all of those things can affect the price at the grocery store.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Mar 26, 2011 14:16:39 GMT -5
The building still got built. I guarantee no teachers will be fired or lose their jobs- they'll just be transferred. And taxpayers, I can guantee you, are still going to pay for that building until some inane decision is made to do something stupid with the building.
*************************************
Our previous Republican govn was very much a pro education politician. He did wonders for improving our school systems and encouraging programs to help benefit the students. My son attends a school that was approved by the former govn. It took almost 3 years to get their new school built. They are finally in their first full year in the school and this year we also finally received bus service.
Now the new Repub/Tea Party govn has decided to cut education spending to the bone. My son's school is in his top 3 "do away with this" list. That building will sit empty. All the DONATED science & technology equipment will sit useless. All the businesses that provided internships & equipment to the school will have worked hand in hand with our state government for nothing over the past 3 years. They get just as much of a kick in the teeth as everyone else connected to the school. The teachers, who the majority of are from 3 of our colleges, get kicked in the teeth for wanting to teach kids with a lot of potential.
I'm still trying to figure out why 1 Repub govn was 100% for improving our state education system and then the next one decides that having stupid kids is the most effective way to control the state budget. Makes no sense IMO.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Mar 26, 2011 14:36:52 GMT -5
Because one of the "elephants" was really an a$$, and I don't mean the political symbol kind. America is learning to embrace the joys of stupidity and we will really be happy when Asia overruns us entirely.
**********************
Let's just say we have jumped onto using every grant possible now before the new dumbass govn manages to do away with them all. My son is taking college courses in school and starting in July will also be attending a Tech college 1/2 days. All paid for with the Hope grants. When my son graduates high school next year, he'll be less than a year away from having an Associates degree. His goal is to run his gpa up as high as he can over that time period so he'll at least be eligible for the new grant system, which 75% of high school students will no longer be able to get. And then to attend either UGA or Georgia Tech on grants & student loans.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Mar 26, 2011 20:02:42 GMT -5
Its the principal of the thing paul... if you want other people to pay 13% of their wage to health care.. you should be willing to do it too... and i'm not just talking him... any representative should have to take the same deal they want to give other government workers... I'd agree with you if anyone who isn't reach and says, "raise taxes on the rich" would accept the same tax rate of themselves.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Mar 26, 2011 20:07:13 GMT -5
#14 It's just too obvious. The rich should pay more.and thank the country. When they don't (1920's, 2000's), everything goes to HELL. And you base that on... what? The rich not paying insane levels of taxes is what lead to the Great Depression and the troubles we had in 2008 (interesting that the Carter and Clinton recessions are ignored). Really? Wow. Just... wow. This is why I don't argue with liberals- they think the sky isn'y blue but pink with purple polka dots- they are so out of touch with reality, why bother?
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Mar 26, 2011 20:11:39 GMT -5
No, he is not crazy. Many prominent economists including Galbraith and Ravi Batra have equated higher tax rates on the wealthiest individuals with creating economic health. That is because the poor have to retain a half-way decent amount of money to keep demand at reasonable levels and to promote manufacturing of goods over the lending of money. However, that does not mean take from the rich and burn it in the streets either. No matter who taxes come from, they have to be used with care. How do they explain the economic health that the US had in the days when government was small and NOT stealing from its citizens (including the rich) via the tax system? If the "poor" want money from the wealthy, they need to figure out what they can offer in return. Stealing from the rich via the government only discourages the wealthy from investing or staying in this nation. Many US corporations keep profits outside of this nation to avoid taxation on profits they earned outside the nation. Instead, they invest that money into jobs outside of the US.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Mar 26, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Traditional IRA's are AGI deductions. You decided to leave it on the table. If you had no bene's then you could have insured with a high deductible plan with a TPA HSA with the deduction there.
As for your $15-20k comment; you're talking about a small percentage of the population while I'm talking about 138 million tax forms that are not in the top 1%. Of course I don't think those people have $7k in AGI deductions [they could have some] but I'd bet the top 50% [AGI greater than $33k] can have AGI deductions of >$20k.
Please show me the 40% don't have access to a 401k. I understood the number was less than 20% have access while 40% of those that do have access [i.e. 40% of the 80%] do not contribute while they have one available. [/size]
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 26, 2011 22:20:26 GMT -5
Most who complain of no 401K are complaining about the absence of employer match since IRA's are actually preferable to most 401K's and many 403B's. Remember, the "match" is in lieu of salary just like health benefits, retirement, etc. Total compensation is what counts. In other words, those who complain complain because, in order to enjoy the benefits that they believe others enjoy, they must exercise some initiative.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Mar 26, 2011 22:42:30 GMT -5
"How do they explain the economic health that the US had in the days when government was small and NOT stealing from its citizens (including the rich) via the tax system?"
I base it on facts, not smartazz pub dupe mythology. Historic Rates (Please note those 50's golden years cons are so nostalgic about) Now let’s look at the income tax rate for the highest bracket throughout history (via Wikipedia):
1971-1981: 70% · 1970: 71.75% · 1969: 77% · 1968: 75.25% · 1965-1967: 70% · 1964: 77% · 1954-1963: 91% · 1952-1953: 92% · 1951: 91% · 1950: 84.36% · 1948-1949: 82.13% · 1946-1947: 86.45% · 1944-1945: 94% · 1942-1943: 88% · 1941: 81% · 1940: 81.1% · 1936-1939: 79% · 1932-1935: 63% · 1930-1931: 25% · 1929: 24% · 1925-1928: 25% · 1924: 46% · 1922-1923: 56%
Before that? Read: "The Good Old Days: They were Terrible"
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 26, 2011 22:49:29 GMT -5
Historic Rates (Please note those 50's golden years cons are so nostalgic about) Now let’s look at the income tax rate for the highest bracket throughout history (via Wikipedia):
I think you do not understand conservatives - they definitely do not want to go back to those rates
|
|
|
Post by straydog on Mar 27, 2011 4:59:02 GMT -5
SD: I know pizza delivery men in their thirties, forties, and fifties, some who even have degrees. They too would like to be able to support their families, pay their mortgages, etc. However, nobody is forcing the person who calls up and wants a pizza delivered to do so-they do it by their own free will SS: Well, now there is a view of the America we all want. OK? SD: Wrong, I want heavy industry to be brought back into the country-you did read the part of my post saying that I wanted to put tariffs on imports, right? SS: So, in other words, teachers should have BS and even MS degrees but shouldn't plan on getting any better wages than the pizza delivery guy? SD: That's not what I meant. I was talking about forced taxation to support a government monopoly vs the voluntary nature of the free market-meaning you voluntarily decide where to spend your money. You call yourself a flaming conservative, does that mean free market conservative? Do you support outsourcing, what about NAFTA? I am not saying that you do, but guys like Newt Gingrich certainly do. With the technology that we have today, we really don't need teachers the way that yourself or I probably remember them. This is what I mean. We could have an Indian, who has the same degree as the traditional American teacher, teach the entire class from India, at a fraction of the cost. A teleconference so to speak. And as far as keeping the kids in line, a big, mean looking, private security guard who probably makes about $12.00 ph should do the trick. I actually do not want to see this happen. But, with more unrealistic government union demands, and the more our industrial base disappears, along with outsourcing our workforce, then the low paying service sector grows-while the tax base shrinks. And then the above scenario might just end up being a reality. I am a registered Republican. But I cannot stand so called conservative politicians who gladly ship our jobs overseas just so they can get that corporate donation, and then tell us consumers how lucky we are that the prices of goods have now come down because of overseas manufacturing. Of course, the Democrats are no better, I know, I used to be one.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 15:04:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2011 7:44:44 GMT -5
We are very much touching Natural Gas here in PA...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 15:04:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2011 7:57:48 GMT -5
"Nobody is calling anybody names, nobody is calling anyone "evil". "
lol... you must not have read the most recent Koch speech...
And i think i've heard quite a lot of name calling regarding those 'big bad unions' around here lately...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 27, 2011 9:17:36 GMT -5
"How do they explain the economic health that the US had in the days when government was small and NOT stealing from its citizens (including the rich) via the tax system?" I base it on facts, not smartazz pub dupe mythology. Historic Rates (Please note those 50's golden years cons are so nostalgic about) Now let’s look at the income tax rate for the highest bracket throughout history (via Wikipedia): 1971-1981: 70% · 1970: 71.75% · 1969: 77% · 1968: 75.25% · 1965-1967: 70% · 1964: 77% · 1954-1963: 91% · 1952-1953: 92% · 1951: 91% · 1950: 84.36% · 1948-1949: 82.13% · 1946-1947: 86.45% · 1944-1945: 94% · 1942-1943: 88% · 1941: 81% · 1940: 81.1% · 1936-1939: 79% · 1932-1935: 63% · 1930-1931: 25% · 1929: 24% · 1925-1928: 25% · 1924: 46% · 1922-1923: 56% Before that? Read: "The Good Old Days: They were Terrible" You want to talk facts, but then you leave out 1981 - 1991 which was only the greatest peacetime economic expansion in history. Not coincidentally, the top marginal income tax rate was slashed from 70% down to 28%. Come back when you really want to talk facts.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 27, 2011 9:22:06 GMT -5
That's about the way it is of late, isn't it? It's like Ronald Reagan said (paraphrasing): It's not that they're ignorant. It's that they know so much that just isn't so.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Mar 27, 2011 9:25:22 GMT -5
Causation is hard to prove.We were coming out of a recession.Tea party fans are fond of saying recessions fix themselves,government intervention just messes thing up,are they not? And in reality,much of those cuts from income taxes were made up by increases to existing taxes or legislation of new taxes. Reagan raised taxes in 6 of his 8 years,some of them pretty hefty.Coporations were hit pretty hard in one of his .
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 27, 2011 10:48:53 GMT -5
No, causation is actually pretty straightforward. The real life laboratory of tax policy has been repeated too many times now. Are there other happy coincidences that may have coincided with the tax cuts? Sure. But the common denominator of roaring 20's, the rising tide in the 1960's, the roaring 80's, and the boom, and balanced budget of the mid 1990's is low taxes.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 27, 2011 10:53:53 GMT -5
Reagan knew plenty that wasn't true either. He was pretty big on Horoscopes as I recall, also Ketchup as a vegetable, and shooting enemy missiles out of the sky with "Starwars." Twenty years later, we've yet to figure that one out. No, Nancy was the astrologer. Ketchup as a vegetable was a product of the Department of Education bureaucracy that Reagan attempted to eliminate, we now have the technology to destroy an inbound ballistic warhead- and we've done it successfully numerous times. And no matter the expense, it's lot cheaper than Iran, North Korea, or the Chinese landing a nuke in Los Angeles, or DC-- though, a nuke in the middle of DC might actually save us all a lot of money (KIDDING!!! DO NOT PUT ME ON A TERROR WATC....aw, dammit, too late!!!). So, we haven't "yet to figure that out"-- we've done it. Obama scrapped the program, and if and when we are hit when it would have stopped it, the Bamster has blood-- a lot of blood- on his hands.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 27, 2011 11:05:55 GMT -5
If people really are that interested in the free market, which I am, I am a bit more concerned about the giant sucking sound that is decimating our industries. I am a bit more concerned that we are walking on top of coal, natural gas, shale and oil and cannot touch it and instead are going to have rampant poverty as we sit and starve on top of our untapped riches. Sorry, but worrying about my kids teacher having a $5 copay for medications when I have a $20 copay, um, doesn't even top my list. We gotta ask ourselves how that whole "God is dead" thing from the 1960's is working for us? You can read the first part of Deuteronomy 28 for yourself. Here's the last part- and I know how many people here are going to respond to this. I make no apologies for being a right wing religious nut. If you believe as I do-- or if you're at least open minded enough to examine this honestly-- ask yourself: Does any of this sound familiar to you?
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Mar 27, 2011 11:12:04 GMT -5
How do we know it wasn't one of Reagans tax increases?---- "In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.
In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.
In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.
The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy."
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,459
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 27, 2011 11:15:22 GMT -5
I have always struggled with why freedom-loving Americans like this dude.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 27, 2011 11:25:15 GMT -5
How do we know it wasn't one of Reagans tax increases?---- "In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion. According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year. In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year. In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more. The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy." This is consistent with making taxes more simple and flat. It no doubt had an effect on revenue, but if it were done without the lowering of the top marginal rate-- it would have been stifling to the economy. You have to unleash the producers as a first step in any economic recovery. I have advocated for a massive middle class tax increase just like many of the tax increases described above. It's time EVERYONE pays-- and yes, those kinds of tax increases-- or even just a policy of ending giveaways-- would raise revenue. You'll get no argument from me that in an otherwise pro-growth environment where top marginal tax rates do not act as a penalty on producers, tax increases DO raise revenue. However, try the same thing with punishing top marginal tax rate-- no go.
|
|