Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 15:29:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2011 16:52:50 GMT -5
Both spending and revenue need to be addressed. The economy readily handles taxes at 18-20% of GDP... at 21-22% things start to get hinkey... The last two years, taxes as a % of GDP has been 14.9%, its projected to be 14.4% next year... it can easily be raised to 19.6%, wich history shows us is readily supportable... giving us an extra 800 billion.
The rest needs to come from targetted cuts and by enacting programs/policies which save money (negotiating with pharma, end of life planning, reform SSI.... )
|
|
|
Post by robbase on Apr 14, 2011 17:00:42 GMT -5
BTW. In the past, we have had surplus. So, I am not sure where you are getting the following.
"In all past years any time gov had "extra" / more revenue they found a way to spend it pretty easy"
Clinton left office in 2001, over 10 years ago, no surpluses or extra "savings" since....no evidence in the last 10 years that I am aware of the gov can "save" extra revenue (or any revenue for that matter)
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Apr 14, 2011 17:49:42 GMT -5
The economy readily handles taxes at 18-20% of GDP... at 21-22% things start to get hinkey... The last two years, taxes as a % of GDP has been 14.9%, its projected to be 14.4% next year... it can easily be raised to 19.6%, wich history shows us is readily supportable... giving us an extra 800 billion. You are measuring tax as a % of GDP. But if GDP goes down drastically as a result of increasing the tax rate from 14.9% to something higher, then the absolute value of tax revenue will go down, not up. That aside, I think your numbers are in the ballpark - ie, the tax revenue is optimized at around 18% - and revenue decreases on either side of that optimal point. And I question whether Obama understands that - does he think that higher tax rates will always result in higher tax revenues?
|
|
stats45
Established Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 16:52:12 GMT -5
Posts: 415
|
Post by stats45 on Apr 14, 2011 18:59:46 GMT -5
Another thing to consider is that we have marginal tax rates, so a single person making $172,000 a year (if the $172k to $374k bracket went up for example) wouldn't really pay any more. Their income is mainly caught under all the brackets below.
The irony is that except for the super-rich the best way to raise taxes on the wealthy is to increase the lower rates. I'm no fan of tax increases, but people seem to forget that tax increases in a certain bracket usually don't mean large tax increases unless you are well above the bottom of the bracket.
When people were irritated about the Bush tax cuts, they didn't seem to realize that a person making $250k a year received the bulk of their tax benefit from the lowering of the tax percentages on all the lower brackets, not the marginal rate in the higher bracket their 'total' income fell under.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Apr 14, 2011 19:11:46 GMT -5
Republican Paul Ryan's budget proposal included tax breaks for the wealthiest americans. What I can't understand is why we would want to do this.
Why should we not stick beautiful women in government run brothels, make older women clean up government buildings free of charge, or force big strong people to work government fields on their days off?
Because all would be wrong?
New questions: why should we give more money to a goverment that can not handle money?
Why should we force others to support parasites or fund the ideas of other people who are too lazy and greedy to cough up the cash itself?
Our country was doing OK until Bush's massive tax cuts and his ensuing war.
Like so many, you are ignorant. The CBO numbers prove beyond any doubt that government revenues surged after the 2003 Bush tax cuts. As for the wars, someone smacked us in the face and we are supposed to do... nothing? Or the evidence is that a known enemy and supporter of terrorists is developing WMD's and the UN inspectors are from nations that are being bribed by said nation and we are supposed to do... nothing?
Wow! That said, I do not support the funds wasting on rebuilding. Just lay them to waste and leave their smoking ruins and broken bodies as a warning that we will not be attacked.
Everybody liked having taxes lower and people agree they like they tax levels now, but nobody wants to raise taxes or decrease spending.
Actually, many of us are all for decreased spending! I have many, many times outlined some very deep cuts. What you fail to understand is that history shows that no matter how much money we let the government steal, IT WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH! It takes in more money than ever to the point of bankrupting the SS trust fun and they STILL can not balance the budget!
Ben Stein is rich and he even made a video saying that we should tax the rich more, including himself.
Post the video please. I suspect that Stein probably said something about raising taxes but I doubt it was a blanket statement but instead highly targets and hinging about reigning in spending such that the (supposed) increased is not wasted as the government has done in the past.
That said, let all the rich guys who want to pay more, DO SO! The treasury department will accept their check for extra revenue, NO PROBLEM!!
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Apr 14, 2011 19:15:15 GMT -5
BTW, if the Bush tax cuts and the wars are threasons for everyone being so horrible, then explain how the deficit exploded from about 160 billion in 2007 (including SS surpluses, the same accounting system that credits Bill Clinton with his surpluses) to literally TEN TIMES that at 1.6 TRILLION under Obama!
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Apr 14, 2011 19:17:51 GMT -5
Here's something I have always wondered about the rich who claim they need to be taxed more (Buffett, Gates, Stein, etc). If they seriously believe that, do they ever just pay more taxes? Either just a cut a check straight to the Treasury Dept (I am pretty sure the govt will take your $$ if you send it to them) or complete their tax returns claiming only income but NO DEDUCTIONS (I am assuming that the IRS doesn't care if you don't take any deductions, only if you underclaim on income)? Wouldn't these be ways for them to easily put their $$$ where their mouths are? What do you guys think? Are they claiming every deduction they can? Or are their 1040s just completed at the top and middle of the first page with no deductions, schedule A, etc?
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Apr 14, 2011 19:19:54 GMT -5
It has been proven time and time again that if you overtax the rich, they will leave. Then, not only do you not get the increase, but you lose what you would have gotten by leaving things the same. Yes, if you OVERTAX them. The question is at what point are you overtaxing them. It is basically the supply/demand curve. At what tax rate does the govt bring in the most revenue? Republicans seem to think if they keep lowering taxes forever, revenue will keep going up & that simply isn't true. On the flip side you can't raise taxes forever & expect revenue to keep going up either. I don't see that letting the bush tax cuts expire will suddenly overburden the rich, but it will bring up the revenue. When the first bush tax cuts were instituted, total tax revenue went down for the next 3 years, tax revenue as a % of GDP dropped over the next 3, & most importantly unemployment went up over the next 3 years & the GDP growth slowed. So there is clearly not an absolute cause & effect between lowering tax rates & more tax revenue or an increase in the economy or jobs. Interesting how you ignore the 2003 Bush tax cuts. I guess it's just easier to ignore facts that contradict your beliefs. We also had those little things like 9/11 and the Clinton recession. That said, I do suppose that one can argue that tax cuts will not always increase revenues. It depends on the amount and type of cuts. Little ones won't do it, especially if everything else is going bad. The big problem of course if that we do not know "what if" such as "what if we had no 2001 tax cuts, would we decreases have been even worse?"
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Apr 14, 2011 19:22:37 GMT -5
I wonder if you have to fill out gift forms if you send them over $13k. It would be kind of funny (But ver much like our govt), if they tried to tax you on the money with the estate tax after you sent them a bunch.... you're making my heart hurt. ;D
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Apr 14, 2011 19:27:06 GMT -5
...:::"I also wonder what would happen if you gave a bunch of $$ to the Treasury as a gift and then fell ill. If it came up under the Medicaid look back period, would the states try to get the $$ back from the feds? ":::... What if you give the gift by maxing out a bunch of credit cards, and then declare Bk? ...:::"Overtaxing is 70% to braket... not what we have now... ":::... and cue Ameiko coming in with that tired "90% taxation of some athlete [who owed a ton in back taxes]" sob story he has in his one-trick arsenal. Go away WWBG. We have actually agreed over things in the past but to accused me of having only one trick in my arsenal when I can spit out all tons of facts, logical arguements, and analogies? WOW! You just lost all my respect and, believe or not, until I read the above, you had quite a bit. BTW, I stand by that story- how it is hard to get out of a hole you are in by trying to pay the government back taxes when they have a top rate of 90%! Even if the marginal rate is "only" 50-80%, you still wind up paying twice to four times what you owe them in additional to interest, penalties, fees, etc... it's modern slavery!
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Apr 14, 2011 19:28:02 GMT -5
BTW, I only used that topic in one thread, maybe two, and that was a loooong time ago. But, please, don't let facts get in your way.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Apr 14, 2011 19:31:04 GMT -5
BTW. In the past, we have had surplus. So, I am not sure where you are getting the following.
"In all past years any time gov had "extra" / more revenue they found a way to spend it pretty easy"Clinton left office in 2001, over 10 years ago, no surpluses or extra "savings" since....no evidence in the last 10 years that I am aware of the gov can "save" extra revenue (or any revenue for that matter) 1. most of the surpluses existed because they counted SS surpluses 2. Clinton shredded our armed forces; Bush had to invest heavily to get them back to fighting strength. 3. Clinton was the receiptent of a tech boom not of his creation and was ultimately unsustainable. 4. The GOP were the ones who actually wrote the budgets and they made sure that Bill didn't get his Hillarycare which would have exploded the deficit. They also shoved welfare reform down his throat, made him chew, and then forced him to swallow.
|
|
stats45
Established Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 16:52:12 GMT -5
Posts: 415
|
Post by stats45 on Apr 14, 2011 19:50:53 GMT -5
Again, I am anti-increased taxation, but it is not true the the Bush tax cuts dramatically increased revenues.
Here are the government tax receipts for personal income taxes for 2000 - 2008:
2000 - 1.004 trillion dollars 2001 - 994 billion dollars 2002 - 858 billion dollars 2003 - 793 billion dollars 2004 - 808 billion dollars 2005 - 927 billion dollars 2006 - 1.043 trillion dollars 2007 - 1.163 trillion dollars 2008 - 1.145 trillion dollars
It just isn't true that lower taxes always increases revenues or that raising taxes lowers revenues. Plus, as a conservative, I think there are much better and more philosophical consistent reasons for supporting tax cuts. The goal of citizens shouldn't be to pay the tax rate that allows the government to take in the most money.
|
|
|
Post by honeybunny66 on Apr 15, 2011 7:52:50 GMT -5
"It has been proven time and time again that if you overtax the rich, they will leave." We hear this all the time about taxing the rich and I'm as tired of it as excuses for the poor. It sounds like kids on a playground - "If you don't play my way or by my rules, I'm going to leave." Well, GO! But quite frankly, I don't know anywhere I would rather live or be afforded the same opportunities than the United States of America. So personally, I'm staying and if the price I have to pay to be a US citizen is taxes, so be it.
|
|
runewell
Established Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 15:37:33 GMT -5
Posts: 395
|
Post by runewell on Apr 15, 2011 8:29:38 GMT -5
Here's the Ben Stein video:
|
|
crockpottin
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 19:36:52 GMT -5
Posts: 102
|
Post by crockpottin on Apr 15, 2011 8:32:12 GMT -5
Karma to you, honeybunny-I couldn't agree more! We all do use government services to one degree or another, and so we should all expect to pay in to the system for them. I also find it intellectually dishonest to claim that we have a spending problem, yet simultaneously call for lower taxes on the rich. If someone came to these boards with an obvious budget problem, no one would tell them to work fewer hours at their job (IE. cut their income). Yet somehow that is supposed to be a good answer to the government's problems??
Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying that the whole mess can be fixes solely through taxes, much like most people who come here with budget problems usually can't solely fix them through more hours at work. There will need to be some cuts in the government's budget. I just don't think we should be giving anyone tax breaks while the nation-wide belt tightening is going on.
|
|
runewell
Established Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 15:37:33 GMT -5
Posts: 395
|
Post by runewell on Apr 15, 2011 8:32:37 GMT -5
By the way, I am for reducing spending, but until the government modifies entitlement programs we all know that the spending cuts they make aren't going to suffice.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Apr 15, 2011 11:22:19 GMT -5
Stats, great statistics.
I do wonder, though, how much of the decline in tax revenue was the result of tax cuts and how much was the result of the bursting of the technology bubble and the impact of investment losses on income tax revenue. Of course, the bursting tech bubble had some less direct impacts on earnings and tax revenue as consumers reduced spending, reducing the income of businesses, which reduced their workforces, which reduced the income of the employee/consumers, which had the combined effect of reducing the consumer's tax liability while at the same time reducing his spending, which added another circle to the spiral.
I think it would be nearly impossible for most of us to isolate the real effect on federal tax revenues of tax rate reductions vs. the effect of a major economic shift, as they occurred in overlapping time periods. But I don't think it is appropriate to attribute the shift in the statistics exclusively to one cause or the other.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Apr 15, 2011 11:41:37 GMT -5
.
So true, Stats!
Seems to me that many citizens who make virtually no contribution to operating our governments have the same say in the creation and funding of government benefits as the people who foot the bill for those benefits. I have heard that when our country was originally founded, the only people who were entitled to vote were property owners (taxpayers). So only those who provided the funding to operate the government had a say in how the money was spent. Does anyone know if that is actually true? Fundamentally, this concept seems like it has some merit. You gotta pay to play. You can't endlessly demand more and more lavish benefits if you're not providing the funding for those benefits, and politicians aren't incented to curry favor with people who aren't footing the bills by creating benefits they don't pay for, because non-taxpayers have no direct say in whether the politician gets re-elected or not.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 15:29:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2011 13:40:02 GMT -5
I do wonder, though, how much of the decline in tax revenue was the result of tax cuts and how much was the result of the bursting of the technology bubble and the impact of investment losses on income tax revenue. I think this is major. Three years ago DH and I owed about $8K on the Federal taxes. This year we got $2,500 back although we've now blown through all our tax-loss carry-forwards. Very little change in the other aspects of our taxes- wages, SS, deductions, withholding exemptions claimed- it's all fluctuations in investment income. Add to that the losses incurred by businesses, people out of work, banks writing off all their stupid loans and taking losses on the properties when they foreclose- there's just not as much to tax. In addition, the states were all collecting their share of the riches in the boom years and municipalities were collecting property taxes on skyrocketing home values. Sales taxes were up because everyone was buying stuff. That's all gone, too. People who have locked up their houses and abandoned them because they couldn't afford the mortgage aren't going to bother paying property taxes. I read somewhere that state and municipal governments weren't allowed to run surpluses- in other words, they had to spend down their income every year. If that's true, I wish that would change- you end up with the boom and bust cycles we have now.
|
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Apr 15, 2011 14:21:40 GMT -5
...:::"Go away WWBG.":::...
No.
...:::"We have actually agreed over things in the past":::...
We also agree that taxing the rich is not the solution.
...:::"but to accused me of having only one trick in my arsenal when I can spit out all tons of facts, logical arguements, and analogies?":::...
I was just curious whether you'd show up on my cue. You did not disappoint. Welcome back.
|
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Apr 15, 2011 14:28:07 GMT -5
...:::"We hear this all the time about taxing the rich and I'm as tired of it as excuses for the poor. It sounds like kids on a playground - "If you don't play my way or by my rules, I'm going to leave."":::...
I think you only read what you wanted to read in order to go on your rant.
I am citing instances in states such as Maryland which raised taxes on millionaires, thinking that tax revenues would increase. Said millionaires moved, and Maryland ended up far worse than had they just left things as is.
...:::"Well, GO! But quite frankly, I don't know anywhere I would rather live or be afforded the same opportunities than the United States of America. So personally, I'm staying and if the price I have to pay to be a US citizen is taxes, so be it.":::...
This statement demonstrates exactly why "tax the rich" does not work. The millionaires DID go, and they took their money with them, and left the middle class to pay a larger share of the bills. The people who are best able to pay the bill are not going to tolerate being slapped with more and more of it.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Apr 15, 2011 15:05:37 GMT -5
Apparently, now the taxes are too high. Buffett, Gates and others who supposedly claim that taxes should be higher on the rich, have taken specific actions to avoid higher taxation on their own wealth, including setting up their estate to avoid massive death taxes.
If these men really meant what they said in public, I'd expect their personal choices to mirror those ideals. [/size]
|
|
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 Apr 15, 2011 15:21:59 GMT -5
The US gov does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem
I think the last round of 'spending cuts' some of which were accounting tricks more than true spending cuts removed 38 billion out of a 3.8 trillion dollar budget?
That's like someone making $3,000 a month cutting their spending by $30 and wondering why they still have a problem. I realize a lot of the spending is currently fixed but the cuts don't seem as impressive as our elected officials seem to think they are given the amount of back patting going on by both parties.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Apr 15, 2011 15:32:28 GMT -5
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Apr 15, 2011 15:32:50 GMT -5
Apparently, now the taxes are too high. Buffett, Gates and others who supposedly claim that taxes should be higher on the rich, have taken specific actions to avoid higher taxation on their own wealth, including setting up their estate to avoid massive death taxes. If these men really meant what they said in public, I'd expect their personal choices to mirror those ideals. [/size][/quote] I think that is a ridiculous argument. I think my taxes are too low (-650 this yr thanks to MWP), but I'm not going to start sending in extra if they don't require it. But, I have no problem if they change the tax code & I have to pay more (or at least something).
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Apr 15, 2011 15:33:34 GMT -5
2. Clinton shredded our armed forces; Bush had to invest heavily to get them back to fighting strength. LMAO!!! Wait, you were being sarcastic right? Total Defense Spending (in billions) 1980 - 167.9 1981 - 193.6 1982 - 221.5 1983 - 246.6 1984 - 268.9 1985 - 295.2 1986 - 313.9 1987 - 320.4 1988 - 330.2 1989 - 343.2 1990 - 342.2 (Notice the cold war has been all but over for a decade at this point, and we're just now stopping the build up to fight it. Brilliant) 1991 - 320.4 (Now we start the reductions, or so called peace dividend. Notice Bush Sr. is still in office not Clinton) 1992 - 348.5 (Now Clinton is in power and the defense budget is higher than it was at any point during the cold war build up.) 1993 - 344 1994 - 336.3 1995 - 326.4 1996 - 316.2 (This is the only year of the Clinton presidency which had a lower military budget than Reagan's last year in office) 1997 - 325 1998 - 323.1 1999 - 333.2 (And now Clinton is leaving power having never taken the defense budget much below the highs that were set during the concerted cold war buildup of the mid and late eighties. A build up that happened after the Soviet Union was already starting to crumble internally.) As usual the US was late, wasteful, and never really cut anything after building it up for supposedly a specific purpose. That's probably why I joined a military that was still built with the purpose of fighting the cold war in 2001, when that "war" had been over for two decades. ETA - You can see the numbers yourself at www.usgovernmentspending.com
|
|
parker1b2
Established Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 21:51:28 GMT -5
Posts: 256
|
Post by parker1b2 on Apr 15, 2011 15:39:04 GMT -5
Even if the Gov't raises taxes, (and they say only the "rich" but it will be on everyone), it doesn't matter cause they won't use it to reduce the deficit. Every time the gov't gets more money, they just spend more. It is a spending problem. Both Democrats and Republicans are crooks and all this is talk. Until the deficit goes down, I don't believe any of them. I consider myself a Conservative, and I feel that most people on this board are trying to get their financial house in order and create wealth. Most are not looking for handouts, so I feel most would be conservatives also, or at least believe in those principals (not trying to get political)
Fair tax for all.. eliminate the income tax and a straight consumption tax. More expensive an item you buy, the more you pay in tax.
|
|
wodehouse
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 10, 2011 16:35:08 GMT -5
Posts: 786
|
Post by wodehouse on Apr 15, 2011 15:40:08 GMT -5
DH, awesome. thank you.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Apr 15, 2011 16:02:53 GMT -5
We would tell them to work harder. Tell me, how hard does the government work when it taxes the rich [be careful who you call rich - AMT anyone] more?
It should probably be brought to your attention that Clinton was inaugurated in January of 1993.
I guess when you don't respond to terrorist attacks on your military and civilians, you can decrease or keep defense spending level.
I'll also say that as a percent of revenues, 1990 defense spending was 17.8% while 1999 spending was 9.9% of revenues.
Your argument, or point, whatever it is you're trying to make is like saying I've saved $5k per year while ignoring the fact that your income increased from $40k to $80k. $5k might sound good when your income is $40k but not so much when it's $80k.
|
|