ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Apr 16, 2011 22:29:01 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. I don't know where you obtained your numbers from but these are the revenue numbers from the CBO at: www.cbo.gov/budget/budget.cfmI'm having a hard time pasting it so I'll try to just past a few things. Below are overall revenues: 2000 2,025.2 2001 1,991.1 2002 1,853.1 2003 1,782.3 2004 1,880.1 2005 2,153.6 2006 2,406.9 2007 2,568.0 2008 2,524.0 2009 2,105.0 2010 2,161.7 Note how revenues were declining due to the recession that began at the end of Clinton's term as well as 9/11. It was not reversed until 2004. Hm... what happened in 2003? Oh yes, the Bush tax cuts! Now let's look at deficits. Note that the first column after dates is deficit without SS surplus and the other with SS surplus and it was with the SS surplus that Clinton had his many supposed surpluses. On-Budget Total 2000 86.4 236.2 2001 (32.4) 128.2 2002 (317.4) (157.8) 2003 (538.4) (377.6) 2004 (568.0) (412.7) 2005 (493.6) (318.3) 2006 (434.5) (248.2) 2007 (342.2) (160.7) 2008 (641.8) (458.6) 2009 (1,549.7) (1,412.7) 2010 (1,371.1) (1,294.1) As one can see, the deficit was coming down pretty quickly to a low point of 2007. What happened around that time? Well we had the Democrats running Congress, a neophyte looking like he would becoming the most powerful executive in the world, and the MSM harping how the world was coming to an end. We also see how Obama increased the deficit by almost one TRILLION dollars in his first year alone and has far outspent Bush yet he blames the deficit on, you guessed it, BUSH!
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Apr 16, 2011 22:33:33 GMT -5
Here's the Ben Stein video: Thanks for the posting. As I suspected, it was highly qualified, i.e. to increase our military dramatically such that we act as the police man for the rest of the world. It was not a blanket call to simply give more money to the government willy-nilly. Stein in the past, on that evil Fox News, did comment on who the rich is that he would tax: making 5 million or over. That is a far cry from Obama's definition of rich. My take though, with regards to Stein, is that if think we should have a strong enough military to protect South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and Saudi Arabia, I say let THOSE nations pay us! Why should we put our soldiers on the line and spend our treasure to defend other sovereign nations?
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Apr 16, 2011 22:36:29 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. Why is it only the "rich" though who must pay for the privelege of being a US citizen? Everyone should pay the same income rate, rich or poor. Can't afford to pay? Oh you will be able to, trust me. By your silly analogy, hey if the other kids were beating me up and taking my lunch money and the teachers were there egging on those kids to keep mugging me, well I'd take my ball and go home too!
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Apr 16, 2011 22:37:54 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] DING DING DING!!! We have a winner! They are the town drunks telling everyone else to put down the booze!
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Apr 16, 2011 22:40:18 GMT -5
Sorry but not spending more than you take in WILL solve the problem. Polticians need to remember that their job is not supposed to be a life long career but a temp job. They shouldn't leave office richer than when they came in and no perks should be taken with them like life long health care and great pensions. All agencies need to be cut by at least 30% and some agencies need to just be GONE. Their time has long since passed. case in point, Education Dept and Indian Affairs.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Apr 16, 2011 22:41:33 GMT -5
No kidding. Why are we the world's police? Why are we not taking oil from Iraq in payment?
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Apr 16, 2011 22:42:13 GMT -5
I would not disagree with a proposal to send various countries a bill for services rendered. If we are really going to be the worlds police men, we should be compensated without having to foot the entire bill. I'd rather just stop doing it and spend the money on things that actually benefit us. If we're the worlds police we need to resign anyway as we obviously suck at the job. We can't even stop small groups of pirates in Somalia for crying out loud. If you're going to send the military all over the world you have to stop being a chicken shit about it and let them use force. Yes people will die. There will be some collateral damage. Either deal with it, or keep the troops home. Sending them all over the world but hamstringing them and telling them to play nice doesn't do a damn thing. We won WWII by firebombing cities at night, and now people get pissed when a precision strike kills twenty terrorists and catches one or two civilians (who are probably collaborators anyway since they're at a terrorist training compound) in the blast. Agreed. If you want the US to be the guy who swoops in to stomp the bad guys, dno't complain about how we do it. And a check in the mail would be great too!
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Apr 16, 2011 22:44:23 GMT -5
We weren't discussing fat; I just pointed out the error in the way you were looking at the numbers. China's figures are the reported figures and are questionable whether accurate. UK, France and a number of other nations can skimp on defense spending when mommy and daddy [the good ole USA] is there to protect them. These countries then pay for social services that they can't afford and deride the US for not following suit. I would not disagree with a proposal to send various countries a bill for services rendered. If we are really going to be the worlds police men, we should be compensated without having to foot the entire bill. Hanging out another
|
|
parker1b2
Established Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 21:51:28 GMT -5
Posts: 256
|
Post by parker1b2 on Apr 17, 2011 6:15:53 GMT -5
ameiko great posts... glad too see other people get it and don't just listen blindly to the MSM.. Karma for you
|
|
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 17, 2011 11:43:18 GMT -5
No kidding. Why are we the world's police? Why are we not taking oil from Iraq in payment?
Right, and we should be getting opium from Afghanistan and taking over the world's provider of that also. What's next, invade countries on some pretext because they have rare minerals the US wants?
|
|
stats45
Established Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 16:52:12 GMT -5
Posts: 415
|
Post by stats45 on Apr 17, 2011 11:57:12 GMT -5
Ameiko, you are confusing the numbers for government revenues that come from individual tax receipts (my numbers) and from all sources (your numbers). Individual income taxes are not the majority of government revenues.
In your numbers, about one-third of the difference between 2001-2003 and 2004-2007 are corporate income taxes. These receipts went up by about $200 billion a year in the latter years. Another quarter of the difference is payroll taxes. Because unemployment and participation was a little lower in 2001-2003, more revenues came in from SS and Medicare taxes in 2004-2007. Another 10% of the difference are increases in excise taxes over 2004-2007.
Lower tax rates almost always increase economic growth and can increase tax revenues (in the long-run) within reason. Obviously if we lowered all individual tax rates to 1%, there would not be increased revenues.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Apr 17, 2011 12:08:52 GMT -5
Ameiko, you are confusing the numbers for government revenues that come from individual tax receipts (my numbers) and from all sources (your numbers). Individual income taxes are not the majority of government revenues. In your numbers, about one-third of the difference between 2001-2003 and 2004-2007 are corporate income taxes. These receipts went up by about $200 billion a year in the latter years. Another quarter of the difference is payroll taxes. Because unemployment and participation was a little lower in 2001-2003, more revenues came in from SS and Medicare taxes in 2004-2007. Another 10% of the difference are increases in excise taxes over 2004-2007. Lower tax rates almost always increase economic growth and can increase tax revenues (in the long-run) within reason. Obviously if we lowered all individual tax rates to 1%, there would not be increased revenues. I figured that you were referring to personal vs the overall that I posted. My take would be that we saw an overall surge in revenue after the cuts. If that shows up in personal income or overall revenue, I think it still means that less taxes equal more growth equal greater revenue and the numbers do support this. And yes, dropping the rate to 1% probably won't be the best idea. It's all about the Laffer curve and where that ideal midpoint occurs. I say keep dropping until we find it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 18:19:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2011 17:39:34 GMT -5
"It's all about the Laffer curve and where that ideal midpoint occurs. I say keep dropping until we find it. "
Forgettig that Laffer say his curve shouldn't be used as a basis to raise or drop taxes..... we've been on the wrong side since rates dropped below 70%... as the nmbers show Bush's tax cuts DID NOT result in a 'boom of revenue'... he cut individual income tax rates... and individual income tax revenue did NOT increase...
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Apr 17, 2011 17:57:29 GMT -5
as the Numbers show Bush's tax cuts DID NOT result in a 'boom of revenue'... he cut individual income tax rates... and individual income tax revenue did NOT increase You don't believe the data in posts above? Looks like the revenue started up right after the 2003 tax cut and grew >10% for 3 or 4 yrs - both when you look at individual taxes only and when you look at total revenue. The same thing happened in 1962 when JFK lowered the rate to increase the revenue. And again when Reagan did it. Art Laffer's curve can be used as an optimization tool to help identify the optimal point that will maximize revenue. But it is not a 'forever' calculation, it varies with the economic conditions of the times. And, contrary to opinion, Laffer's trickle-down theory worked just fine - it was the Media that had fun with it (lots of jokes) and turned it into a pejorative.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 18:19:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2011 18:26:34 GMT -5
You think that's a 'boom in revenue' phil? ... Straight numbers, no percent of GDP, no inflation adjusting, and he barely manages to get things back on track?...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 18:19:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2011 18:27:57 GMT -5
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Apr 17, 2011 19:43:04 GMT -5
You think that's a 'boom in revenue' phil? Well, maybe not a boom. But the Total Revenue curve in the area of question, 2003 to 07, takes a pretty steep run up.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 18:19:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2011 20:13:59 GMT -5
To almost what it was under Clinton... when taxes were higher ... The truth is that there can never be a single causal factor... and so generalizing to one is never going to be accurate...
|
|
|
Post by honeybunny66 on Apr 17, 2011 20:53:37 GMT -5
"Why is it only the "rich" who must pay for the privelege of being a US citizen?"
Never said that only the "rich" should pay for the privilege of being a US citizen. Once again, I'm just tired of hearing excuses about why the so-called rich (and no one here has ever agreed on the definition of this) should receive tax breaks as I am about excuses why the poor should receive entitlements.
It amazes me how everyone has the answer to all of life's financial problems until it affects their wallet/pocketbook or the wallet/pocketbook they're fantasizing about having one day.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Apr 17, 2011 20:57:24 GMT -5
If only we could have a second internet bubble that would support such increases in the tax code.
A large portion of increases in revenues for the period in question was due to the flooring of tax rates for international profits brought back onshore in 2005, down to slightly over 5%. Companies have no reason to bring money made in other countries back to the US and invest it here because they're going to be taxed 35% right off the top.
We could mimic Bush's move of decreasing the repatriation tax on offshore profits...then again, we've got a spending problem we need to fix and lumps of revenues here and there won't help that side of the equation.
|
|
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 18, 2011 15:37:59 GMT -5
...:::"What's next, invade countries on some pretext because they have rare minerals the US wants? ":::...
Didn't you see Avatar?
|
|
stats45
Established Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 16:52:12 GMT -5
Posts: 415
|
Post by stats45 on Apr 18, 2011 15:56:08 GMT -5
I think most people agree we have a long-term debt problem. In an ideal world, I'd like to see it closed with spending cuts. I know that there are people who will like to see the gap closed mainly with tax increases.
We are going to get a little of both. I'd like for the spending cuts to be larger than the tax increases, and I'd prefer if a good amount of the tax increases (or increased revenues) to come from eliminating deductions and simplifying the tax code. I know that probably won't be enough, but I'd like to start there.
I mentioned this earlier, but if you want to capture revenues, you really have to raise the next to highest marginal bracket or lower. The majority of income in the country is earned by people making $50,000 to $200,000. The rich would pay more if you raised these brackets because their income covers the entire bracket, whereas many people only inch into the bracket and pay that rate on a relatively small amount of their total income.
|
|