|
On October 29 2011 11:33 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 10:57 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2011 14:19 InvalidID wrote:On October 28 2011 12:57 BioNova wrote:
What a deficit is by definition? How much is ours?, How many taxes we have(not low) currently, and what it would take to support Government at current levels, plus projected growth of government spending. This as you say 'is' happening. What do you mean taxes are not low? They are extremely low. The following is a graph of the historic marginal income tax for the highest bracket: The only times in the last 100 years that they have been lower have been extremely short periods in the 1920s and the late 1980's early 1990s. Guess what happened when Regan lowered taxes in the 1980s? A massive increase in the deficit, and no major stimulus to economic growth. Note that in the "golden age" of the American middle class, in the 1950's-1960's the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket was 90%. Tax revenue increased due the Reagan tax cuts. The deficit still grew because Congress outspent the increase. Growth too, spanning many years. These things aren't passed in a vacuum - recessions still cyclically occur. Take data from 1981 (top marginal rates cut) to 1988. No, we're not idiots for believing tax cuts generate economic growth and, when taxes are high, even get additional revenue I'm sorry did you just claim that tax cuts generated more taxes? Wasn't a very good tax cut then, was it?
Think of it this way. Tax people 100%. No one works it's pointless. Any money they get will just be taken from them anyways. Lower tax to 90% - more people getting money and spending money, more money to tax.
Obviously this formula has diminishing returns at some point, but it's a pretty good argument against excessive taxation.
|
On October 29 2011 11:39 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:33 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 10:57 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2011 14:19 InvalidID wrote:On October 28 2011 12:57 BioNova wrote:
What a deficit is by definition? How much is ours?, How many taxes we have(not low) currently, and what it would take to support Government at current levels, plus projected growth of government spending. This as you say 'is' happening. What do you mean taxes are not low? They are extremely low. The following is a graph of the historic marginal income tax for the highest bracket: The only times in the last 100 years that they have been lower have been extremely short periods in the 1920s and the late 1980's early 1990s. Guess what happened when Regan lowered taxes in the 1980s? A massive increase in the deficit, and no major stimulus to economic growth. Note that in the "golden age" of the American middle class, in the 1950's-1960's the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket was 90%. Tax revenue increased due the Reagan tax cuts. The deficit still grew because Congress outspent the increase. Growth too, spanning many years. These things aren't passed in a vacuum - recessions still cyclically occur. Take data from 1981 (top marginal rates cut) to 1988. No, we're not idiots for believing tax cuts generate economic growth and, when taxes are high, even get additional revenue I'm sorry did you just claim that tax cuts generated more taxes? Wasn't a very good tax cut then, was it? Think of it this way. Tax people 100%. No one works because no one has any money. Lower tax to 90% - more people getting money and spending money, more money to tax.
Sure, except that your scenario isn't connected to reality. Even if you were to refine your argument it's still overly simplistic.
On October 29 2011 11:39 shinosai wrote:
Obviously this formula has diminishing returns at some point, but it's a pretty good argument against excessive taxation.
I guess that's the point. "Excessive" taxation is at a much, much higher point than where the US is at currently (or where it was during the Reagan years).
|
On October 29 2011 11:41 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:39 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:33 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 10:57 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2011 14:19 InvalidID wrote:On October 28 2011 12:57 BioNova wrote:
What a deficit is by definition? How much is ours?, How many taxes we have(not low) currently, and what it would take to support Government at current levels, plus projected growth of government spending. This as you say 'is' happening. What do you mean taxes are not low? They are extremely low. The following is a graph of the historic marginal income tax for the highest bracket: The only times in the last 100 years that they have been lower have been extremely short periods in the 1920s and the late 1980's early 1990s. Guess what happened when Regan lowered taxes in the 1980s? A massive increase in the deficit, and no major stimulus to economic growth. Note that in the "golden age" of the American middle class, in the 1950's-1960's the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket was 90%. Tax revenue increased due the Reagan tax cuts. The deficit still grew because Congress outspent the increase. Growth too, spanning many years. These things aren't passed in a vacuum - recessions still cyclically occur. Take data from 1981 (top marginal rates cut) to 1988. No, we're not idiots for believing tax cuts generate economic growth and, when taxes are high, even get additional revenue I'm sorry did you just claim that tax cuts generated more taxes? Wasn't a very good tax cut then, was it? Think of it this way. Tax people 100%. No one works because no one has any money. Lower tax to 90% - more people getting money and spending money, more money to tax. Sure, except that your scenario isn't connected to reality. Even if you were to refine your argument it's still overly simplistic.
The argument goes down to 80%, and 70%, and 60%. Obviously it has diminishing returns the lower you get, but the obvious truth is this: The more money the gov takes from you, the less you spend, and the less there is demand in the economy to produce more goods, thus less overall productivity, and less revenue.
edit: It's actually relevant to the conversation since some people want to raise taxes on millionaires to as much as 50-70% for every dollar they earn past $1 million.
|
On October 29 2011 11:44 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:41 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 11:39 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:33 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 10:57 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2011 14:19 InvalidID wrote:On October 28 2011 12:57 BioNova wrote:
What a deficit is by definition? How much is ours?, How many taxes we have(not low) currently, and what it would take to support Government at current levels, plus projected growth of government spending. This as you say 'is' happening. What do you mean taxes are not low? They are extremely low. The following is a graph of the historic marginal income tax for the highest bracket: The only times in the last 100 years that they have been lower have been extremely short periods in the 1920s and the late 1980's early 1990s. Guess what happened when Regan lowered taxes in the 1980s? A massive increase in the deficit, and no major stimulus to economic growth. Note that in the "golden age" of the American middle class, in the 1950's-1960's the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket was 90%. Tax revenue increased due the Reagan tax cuts. The deficit still grew because Congress outspent the increase. Growth too, spanning many years. These things aren't passed in a vacuum - recessions still cyclically occur. Take data from 1981 (top marginal rates cut) to 1988. No, we're not idiots for believing tax cuts generate economic growth and, when taxes are high, even get additional revenue I'm sorry did you just claim that tax cuts generated more taxes? Wasn't a very good tax cut then, was it? Think of it this way. Tax people 100%. No one works because no one has any money. Lower tax to 90% - more people getting money and spending money, more money to tax. Sure, except that your scenario isn't connected to reality. Even if you were to refine your argument it's still overly simplistic. The argument goes down to 80%, and 70%, and 60%. Obviously it has diminishing returns the lower you get, but the obvious truth is this: The more money the gov takes from you, the less you spend, and the less there is demand in the economy to produce more goods, thus less overall productivity, and less revenue.
Funny i was unaware that the government took the money and then burned it and did not participate in an economy
|
On October 29 2011 11:46 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:44 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:41 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 11:39 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:33 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 10:57 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2011 14:19 InvalidID wrote:On October 28 2011 12:57 BioNova wrote:
What a deficit is by definition? How much is ours?, How many taxes we have(not low) currently, and what it would take to support Government at current levels, plus projected growth of government spending. This as you say 'is' happening. What do you mean taxes are not low? They are extremely low. The following is a graph of the historic marginal income tax for the highest bracket: The only times in the last 100 years that they have been lower have been extremely short periods in the 1920s and the late 1980's early 1990s. Guess what happened when Regan lowered taxes in the 1980s? A massive increase in the deficit, and no major stimulus to economic growth. Note that in the "golden age" of the American middle class, in the 1950's-1960's the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket was 90%. Tax revenue increased due the Reagan tax cuts. The deficit still grew because Congress outspent the increase. Growth too, spanning many years. These things aren't passed in a vacuum - recessions still cyclically occur. Take data from 1981 (top marginal rates cut) to 1988. No, we're not idiots for believing tax cuts generate economic growth and, when taxes are high, even get additional revenue I'm sorry did you just claim that tax cuts generated more taxes? Wasn't a very good tax cut then, was it? Think of it this way. Tax people 100%. No one works because no one has any money. Lower tax to 90% - more people getting money and spending money, more money to tax. Sure, except that your scenario isn't connected to reality. Even if you were to refine your argument it's still overly simplistic. The argument goes down to 80%, and 70%, and 60%. Obviously it has diminishing returns the lower you get, but the obvious truth is this: The more money the gov takes from you, the less you spend, and the less there is demand in the economy to produce more goods, thus less overall productivity, and less revenue. Funny i was unaware that the government took the money and then burned it and did not participate in an economy
Well they do but they don't spend it very efficiently. Hence why all their programs are going bankrupt...
|
On October 29 2011 11:47 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:46 semantics wrote:On October 29 2011 11:44 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:41 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 11:39 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:33 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 10:57 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2011 14:19 InvalidID wrote:On October 28 2011 12:57 BioNova wrote:
What a deficit is by definition? How much is ours?, How many taxes we have(not low) currently, and what it would take to support Government at current levels, plus projected growth of government spending. This as you say 'is' happening. What do you mean taxes are not low? They are extremely low. The following is a graph of the historic marginal income tax for the highest bracket: The only times in the last 100 years that they have been lower have been extremely short periods in the 1920s and the late 1980's early 1990s. Guess what happened when Regan lowered taxes in the 1980s? A massive increase in the deficit, and no major stimulus to economic growth. Note that in the "golden age" of the American middle class, in the 1950's-1960's the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket was 90%. Tax revenue increased due the Reagan tax cuts. The deficit still grew because Congress outspent the increase. Growth too, spanning many years. These things aren't passed in a vacuum - recessions still cyclically occur. Take data from 1981 (top marginal rates cut) to 1988. No, we're not idiots for believing tax cuts generate economic growth and, when taxes are high, even get additional revenue I'm sorry did you just claim that tax cuts generated more taxes? Wasn't a very good tax cut then, was it? Think of it this way. Tax people 100%. No one works because no one has any money. Lower tax to 90% - more people getting money and spending money, more money to tax. Sure, except that your scenario isn't connected to reality. Even if you were to refine your argument it's still overly simplistic. The argument goes down to 80%, and 70%, and 60%. Obviously it has diminishing returns the lower you get, but the obvious truth is this: The more money the gov takes from you, the less you spend, and the less there is demand in the economy to produce more goods, thus less overall productivity, and less revenue. Funny i was unaware that the government took the money and then burned it and did not participate in an economy Well they do but they don't spend it very efficiently. Hence why all their programs are going bankrupt...
Except they are going bankrupt becuase of more people retiring, if you look at medicare/cade/social security spending over the past 30 years it has sky rocketed,partly due to expansion of benefits and partly due to increase in number retired vs number working essentially it's a broken system but no politician will touch it becuase old people vote more, spending as a % of GDP and revenue as a % of GDP on the federal level has been quite stagnant for the past 50 years. And so when the defense budget and social insurance takes up the vast majority of the budget they have to burrow money or disinvest in things that help people besides the elderly.
Again i don't get why you say it kills business the majority of business taxes come on the state level not on the federal level, unless your essentially a banker/stock broker etc.
|
On October 29 2011 11:47 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:46 semantics wrote:On October 29 2011 11:44 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:41 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 11:39 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:33 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 10:57 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2011 14:19 InvalidID wrote:On October 28 2011 12:57 BioNova wrote:
What a deficit is by definition? How much is ours?, How many taxes we have(not low) currently, and what it would take to support Government at current levels, plus projected growth of government spending. This as you say 'is' happening. What do you mean taxes are not low? They are extremely low. The following is a graph of the historic marginal income tax for the highest bracket: The only times in the last 100 years that they have been lower have been extremely short periods in the 1920s and the late 1980's early 1990s. Guess what happened when Regan lowered taxes in the 1980s? A massive increase in the deficit, and no major stimulus to economic growth. Note that in the "golden age" of the American middle class, in the 1950's-1960's the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket was 90%. Tax revenue increased due the Reagan tax cuts. The deficit still grew because Congress outspent the increase. Growth too, spanning many years. These things aren't passed in a vacuum - recessions still cyclically occur. Take data from 1981 (top marginal rates cut) to 1988. No, we're not idiots for believing tax cuts generate economic growth and, when taxes are high, even get additional revenue I'm sorry did you just claim that tax cuts generated more taxes? Wasn't a very good tax cut then, was it? Think of it this way. Tax people 100%. No one works because no one has any money. Lower tax to 90% - more people getting money and spending money, more money to tax. Sure, except that your scenario isn't connected to reality. Even if you were to refine your argument it's still overly simplistic. The argument goes down to 80%, and 70%, and 60%. Obviously it has diminishing returns the lower you get, but the obvious truth is this: The more money the gov takes from you, the less you spend, and the less there is demand in the economy to produce more goods, thus less overall productivity, and less revenue. Funny i was unaware that the government took the money and then burned it and did not participate in an economy Well they do but they don't spend it very efficiently. Hence why all their programs are going bankrupt...
OIC, so you're saying that the government can't be efficient? And have you heard about starving the beast? I strongly disagree that taxes themselves are the problem here.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
To understand tax rates and tax revenues, you have to understand tax evasion and tax avoidance strategies. Back when tax rates were really really high, companies tried to pay their employees in perks and company expenses rather than in pure renumeration. That tax avoidance strategy is why the health insurance got started (to our present day misery).
The reason why companies and employees preferred to get paid in perks is that any amount the company spends on perks or pays out in renumeration will hit the company bottom line the same. However, the perks will be given to the employee at full value. It won't be minus the government's tax share if it had instead appeared in the employee's paycheck.
By cutting the tax rate, you get a lot less tax avoidance, because most employees don't actually value the perk at full value. They would instead prefer a share of the cost in cash if the share is large enough. Combine less tax avoidance along with a more efficient economy (companies weren't inefficiently paying employees in perks any more) and you get better than expected tax revenue. The other half of the equation is that the economy grew and that accounts for a large part of the growth.
|
On October 29 2011 11:53 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:47 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:46 semantics wrote:On October 29 2011 11:44 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:41 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 11:39 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:33 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 10:57 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2011 14:19 InvalidID wrote:On October 28 2011 12:57 BioNova wrote:
What a deficit is by definition? How much is ours?, How many taxes we have(not low) currently, and what it would take to support Government at current levels, plus projected growth of government spending. This as you say 'is' happening. What do you mean taxes are not low? They are extremely low. The following is a graph of the historic marginal income tax for the highest bracket: The only times in the last 100 years that they have been lower have been extremely short periods in the 1920s and the late 1980's early 1990s. Guess what happened when Regan lowered taxes in the 1980s? A massive increase in the deficit, and no major stimulus to economic growth. Note that in the "golden age" of the American middle class, in the 1950's-1960's the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket was 90%. Tax revenue increased due the Reagan tax cuts. The deficit still grew because Congress outspent the increase. Growth too, spanning many years. These things aren't passed in a vacuum - recessions still cyclically occur. Take data from 1981 (top marginal rates cut) to 1988. No, we're not idiots for believing tax cuts generate economic growth and, when taxes are high, even get additional revenue I'm sorry did you just claim that tax cuts generated more taxes? Wasn't a very good tax cut then, was it? Think of it this way. Tax people 100%. No one works because no one has any money. Lower tax to 90% - more people getting money and spending money, more money to tax. Sure, except that your scenario isn't connected to reality. Even if you were to refine your argument it's still overly simplistic. The argument goes down to 80%, and 70%, and 60%. Obviously it has diminishing returns the lower you get, but the obvious truth is this: The more money the gov takes from you, the less you spend, and the less there is demand in the economy to produce more goods, thus less overall productivity, and less revenue. Funny i was unaware that the government took the money and then burned it and did not participate in an economy Well they do but they don't spend it very efficiently. Hence why all their programs are going bankrupt... OIC, so you're saying that the government can't be efficient? And have you heard about starving the beast? I strongly disagree that taxes themselves are the problem here.
Well, for starters, I don't think federal government can be efficient, because it's trying to efficiently spend money over an entire nation of people that all have different needs. So far it's never been successful. Each and every one of its programs have failed. The department of education has risen the cost of education and lowered the quality, and in particular student loans have created severe economic problems. Same for healthcare, the cost of health care is now higher and less accessible.
I don't advocate this idea that lowering taxes will lower spending. I advocate that we need to do both at the same time. In fact, tax rates seem to have almost nothing to do with government spending. Raise tax rates, lower tax rates, government spending always seems to increase.
|
On October 29 2011 11:44 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:41 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 11:39 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:33 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 10:57 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2011 14:19 InvalidID wrote:On October 28 2011 12:57 BioNova wrote:
What a deficit is by definition? How much is ours?, How many taxes we have(not low) currently, and what it would take to support Government at current levels, plus projected growth of government spending. This as you say 'is' happening. What do you mean taxes are not low? They are extremely low. The following is a graph of the historic marginal income tax for the highest bracket: The only times in the last 100 years that they have been lower have been extremely short periods in the 1920s and the late 1980's early 1990s. Guess what happened when Regan lowered taxes in the 1980s? A massive increase in the deficit, and no major stimulus to economic growth. Note that in the "golden age" of the American middle class, in the 1950's-1960's the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket was 90%. Tax revenue increased due the Reagan tax cuts. The deficit still grew because Congress outspent the increase. Growth too, spanning many years. These things aren't passed in a vacuum - recessions still cyclically occur. Take data from 1981 (top marginal rates cut) to 1988. No, we're not idiots for believing tax cuts generate economic growth and, when taxes are high, even get additional revenue I'm sorry did you just claim that tax cuts generated more taxes? Wasn't a very good tax cut then, was it? Think of it this way. Tax people 100%. No one works because no one has any money. Lower tax to 90% - more people getting money and spending money, more money to tax. Sure, except that your scenario isn't connected to reality. Even if you were to refine your argument it's still overly simplistic. The argument goes down to 80%, and 70%, and 60%. Obviously it has diminishing returns the lower you get, but the obvious truth is this: The more money the gov takes from you, the less you spend, and the less there is demand in the economy to produce more goods, thus less overall productivity, and less revenue. edit: It's actually relevant to the conversation since some people want to raise taxes on millionaires to as much as 50-70% for every dollar they earn past $1 million.
Well the way incremental tax brackets work right now is, you pay a % based on each increment as you pass through it
example:
if the tax bracket for $0 to $10,000 income was 10% and the bracket from 10,000 to 20,000 was 15%:
person making $5000 per year would pay $500 in taxes
person making $15000 per year would pay 10,000*0.1 + 5000*0.15; 1000+750 = 1750 in taxes
if your incremental tax brackets eventually get to 100%, then you still keep income up to that point, but any money made over it would be taxed completely.
Any way, when we had the highest tax bracket at 92% or so, no one paid in that bracket because the diminishing returns were too high, instead of taking that money as income, they invested all the money back into their business just before entering that bracket. Suddenly this doesn't sound so bad any more does it?
|
On October 29 2011 11:58 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:53 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 11:47 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:46 semantics wrote:On October 29 2011 11:44 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:41 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 11:39 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:33 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 10:57 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2011 14:19 InvalidID wrote:
[quote]
What do you mean taxes are not low? They are extremely low. The following is a graph of the historic marginal income tax for the highest bracket: The only times in the last 100 years that they have been lower have been extremely short periods in the 1920s and the late 1980's early 1990s. Guess what happened when Regan lowered taxes in the 1980s? A massive increase in the deficit, and no major stimulus to economic growth. Note that in the "golden age" of the American middle class, in the 1950's-1960's the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket was 90%. Tax revenue increased due the Reagan tax cuts. The deficit still grew because Congress outspent the increase. Growth too, spanning many years. These things aren't passed in a vacuum - recessions still cyclically occur. Take data from 1981 (top marginal rates cut) to 1988. No, we're not idiots for believing tax cuts generate economic growth and, when taxes are high, even get additional revenue I'm sorry did you just claim that tax cuts generated more taxes? Wasn't a very good tax cut then, was it? Think of it this way. Tax people 100%. No one works because no one has any money. Lower tax to 90% - more people getting money and spending money, more money to tax. Sure, except that your scenario isn't connected to reality. Even if you were to refine your argument it's still overly simplistic. The argument goes down to 80%, and 70%, and 60%. Obviously it has diminishing returns the lower you get, but the obvious truth is this: The more money the gov takes from you, the less you spend, and the less there is demand in the economy to produce more goods, thus less overall productivity, and less revenue. Funny i was unaware that the government took the money and then burned it and did not participate in an economy Well they do but they don't spend it very efficiently. Hence why all their programs are going bankrupt... OIC, so you're saying that the government can't be efficient? And have you heard about starving the beast? I strongly disagree that taxes themselves are the problem here. Well, for starters, I don't think federal government can be efficient, because it's trying to efficiently spend money over an entire nation of people that all have different needs. So far it's never been successful. Each and every one of its programs have failed. The department of education has risen the cost of education and lowered the quality, and in particular student loans have created severe economic problems. Same for healthcare, the cost of health care is now higher and less accessible. I don't advocate this idea that lowering taxes will lower spending. I advocate that we need to do both at the same time. In fact, tax rates seem to have almost nothing to do with government spending. Raise tax rates, lower tax rates, government spending always seems to increase.
You do know these programs are often not allowed to compete most often because of provisions put forth by republicans and "business minded people" so often the programs fill segments that either have no competition to begin with or are not allowed to compete if there is competition. Funny you say the department of education has risen which is federal, but education for the most part is state ran and funded so why are you preaching this to the federal government the large majority of that is on state and local level as far a spending goes, most of the federal money going to education is in higher education to which the money is payed back given time.
This is like the people who say the postal service is a failure, when the only reason it's bleeding money is because it's not allowed to raise it's prices and it requires it to fund within 10 years the pensions for all employees for 75 years, essentially paying for future employees due to an idiotic bill passed in 2006, even though the postal service doesn't use an ounce of government money to run itself it's privately funded publicly ran.
|
On October 29 2011 12:04 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:58 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:53 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 11:47 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:46 semantics wrote:On October 29 2011 11:44 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:41 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 11:39 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:33 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 10:57 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Tax revenue increased due the Reagan tax cuts. The deficit still grew because Congress outspent the increase. Growth too, spanning many years. These things aren't passed in a vacuum - recessions still cyclically occur. Take data from 1981 (top marginal rates cut) to 1988.
No, we're not idiots for believing tax cuts generate economic growth and, when taxes are high, even get additional revenue I'm sorry did you just claim that tax cuts generated more taxes? Wasn't a very good tax cut then, was it? Think of it this way. Tax people 100%. No one works because no one has any money. Lower tax to 90% - more people getting money and spending money, more money to tax. Sure, except that your scenario isn't connected to reality. Even if you were to refine your argument it's still overly simplistic. The argument goes down to 80%, and 70%, and 60%. Obviously it has diminishing returns the lower you get, but the obvious truth is this: The more money the gov takes from you, the less you spend, and the less there is demand in the economy to produce more goods, thus less overall productivity, and less revenue. Funny i was unaware that the government took the money and then burned it and did not participate in an economy Well they do but they don't spend it very efficiently. Hence why all their programs are going bankrupt... OIC, so you're saying that the government can't be efficient? And have you heard about starving the beast? I strongly disagree that taxes themselves are the problem here. Well, for starters, I don't think federal government can be efficient, because it's trying to efficiently spend money over an entire nation of people that all have different needs. So far it's never been successful. Each and every one of its programs have failed. The department of education has risen the cost of education and lowered the quality, and in particular student loans have created severe economic problems. Same for healthcare, the cost of health care is now higher and less accessible. I don't advocate this idea that lowering taxes will lower spending. I advocate that we need to do both at the same time. In fact, tax rates seem to have almost nothing to do with government spending. Raise tax rates, lower tax rates, government spending always seems to increase. You do know these programs are often not allowed to compete most often because of provisions put forth by republicans and "business minded people" so often the programs fill segments that either have no competition to begin with or are not allowed to compete if there is competition. Funny you say the department of education has risen which is federal, but education for the most part is state ran and funded so why are you preaching this to the federal government the large majority of that is on state and local level as far a spending goes, most of the federal money going to education is in higher education to which the money is payed back given time.
Haha, yea, it's all getting paid back.... yep, those student loans are just getting paid back so fast it's amazing. And thank goodness it's all so effective that higher education just seems to get more and more expensive the more money that they put into it.
|
On October 29 2011 12:08 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 12:04 semantics wrote:On October 29 2011 11:58 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:53 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 11:47 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:46 semantics wrote:On October 29 2011 11:44 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:41 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 11:39 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:33 HellRoxYa wrote:
[quote]
I'm sorry did you just claim that tax cuts generated more taxes? Wasn't a very good tax cut then, was it? Think of it this way. Tax people 100%. No one works because no one has any money. Lower tax to 90% - more people getting money and spending money, more money to tax. Sure, except that your scenario isn't connected to reality. Even if you were to refine your argument it's still overly simplistic. The argument goes down to 80%, and 70%, and 60%. Obviously it has diminishing returns the lower you get, but the obvious truth is this: The more money the gov takes from you, the less you spend, and the less there is demand in the economy to produce more goods, thus less overall productivity, and less revenue. Funny i was unaware that the government took the money and then burned it and did not participate in an economy Well they do but they don't spend it very efficiently. Hence why all their programs are going bankrupt... OIC, so you're saying that the government can't be efficient? And have you heard about starving the beast? I strongly disagree that taxes themselves are the problem here. Well, for starters, I don't think federal government can be efficient, because it's trying to efficiently spend money over an entire nation of people that all have different needs. So far it's never been successful. Each and every one of its programs have failed. The department of education has risen the cost of education and lowered the quality, and in particular student loans have created severe economic problems. Same for healthcare, the cost of health care is now higher and less accessible. I don't advocate this idea that lowering taxes will lower spending. I advocate that we need to do both at the same time. In fact, tax rates seem to have almost nothing to do with government spending. Raise tax rates, lower tax rates, government spending always seems to increase. You do know these programs are often not allowed to compete most often because of provisions put forth by republicans and "business minded people" so often the programs fill segments that either have no competition to begin with or are not allowed to compete if there is competition. Funny you say the department of education has risen which is federal, but education for the most part is state ran and funded so why are you preaching this to the federal government the large majority of that is on state and local level as far a spending goes, most of the federal money going to education is in higher education to which the money is payed back given time. Haha, yea, it's all getting paid back.... yep, those student loans are just getting paid back so fast it's amazing. And thank goodness it's all so effective that higher education just seems to get more and more expensive the more money that they put into it.
Really sarcasm is your response? You claim education spending has increased over the years i point out the majority of education spending is on the state and level level, and really the only federal spending is on loans to higher education. And you respond with sarcasm? How does that disprove that federal taxes ie petition congress for lower taxes and shit is better? Perhaps next you'll point out how much government spending has increased and congress needs to lower taxes for business! Which is a freaking lie, business again pay most of their taxes to STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NOT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Yes taxing has gone up as a % of GDP over the years but not due to the federal government due to state and local governments spending more, so why are you complaining to congress?
And you say cost of education has gone up, but again you're ignoring the defunding per the student at the state and local level and thus tuition hikes! If you look at private institutions their price has not gone up in the same manner but it has gone up and it has been going up long before government guaranteed loans where risk free. It's funny how the free market effects everything except schools, weird how you assume the cost to run a school stays the same as it always is, some reason the cost of electricity is the same as it always been, weird how a school is suppose to run at the same cost when it takes on 100 times more students. Funny how your free marking thinking doesn't work on schools which some how are except from inflation, number of students going, cost of running a school ie hiring new faculty or expansion.
|
On October 29 2011 11:39 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:33 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 10:57 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2011 14:19 InvalidID wrote:On October 28 2011 12:57 BioNova wrote:
What a deficit is by definition? How much is ours?, How many taxes we have(not low) currently, and what it would take to support Government at current levels, plus projected growth of government spending. This as you say 'is' happening. What do you mean taxes are not low? They are extremely low. The following is a graph of the historic marginal income tax for the highest bracket: The only times in the last 100 years that they have been lower have been extremely short periods in the 1920s and the late 1980's early 1990s. Guess what happened when Regan lowered taxes in the 1980s? A massive increase in the deficit, and no major stimulus to economic growth. Note that in the "golden age" of the American middle class, in the 1950's-1960's the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket was 90%. Tax revenue increased due the Reagan tax cuts. The deficit still grew because Congress outspent the increase. Growth too, spanning many years. These things aren't passed in a vacuum - recessions still cyclically occur. Take data from 1981 (top marginal rates cut) to 1988. No, we're not idiots for believing tax cuts generate economic growth and, when taxes are high, even get additional revenue I'm sorry did you just claim that tax cuts generated more taxes? Wasn't a very good tax cut then, was it? Think of it this way. Tax people 100%. No one works it's pointless. Any money they get will just be taken from them anyways. Lower tax to 90% - more people getting money and spending money, more money to tax. Obviously this formula has diminishing returns at some point, but it's a pretty good argument against excessive taxation.
The Laffer Curve (the idea that lower taxes generate additional revenue), has little supporting empirical evidence outside of cases of extreme tax rates. http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_L000015 states that the academically accepted point at which the Laffer curve comes into effect is around 70% marginal tax rate. The highest marginal tax rate in the US is 35%.
In nominal terms the revenue increased, but the GDP increased also(not at any higher rate then pre-tax cut, as a quick look at a historical GDP graph will tell you). But in terms of a percentage of GDP they decreased note: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables[1].pdf. So basically as a percentage of the economy the taxes decreased(as is logical by lowering taxes), but a commensurate increase in the rate of growth did not occur. When you have more people doing more productive things, you need more infrastructure to support them, and you need to pay federal employees more to ensure they are competitive to the equivalent type of private employee.
In terms of spending, the CBO table demonstrates that revenues have remained around 20% of GDP, while tax revenues have consistently fallen, as a percentage of GDP.
|
On October 29 2011 11:39 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:33 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 10:57 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2011 14:19 InvalidID wrote:On October 28 2011 12:57 BioNova wrote:
What a deficit is by definition? How much is ours?, How many taxes we have(not low) currently, and what it would take to support Government at current levels, plus projected growth of government spending. This as you say 'is' happening. What do you mean taxes are not low? They are extremely low. The following is a graph of the historic marginal income tax for the highest bracket: The only times in the last 100 years that they have been lower have been extremely short periods in the 1920s and the late 1980's early 1990s. Guess what happened when Regan lowered taxes in the 1980s? A massive increase in the deficit, and no major stimulus to economic growth. Note that in the "golden age" of the American middle class, in the 1950's-1960's the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket was 90%. Tax revenue increased due the Reagan tax cuts. The deficit still grew because Congress outspent the increase. Growth too, spanning many years. These things aren't passed in a vacuum - recessions still cyclically occur. Take data from 1981 (top marginal rates cut) to 1988. No, we're not idiots for believing tax cuts generate economic growth and, when taxes are high, even get additional revenue I'm sorry did you just claim that tax cuts generated more taxes? Wasn't a very good tax cut then, was it? Think of it this way. Tax people 100%. No one works it's pointless. Any money they get will just be taken from them anyways. Lower tax to 90% - more people getting money and spending money, more money to tax. Obviously this formula has diminishing returns at some point, but it's a pretty good argument against excessive taxation.
Let's take the equally dumb counter to this "argument".
Make taxes 0%. Woot no government!
So how does this work exactly?
When you deal with extremes and try to reach conclusions using that logic you end up falling flat on your face because, in reality, we're not dealing with 90% tax rates. We're dealing with almost 0% tax rates on many businesses (or even lower). You recognize the problem with a 100% tax rate. Why is it that you do not recognize the opposite, and far more realistic problem?
EDIT: And I failed to mention the fact that many right-wingers cry excessive taxation at almost any given level of tax.
They never give an optimal level of taxation, they just cry that taxes are too high. They're perpetually "too high" and there's no clear definition as to what makes them "too high." There is no argument here.
|
There was a great interview on PBS with two of my journalistic heroes, Amy Goodman and Chris Hedges. Mr. Hedges points out that the brilliance and strength of this movement is that there is no "cult of personality" or bad guy/scapegoat to go after.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11961
OT: By the way no one has seemed to mention the bombshell of a study the Koch Brothers did on Climate Change here on TL. :D
Good times for the Left... good times.
|
On October 29 2011 12:56 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:39 shinosai wrote:On October 29 2011 11:33 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 29 2011 10:57 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2011 14:19 InvalidID wrote:On October 28 2011 12:57 BioNova wrote:
What a deficit is by definition? How much is ours?, How many taxes we have(not low) currently, and what it would take to support Government at current levels, plus projected growth of government spending. This as you say 'is' happening. What do you mean taxes are not low? They are extremely low. The following is a graph of the historic marginal income tax for the highest bracket: The only times in the last 100 years that they have been lower have been extremely short periods in the 1920s and the late 1980's early 1990s. Guess what happened when Regan lowered taxes in the 1980s? A massive increase in the deficit, and no major stimulus to economic growth. Note that in the "golden age" of the American middle class, in the 1950's-1960's the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket was 90%. Tax revenue increased due the Reagan tax cuts. The deficit still grew because Congress outspent the increase. Growth too, spanning many years. These things aren't passed in a vacuum - recessions still cyclically occur. Take data from 1981 (top marginal rates cut) to 1988. No, we're not idiots for believing tax cuts generate economic growth and, when taxes are high, even get additional revenue I'm sorry did you just claim that tax cuts generated more taxes? Wasn't a very good tax cut then, was it? Think of it this way. Tax people 100%. No one works it's pointless. Any money they get will just be taken from them anyways. Lower tax to 90% - more people getting money and spending money, more money to tax. Obviously this formula has diminishing returns at some point, but it's a pretty good argument against excessive taxation. Let's take the equally dumb counter to this "argument". Make taxes 0%. Woot no government! So how does this work exactly? When you deal with extremes and try to reach conclusions using that logic you end up falling flat on your face because, in reality, we're not dealing with 90% tax rates. We're dealing with almost 0% tax rates on many businesses (or even lower). You recognize the problem with a 100% tax rate. Why is it that you do not recognize the opposite, and far more realistic problem? EDIT: And I failed to mention the fact that many right-wingers cry excessive taxation at almost any given level of tax. They never give an optimal level of taxation, they just cry that taxes are too high. They're perpetually "too high" and there's no clear definition as to what makes them "too high." There is no argument here.
Well, that was my argument against extreme taxation, because you have a lot of people arguing to tax millionaires until they bleed. I don't think this is a good idea. The idea of trickle down economics is not one that I particularly hold a lot of stock in, although there is some truth to it in a pure capitalist system, that is not what we have today. Therefore, cutting taxes on the rich to nearly 0% would not benefit the rest of us, nor would it increase tax revenue due to diminishing returns past extremes. Lowering taxes on the rich can only be beneficial if government spending is at the same time reduced, otherwise, that reduction must be made up in some other way. Furthermore, it is necessary that the additional money gained by the business by not paying taxes is actually put back into the economy, rather than perhaps overseas or unproductive means such as speculation. Otherwise, again, it doesn't help.
Now as for what our actual tax rate should be, it should reflect how much we spend. Now if you think we should drastically reduce spending, obviously, the tax rate should reflect that. If you want to keep spending at current levels, then obviously we need higher tax rates. But reality is that at some point spending becomes unsustainable. We definitely are at that level currently, I believe.
|
|
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 29 2011 12:08 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 12:04 semantics wrote:
You do know these programs are often not allowed to compete most often because of provisions put forth by republicans and "business minded people" so often the programs fill segments that either have no competition to begin with or are not allowed to compete if there is competition. Funny you say the department of education has risen which is federal, but education for the most part is state ran and funded so why are you preaching this to the federal government the large majority of that is on state and local level as far a spending goes, most of the federal money going to education is in higher education to which the money is payed back given time. Haha, yea, it's all getting paid back.... yep, those student loans are just getting paid back so fast it's amazing. And thank goodness it's all so effective that higher education just seems to get more and more expensive the more money that they put into it.
Obama and congress has a payment cap and debt forgiveness program for student loans. Any student may cap their student loan payments at 10% of their disposable income and the debt will be wiped out after 20 years. Seems like the the administration is admitting that the higher education money isn't going to be paid back in given time.
|
A generous friend is offering a $4,000 reward for the identify of the policeman who shot Scott Olsen.
The officer can likely be seen in publicly available videos (see this and this). But his badge and face are not visible.
Similarly, Anonymous is already leaking names and information of officers in the Oakland P.D., but it is still difficult for outsiders to identify the shooter.
As such, the tip will likely have to come from someone within the Oakland Police Department or the other law enforcement agencies present at the protest.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
