EPTThe Goddamn Economy: A Civilized Version - Page 36
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
il0seonpurpose
Korea (South)5638 Posts
| ||
|
Piretes
Netherlands218 Posts
Obama certainly realizes how taxes work, and I think his treasury secretary does understand it quite a bit better than you. I'm not exactly 100% sure how American taxes work, but I'm certain that there is a tax on equity, so the ultrarich will not get out unscathed. Furthermore, if you read the article, the plan cuts taxes for an estimated 97% of businesses, and If I might dare say so, I think this is especially true for smaller buisnesses owned by the (upper-)middle class. Next time read the article, thanks. | ||
|
gchan
United States654 Posts
On March 04 2009 17:38 Piretes wrote: gchan I wouldn't call 500000+ a year upper-middle class. Obama certainly realizes how taxes work, and I think his treasury secretary does understand it quite a bit better than you. I'm not exactly 100% sure how American taxes work, but I'm certain that there is a tax on equity, so the ultrarich will not get out unscathed. Furthermore, if you read the article, the plan cuts taxes for an estimated 97% of businesses, and If I might dare say so, I think this is especially true for smaller buisnesses owned by the (upper-)middle class. Next time read the article, thanks. If you want to talk taxes, lets talk taxes. First off, have you ever run a small business or looked at the books of a small business? $250,000-$750,000 is not a lot of profit, especially given the fact that most of the owners of these businesses are putting in 100 hour weeks. Sure, they may get $500,000 in profit in one year, but any smart business owner knows that is not discretionary money. Small businsses face a pretty volatile climate (especially nowadays) and almost all of that money is going to be reinvested back into the business. But for tax purposes, it will look like they have made $500,000 in that fiscal year so they will be taxed as if they made $500,000 in a year. They get taxed for making more money, but they don't get tax benefits for putting money into their business. Sucks, huh? Secondly, his treasury secretary understands exactly how it works...as does his press secretary. Saying that he will close the deficit and he is giving 95% individuals and 97% businesses is good for PR and confidence. But have you looked at this actual proposed budget? You criticize me for not reading the article, but why don't you try reading the actual budget. His "tax breaks" for individuals include tax credits incentives like green cars. The way he calculated 95% of the population getting tax breaks is he took the amount of americans who are getting actual income tax breaks (like 2/3-3/4), then added an additional 20-30% for those in the mid-upper middle class by giving them tax credits. He made the assumption that all those in that top 1/3 of the population will be doing things that have tax credits with them (like buying green cars, when they probably wouldn't be)..and called those tax breaks. Their net tax is actually going to increase because the income tax increase for them is not going to be offset by a tiny credit they are getting back. That's Obama's definition of "tax break." For small businesses, he got the figure for 97% mostly by simply increasing the amount and duration businesses can carry their net operating losses. If a business runs in the negative for the year, they can usually carry their losses to be used in the next tax year--to a limit, and for only a certain duration of time. Obama's "tax break" for 97% of the businesses is simply increasing the amount they can report in the next tax year and increase the duration they can carry them. The small businesses are not actually getting any more cash back from the government because of real legitimate tax breaks. Thirdly, no, there are no taxes on equity that is not cashed in. The new budget has nothing on it. Again, another PR stunt to say he is going to close the budget deficit. He is simply raising the capital gains tax rate; he creates his estimates by taking the amount of taxes from capital gains in the last fiscal year and tacking on an extra 5-10% for his new tax hikes. In reality, if there are higher tax rates, people are not going to cash in as many stocks. Lastly, though you didn't mention anything about it, when I took a closer look at his budget, I just realized that his tax revenue is based on 3.5% growth in 2010 and 5.2% in 2011. Somehow, I don't exactly see that happening and I don't see our budget being closed by half of what it is now. But hey, if boosts our consumer confidence, I'm all for it. Even if it comes with the side benefit of selling more votes. Edit: profit != revenue Edit 2: Now that I reread what I posted, sorry I'm coming off as an ass. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
| ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
the ammount that writes off, is huge. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On March 05 2009 04:20 gchan wrote: Lastly, though you didn't mention anything about it, when I took a closer look at his budget, I just realized that his tax revenue is based on 3.5% growth in 2009 and 5.5% in 2010. Somehow, I don't exactly see that happening and I don't see our budget being closed by half of what it is now. But hey, if boosts our consumer confidence, I'm all for it. Even if it comes with the side benefit of selling more votes. Budget assumptions are growth of -1.2% in 09 and 3.6 in 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Summary_Tables2.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/Economic-Projections-and-the-Budge-Outlook/ EDIT: Looking at that projected 12.3% deficit for 09 and a 25 percentage point increase in public debt in two years sends shivers down my spine. | ||
|
gchan
United States654 Posts
| ||
|
gchan
United States654 Posts
On March 05 2009 04:36 L wrote: Wow, you really need to learn the difference between taxable income and revenue. Erm, you're right. I meant to make that first paragraph mean profit, not revenue. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
| ||
|
Piretes
Netherlands218 Posts
I assummed that the tax cuts were indeed tax cuts and not subisidies for green cars and the like (not a crazy assumption imo), if this is just PR forgive me. I agree that tax policy should promote enterprise in these days of recession, but disagree that this should be done with income tax cuts for the upper middle class. Of course, if these tax increases indeed play out to harm buisness, they are a bad idea. However, I think that instead of not raising these taxes, American tax code should be rewritten to allow profits to be invested in the own company without being registered as income tax (I'm pretty sure that this is the case in most of Europe). I'm sure you agree with me on this. God tax policy is strange in the U.S. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On March 02 2009 08:36 warding wrote: Moltke, I only posted information from other sources, they are not my 'prophecies', nor did I claim that an economic recovery is under way. The implicit message is that, as far as we know, the expectations for this recession are nowhere near as bad as the great depression. This was in response to some posters claiming that this seemed like it was going to be comparable to the great depression. I'm only comparing their expectations to the expectations of economists who understand the subject better. Of course you can disregard these forecasts on the basis that economists have been wrong before. We'll, economists have always admitted a great deal of uncertainty in their forecasts. They are aware of the unpredictability of recessions. However difficult it may be to predict future economic events, it may still be useful. A great deal of economists are employed for this purpose across numerous industries and institutions you know. Which economists know better, wardo? The economists at the Federal Reserve Board, or the White House Administration? The people who forecast early recoveries now are the same people who have been forecasting recoveries since the first symptoms of economic crisis. The people who forecast potential depressions are the people who have been warning us since the same time that the situation would continue to worsen. Not that I'm too worried about what your beliefs are. I'm simply a little disappointed by the origins of your opinions.  And here's where we are stepping out of positive economics towards normative stuff. This discussion isn't more about 'what is', being instead of 'what ought to be'. I believe I have much less of a problem with income inequality than you do, not because one of us has a better understanding of economics, but because we hold vales/beliefs/morals whatever. We should keep this discussion out of this thread though. Here is another example of your moral cowardice, wardo. Your attitudes toward inequality should be similar to mine if you had any imagination. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
What are your attitudes toward inequality? | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On March 06 2009 05:35 warding wrote: I'm not putting money on economists' predictions of how this recession will pan out, Moltke. Some people were stating that it looked like this recession would end up being as bad as the great depression. I compared those forecasts to the forecasts of panels of economists which are arguably the best available forecasts we have. If the best forecasts we have say it's not going to be as bad, then I don't see why we should expect much worse. What are your attitudes toward inequality? Here's your argument, wardo: My friend LeMan says that tomorrow it will rain, this other guy, Lom, says that tomorrow it will snow. I say that LeMan is smarter than Lom, but I don't say whether it will rain or snow tomorrow. If it does indeed snow tomorrow, I shall still be right, because my pronouncement on the relative intellects of LeMan and Lom shall be unrelated to their relative tendencies toward error. You cannot play the game without betting your hands, wardo. No one will give honour to a scoundrel who has none to wager. | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On March 06 2009 05:35 warding wrote: I compared those forecasts to the forecasts of panels of economists which are arguably the best available forecasts we have. If the best forecasts we have say it's not going to be as bad, then I don't see why we should expect much worse. How many of them predicted this in 2006? Why should you believe they are they right now when they were wrong then? In fact, the people predicting another great depression in 2006 were more accurate than those economists. | ||
|
shmay
United States1091 Posts
On March 06 2009 13:47 fight_or_flight wrote: How many of them predicted this in 2006? Why should you believe they are they right now when they were wrong then? In fact, the people predicting another great depression in 2006 were more accurate than those economists. Yeah, a couple of the guys who predicted the housing crisis extremely accurately (Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers), are both very bearish on the American economy | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
I think microeconomists tend to agree with this. House Minority Leader John Boehner agreed. "The era of big government is back," he said. Boehner can go fuck himself. Fucking partisan bullshit, everyone knows him and every other Republican (Paul is ideologically independent) loves big government, they just want it directed towards their issues. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
| ||
|
gchan
United States654 Posts
On March 06 2009 14:08 shmay wrote: Yeah, a couple of the guys who predicted the housing crisis extremely accurately (Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers), are both very bearish on the American economy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw Economic prediction in contemporary times is such bullshit. I mean, really, if you have millions of economists typing, of course one of them is going to turn out the works of shakespeare. And it's even worse when you try to get politicians to do the predicting. And that's the beauty of the free market; it's not driven by individual predictions, it's driven by something more innate to people--greed. Sure, people get hurt in the process and people become poor, but the free market has the ability to adapt a lot better than any economist or politician could. | ||
|
shmay
United States1091 Posts
On March 06 2009 15:45 gchan wrote: Economic prediction in contemporary times is such bullshit. I mean, really, if you have millions of economists typing, of course one of them is going to turn out the works of shakespeare. And it's even worse when you try to get politicians to do the predicting. And that's the beauty of the free market; it's not driven by individual predictions, it's driven by something more innate to people--greed. Sure, people get hurt in the process and people become poor, but the free market has the ability to adapt a lot better than any economist or politician could. I agree, but Schiff really does know his stuff, and he's about as free-market as they come (Ron Paul's economic advisor). | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On March 04 2009 06:19 ahrara_ wrote: Even though the US has an absolute advantage in every respect to most nations with which we trade, other nations could have a comparative advantage. For reasons that have already been described, while some of that wealth is taken back to the home country, much of it remains in the "exploited" country in the form of wages and added productivity. Actually "could have a comparative advantage" should be "WILL have a comparative advantage" as long as the 2 countries are not identical in their production abilities or tradeoffs. If 2 countries are different at all, then they will both always have a comparative advantage in something..even if they are a very undeveloped or unproductive country. | ||
| ||
