|
|
On September 01 2012 02:02 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 01:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:On September 01 2012 01:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 01 2012 00:57 Zaqwert wrote:
Thinking tax cuts "cause" deficits just shows you how warped people's point of view is.
The money does not inherently belong to the government, it belongs to the people.
The government should be happy with whatever tax revenue they have and make do with it.
The fundamental problem with the insane deficits is because the government spends way, way, way too much money, not because it doesn't bring in enough tax revenue. Did you fail math or what? Deficit = Spending - Revenue. Therefore, when revenues goes down, deficits go up. If you keep raising taxes on income (which is the opposite of what the Bush tax cuts did), people with enough to get by on their current investments will stop gaining income. Because they don't want to lose even more of what they make. Raising taxes like this will incentivize people to not work and gain an income. The end result is that the government can't tax an income that isn't there, so overall there is a net decrease in revenue. I really doubt that's true. Not with a graduated income tax rate. What it does encourage is people that are on the border between one tax rate and another, to do something to drop their taxable income by donating to charities or tying it up in RRSP's. That way they can drop down a tax bracket and get more back on their tax return. But once you're firmly in the higher tax bracket, you might as well make more money. Because an income of $2million is still more than $1million even if you are paying more taxes than you would at $1million. Not that there's a different tax bracket between the two. The largest tax bracket is + $132K at 29%. There's no difference between making 200K and 1M so you might as well make the 1M if you can. Only in a tax system where there is an income cap, (You can make $500K and no more) are people going to try stopping making more money. Or if the graduated tax is dumb by pehaps tax 80% of your income at the highest bracket. There I could seem people giving up. But not at near 30%.
Tax brackets generally dont even work like that. The usual system is you pay lets say 10% over the first 50k, then 20% over the next 50k. If you make 55k you thus pay 0.10 x 50 + 0.20 x 5 = 6k.
There's no way where you can drop down a bracket and have a higher disposable income, or there shouldn't be in a well designed tax system.
|
On September 01 2012 01:53 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:
Under Jonny's logic, if Obama spent $~1 trillion on making bricks to be dumped into the Pacific ocean, we shouldn't blame him for blowing up the deficit. That would only be 40% of a $~2.5 trillion deficit. What about the other 60%? The other 60% is the marginal spending increases or tax cuts beyond the CBO baseline. You should include it along with the $1T in brick chucking. Otherwise you are just being dishonest. What? The other 60% IS the baseline. Under this example, the baseline is $1.5 trillion in deficit, then brick chucking causes the deficit to blow up another $1 trillion beyond the baseline. Just like how the baseline when Bush was first put in office was to have indefinite surpluses, but his policies blew up the budget, causing trillions more dollars spent relative to the baseline. If you increase the deficit more than the baseline, then you've made the deficit worse, if you reduce the deficit relative to the baseline, than you've made it better. Bush did the former.
Let's use this report here.
First let's ignore economic and technical changes to the baseline and just focus on policy changes.
Let's also make one more change - the CBO does not include a line item for war costs so let's use the CBPP's number and take it from discretionary spending.
For 2010 (last year of the Bush tax cuts) - the percentages refer to the change in the CBO 2001 baseline estimate.
Bush Tax Cuts 12%
War Costs 8%
ARRA 19%
Other Tax & Spend 10%
Discretionary Spending 28%
Medicare Part D 3%
TARP 0%
Net Interest 19%
In total these policy changes moved the CBO baseline $1.5T more towards the red. Interest would still need to be allocated - which would make Bush-era percentages higher but that would apply to discretionary spending as well as the tax cuts and wars. The important thing is that we are not longer ignoring the increase in discretionary spending or the other small tax and spend policy changed that occurred under Bush.
|
On September 01 2012 01:55 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 01:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:On September 01 2012 01:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 01 2012 00:57 Zaqwert wrote:
Thinking tax cuts "cause" deficits just shows you how warped people's point of view is.
The money does not inherently belong to the government, it belongs to the people.
The government should be happy with whatever tax revenue they have and make do with it.
The fundamental problem with the insane deficits is because the government spends way, way, way too much money, not because it doesn't bring in enough tax revenue. Did you fail math or what? Deficit = Spending - Revenue. Therefore, when revenues goes down, deficits go up. If you keep raising taxes on income (which is the opposite of what the Bush tax cuts did), people with enough to get by on their current investments will stop gaining income. Because they don't want to lose even more of what they make. Raising taxes like this will incentivize people to not work and gain an income. The end result is that the government can't tax an income that isn't there, so overall there is a net decrease in revenue. On the flip side, if you decrease those income taxes, you incentivize people to invest and go to work and earn money. More people gain an income, and the government receives more revenue, albeit less per person, but overall it's a net gain. I agree that "Deficit = Spending - Revenue," but raising taxes does not automatically raise revenue; it's more complicated than that. Plus, you have to fill out a US tax form every year that you have an income. That alone is almost enough to make me stop earning money, lol. (okay, I'm being more than a little fascetious there.... X-D but it IS incredibly frustrating to complete) Yes, it gets to the point where lowering taxes DOES eventually decrease tax revenue, and vice versa, but we've not hit that yet. I predict we won't hit that for a long, long while, too. Peak of the Laffer curve is 70%.
That's to maximize government revenue, not economic activity, correct?
|
Ben Bernanke's speech today: http://federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20120831a.htm
Rather than attributing the slow recovery to longer-term structural factors, I see growth being held back currently by a number of headwinds. First, although the housing sector has shown signs of improvement, housing activity remains at low levels and is contributing much less to the recovery than would normally be expected at this stage of the cycle.
Second, fiscal policy, at both the federal and state and local levels, has become an important headwind for the pace of economic growth. Notwithstanding some recent improvement in tax revenues, state and local governments still face tight budget situations and continue to cut real spending and employment. Real purchases are also declining at the federal level. Uncertainties about fiscal policy, notably about the resolution of the so-called fiscal cliff and the lifting of the debt ceiling, are probably also restraining activity, although the magnitudes of these effects are hard to judge.30 It is critical that fiscal policymakers put in place a credible plan that sets the federal budget on a sustainable trajectory in the medium and longer runs. However, policymakers should take care to avoid a sharp near-term fiscal contraction that could endanger the recovery.
Third, stresses in credit and financial markets continue to restrain the economy. Earlier in the recovery, limited credit availability was an important factor holding back growth, and tight borrowing conditions for some potential homebuyers and small businesses remain a problem today. More recently, however, a major source of financial strains has been uncertainty about developments in Europe. These strains are most problematic for the Europeans, of course, but through global trade and financial linkages, the effects of the European situation on the U.S. economy are significant as well. Some recent policy proposals in Europe have been quite constructive, in my view, and I urge our European colleagues to press ahead with policy initiatives to resolve the crisis.
Basically, stop the austerity now, and have a creditable plan for reducing the deficit over the long run, not blow it up with $4 trillion in tax cuts for the rich that is "mathematically impossible" to pay for within the promises of the Romney/Ryan plan.
|
Canada11450 Posts
On September 01 2012 02:08 Rassy wrote:
What it does encourage is people that are on the border between one tax rate and another, to do something to drop their taxable income by donating to charities or tying it up in RRSP's
Not even this.
You pay 25% on your first 50k
Then you pay 50% on the next 200k
And then you pay 60% on everything above that.
If you make 60k you will pay 25% on 50k and 50% on 10k
You will never ever be better off by voluntarely lowering your income (off course i would like to add)
(numbers used are just an example)
Oh you're right. I was thinking that the government allows charity donations to be tax free. So if would have done that anyways, that's awesome. But it doesn't actually save you taxes or increase your income. Right. So I stand by my main point which is a graduated income tax doesn't change the desire to make more money. Unless it's stupid and takes most of your additional income.
|
On September 01 2012 01:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +If you keep raising taxes on income (which is the opposite of what the Bush tax cuts did), people with enough to get by on their current investments will stop gaining income. Because they don't want to lose even more of what they make. Raising taxes like this will incentivize people to not work and gain an income. The end result is that the government can't tax an income that isn't there, so overall there is a net decrease in revenue.
On the flip side, if you decrease those income taxes, you incentivize people to invest and go to work and earn money. More people gain an income, and the government receives more revenue, albeit less per person, but overall it's a net gain. I agree that "Deficit = Spending - Revenue," but raising taxes does not automatically raise revenue; it's more complicated than that.
Plus, you have to fill out a US tax form every year that you have an income. That alone is almost enough to make me stop earning money, lol. (okay, I'm being more than a little fascetious there.... X-D but it IS incredibly frustrating to complete)
Yes, it gets to the point where lowering taxes DOES eventually decrease tax revenue, and vice versa, but we've not hit that yet. I predict we won't hit that for a long, long while, too. Obviously if you tax a ridiculous amount of money out of the highest classes then it will cause problems, but pretty much every other developed country in the world taxes significantly more than we do at every level (and usually taxes the upper classes more than the middle/lower classes) and their economies are far better off than hours. Explain that before you continue the abstract theorycrafting. If higher taxes were inherently bad, we'd see the effects across ever European nation, but we aren't.
Indeed. We might be seeing that ridiculous tax figure in France very soon.
Why do you think the US outsources so many jobs to other countries? The labor is cheaper there too. Companies will send their work and make their products wherever it's cheapest. Lower taxes, lower minimum wage, more foreign business.
On September 01 2012 02:02 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 01:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:On September 01 2012 01:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 01 2012 00:57 Zaqwert wrote:
Thinking tax cuts "cause" deficits just shows you how warped people's point of view is.
The money does not inherently belong to the government, it belongs to the people.
The government should be happy with whatever tax revenue they have and make do with it.
The fundamental problem with the insane deficits is because the government spends way, way, way too much money, not because it doesn't bring in enough tax revenue. Did you fail math or what? Deficit = Spending - Revenue. Therefore, when revenues goes down, deficits go up. If you keep raising taxes on income (which is the opposite of what the Bush tax cuts did), people with enough to get by on their current investments will stop gaining income. Because they don't want to lose even more of what they make. Raising taxes like this will incentivize people to not work and gain an income. The end result is that the government can't tax an income that isn't there, so overall there is a net decrease in revenue. I really doubt that's true. Not with a graduated income tax rate. What it does encourage is people that are on the border between one tax rate and another, to do something to drop their taxable income by donating to charities or tying it up in RRSP's. That way they can drop down a tax bracket and get more back on their tax return. But once you're firmly in the higher tax bracket, you might as well make more money. Because an income of $2million is still more than $1million even if you are paying more taxes than you would at $1million. Not that there's a different tax bracket between the two. The largest tax bracket is + $132K at 29%. There's no difference between making 200K and 1M so you might as well make the 1M if you can.Only in a tax system where there is an income cap, (You can make $500K and no more) are people going to try stopping making more money. Or if the graduated tax is dumb by pehaps tax 80% of your income at the highest bracket. There I could seem people giving up. But not at near 30%.
I don't know enough about taxes to verify that, but I hope that's true, and I wish that percentage was lower too. It's my belief that the more money one keeps from what they earn, the more they're likely to work for it, and the more likely they're willing to invest in things to help them make more money.
On September 01 2012 01:55 paralleluniverse wrote:
Peak of the Laffer curve is 70%.
Never seen the peak given a value before. Mind pointing me to it?
Ah, I think I found it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LafferCurve.svg . That says "possible" underneath it. :-\
On September 01 2012 02:08 Rassy wrote:
What it does encourage is people that are on the border between one tax rate and another, to do something to drop their taxable income by donating to charities or tying it up in RRSP's
Not even this.
You pay 25% on your first 50k
Then you pay 50% on the next 200k
And then you pay 60% on everything above that.
If you make 60k you will pay 25% on 50k and 50% on 10k
You will never ever be better off by voluntarely lowering your income (off course i would like to add)
(numbers used are just an example)
I've been withheld ~25% through taxes already, and I won't make 20k this year.... T_T
|
|
|
On September 01 2012 02:20 paralleluniverse wrote:Ben Bernanke's speech today: http://federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20120831a.htmShow nested quote + Rather than attributing the slow recovery to longer-term structural factors, I see growth being held back currently by a number of headwinds. First, although the housing sector has shown signs of improvement, housing activity remains at low levels and is contributing much less to the recovery than would normally be expected at this stage of the cycle.
Second, fiscal policy, at both the federal and state and local levels, has become an important headwind for the pace of economic growth. Notwithstanding some recent improvement in tax revenues, state and local governments still face tight budget situations and continue to cut real spending and employment. Real purchases are also declining at the federal level. Uncertainties about fiscal policy, notably about the resolution of the so-called fiscal cliff and the lifting of the debt ceiling, are probably also restraining activity, although the magnitudes of these effects are hard to judge.30 It is critical that fiscal policymakers put in place a credible plan that sets the federal budget on a sustainable trajectory in the medium and longer runs. However, policymakers should take care to avoid a sharp near-term fiscal contraction that could endanger the recovery.
Third, stresses in credit and financial markets continue to restrain the economy. Earlier in the recovery, limited credit availability was an important factor holding back growth, and tight borrowing conditions for some potential homebuyers and small businesses remain a problem today. More recently, however, a major source of financial strains has been uncertainty about developments in Europe. These strains are most problematic for the Europeans, of course, but through global trade and financial linkages, the effects of the European situation on the U.S. economy are significant as well. Some recent policy proposals in Europe have been quite constructive, in my view, and I urge our European colleagues to press ahead with policy initiatives to resolve the crisis. Basically, stop the austerity now, and have a creditable plan for reducing the deficit over the long run, not blow it up with $4 trillion in tax cuts for the rich that is "mathematically impossible" to pay for within the promises of the Romney/Ryan plan.
There's no austerity now. Uncle Ben doesn't want to see the fiscal cliff occur, which would be relative austerity to today.
|
Canada11450 Posts
Show nested quote +
On September 01 2012 02:02 Falling wrote:
I really doubt that's true. Not with a graduated income tax rate. What it does encourage is people that are on the border between one tax rate and another, to do something to drop their taxable income by donating to charities or tying it up in RRSP's. That way they can drop down a tax bracket and get more back on their tax return.
But once you're firmly in the higher tax bracket, you might as well make more money. Because an income of $2million is still more than $1million even if you are paying more taxes than you would at $1million. Not that there's a different tax bracket between the two. The largest tax bracket is + $132K at 29%. There's no difference between making 200K and 1M so you might as well make the 1M if you can.
Only in a tax system where there is an income cap, (You can make $500K and no more) are people going to try stopping making more money. Or if the graduated tax is dumb by pehaps tax 80% of your income at the highest bracket. There I could seem people giving up. But not at near 30%.
I don't know enough about taxes to verify that, but I hope that's true, and I wish that percentage was lower too. It's my belief that the more money one keeps from what they earn, the more they're likely to work for it, and the more likely they're willing to invest in things to help them make more money.
Well think of it this way. You make 200K, so the first 132K is taxed at a lower rate that I won't worry about because the base amount will be the same. Let's say $25K is taken away. That leaves 70K left to be taxed at 29% So another 20K is taxed. So that leaves you with $155K actual income.
Let's say you make 2M. Again the first 132K is taxed at 25K. The additional 1.86M is taxed at 29%. 540K is taxed. So what you're left with is around 1.4M actual income. Sure 540K is a lot of taxes gone. But 1.4M is considerably more than 155K and definitely worth earning if you can manage it.
It's not enough to make guy go. Screw it. I don't want to pay 500K in taxes so I won't make 1.4M per year. I'll just sit here at 155K and sulk.
(I am estimating numbers)
|
On September 01 2012 02:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 01:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 01 2012 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:
Under Jonny's logic, if Obama spent $~1 trillion on making bricks to be dumped into the Pacific ocean, we shouldn't blame him for blowing up the deficit. That would only be 40% of a $~2.5 trillion deficit. What about the other 60%? The other 60% is the marginal spending increases or tax cuts beyond the CBO baseline. You should include it along with the $1T in brick chucking. Otherwise you are just being dishonest. What? The other 60% IS the baseline. Under this example, the baseline is $1.5 trillion in deficit, then brick chucking causes the deficit to blow up another $1 trillion beyond the baseline. Just like how the baseline when Bush was first put in office was to have indefinite surpluses, but his policies blew up the budget, causing trillions more dollars spent relative to the baseline. If you increase the deficit more than the baseline, then you've made the deficit worse, if you reduce the deficit relative to the baseline, than you've made it better. Bush did the former. Let's use this report here.First let's ignore economic and technical changes to the baseline and just focus on policy changes. Let's also make one more change - the CBO does not include a line item for war costs so let's use the CBPP's number and take it from discretionary spending. For 2010 (last year of the Bush tax cuts) - the percentages refer to the change in the CBO 2001 baseline estimate. Bush Tax Cuts 12% War Costs 8% ARRA 19% Other Tax & Spend 10% Discretionary Spending 28% Medicare Part D 3% TARP 0% Net Interest 19% In total these policy changes moved the CBO baseline $1.5T more towards the red. Interest would still need to be allocated - which would make Bush-era percentages higher but that would apply to discretionary spending as well as the tax cuts and wars. The important thing is that we are not longer ignoring the increase in discretionary spending or the other small tax and spend policy changed that occurred under Bush.
So now you're gonna blame the deficit mostly on "discretionary spending". Discretionary spending includes war spending, so nice double counting. So, wonder why discretionary spending blew up?
Here's the CBO on what "discretionary spending" entails:
Discretionary outlays—the part of federal spending that lawmakers generally control through annual appropriation acts—totaled about $1.35 trillion in 2011, or close to 40 percent of federal outlays. Slightly more than half of that spending was for defense. The remainder went for a wide variety of government programs and activities, with the largest amounts spent for education, training, employment, and social services; transportation; income security (mostly housing and nutrition assistance); veterans' benefits (primarily for health care); health-related research and public health; international affairs; and the administration of justice. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/42728
So now you've linked a CBO report that shows Bush has blown the budget by about $1 trillion beyond the baseline in 2008, and still it's not Bush's fault? And still if Obama had spent $1 trillion on brick dumping, we cannot attribute blame to him for the increase in the deficit in this hypothetical example, because that would neglect the other 60% that is the baseline?
You don't understand baselines. In the CBO report you linked it says that baselines are "designed to provide a benchmark against which to measure future policy changes", to which you say we can't measure the policy changes of Bush, because we haven't accounted for all the other spending that is accounted for in the baseline which is designed to provide a benchmark against which to measure future policy changes.
"Bush blew up the deficit relative to the baseline that's designed to measure whether or not he blew up the deficit."
Ingenious Jonny: "No that's all wrong, you have to consider that the spending that in the baseline contributed to the deficit, so it's not Bush's fault -- it's was the spending that was gonna happen anyway"
|
On September 01 2012 02:36 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +
On September 01 2012 02:02 Falling wrote:
I really doubt that's true. Not with a graduated income tax rate. What it does encourage is people that are on the border between one tax rate and another, to do something to drop their taxable income by donating to charities or tying it up in RRSP's. That way they can drop down a tax bracket and get more back on their tax return.
But once you're firmly in the higher tax bracket, you might as well make more money. Because an income of $2million is still more than $1million even if you are paying more taxes than you would at $1million. Not that there's a different tax bracket between the two. The largest tax bracket is + $132K at 29%. There's no difference between making 200K and 1M so you might as well make the 1M if you can.
Only in a tax system where there is an income cap, (You can make $500K and no more) are people going to try stopping making more money. Or if the graduated tax is dumb by pehaps tax 80% of your income at the highest bracket. There I could seem people giving up. But not at near 30%.
I don't know enough about taxes to verify that, but I hope that's true, and I wish that percentage was lower too. It's my belief that the more money one keeps from what they earn, the more they're likely to work for it, and the more likely they're willing to invest in things to help them make more money. Well think of it this way. You make 200K, so the first 132K is taxed at a lower rate that I won't worry about because the base amount will be the same. Let's say $25K is taken away. That leaves 70K left to be taxed at 29% So another 20K is taxed. So that leaves you with $155K actual income. Let's say you make 2M. Again the first 132K is taxed at 25K. The additional 1.86M is taxed at 29%. 540K is taxed. So what you're left with is around 1.4M actual income. Sure 540K is a lot of taxes gone. But 1.4M is considerably more than 155K and definitely worth earning if you can manage it. It's not enough to make guy go. Screw it. I don't want to pay 500K in taxes so I won't make 1.4M per year. I'll just sit here at 155K and sulk. (I am estimating numbers)
Hmm, mm-kay. Thanks. Goodness, I hate our tax system; why must it be so complicateeeed?... >_< (EDIT: I can't spell today ._. )
|
Why should others get to decide how much of someone else's stuff they get? 51% of people getting together and taking stuff way from those in the minority is somehow ok because it's dressed up in the guise of "taxes" and "government"?
The idea that it's ok to steal from rich people because they'll still have alot is pretty warped IMO.
I consider all taxation violence and theft BTW.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism)
|
On September 01 2012 02:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 02:20 paralleluniverse wrote:Ben Bernanke's speech today: http://federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20120831a.htm Rather than attributing the slow recovery to longer-term structural factors, I see growth being held back currently by a number of headwinds. First, although the housing sector has shown signs of improvement, housing activity remains at low levels and is contributing much less to the recovery than would normally be expected at this stage of the cycle.
Second, fiscal policy, at both the federal and state and local levels, has become an important headwind for the pace of economic growth. Notwithstanding some recent improvement in tax revenues, state and local governments still face tight budget situations and continue to cut real spending and employment. Real purchases are also declining at the federal level. Uncertainties about fiscal policy, notably about the resolution of the so-called fiscal cliff and the lifting of the debt ceiling, are probably also restraining activity, although the magnitudes of these effects are hard to judge.30 It is critical that fiscal policymakers put in place a credible plan that sets the federal budget on a sustainable trajectory in the medium and longer runs. However, policymakers should take care to avoid a sharp near-term fiscal contraction that could endanger the recovery.
Third, stresses in credit and financial markets continue to restrain the economy. Earlier in the recovery, limited credit availability was an important factor holding back growth, and tight borrowing conditions for some potential homebuyers and small businesses remain a problem today. More recently, however, a major source of financial strains has been uncertainty about developments in Europe. These strains are most problematic for the Europeans, of course, but through global trade and financial linkages, the effects of the European situation on the U.S. economy are significant as well. Some recent policy proposals in Europe have been quite constructive, in my view, and I urge our European colleagues to press ahead with policy initiatives to resolve the crisis. Basically, stop the austerity now, and have a creditable plan for reducing the deficit over the long run, not blow it up with $4 trillion in tax cuts for the rich that is "mathematically impossible" to pay for within the promises of the Romney/Ryan plan. There's no austerity now. Uncle Ben doesn't want to see the fiscal cliff occur, which would be relative austerity to today.
"State and local governments still face tight budget situations and continue to cut real spending and employment" isn't austerity only in your world of bizarro-semantics.
Republicans should love the fiscal cliff given their deficit fetishism.
|
Canada11450 Posts
On September 01 2012 02:50 Zaqwert wrote:Why should others get to decide how much of someone else's stuff they get? 51% of people getting together and taking stuff way from those in the minority is somehow ok because it's dressed up in the guise of "taxes" and "government"? The idea that it's ok to steal from rich people because they'll still have alot is pretty warped IMO. I consider all taxation violence and theft BTW. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism)
Oh well. If you are an anarcho-capitalist, then we aren't going to get very far in this thread. Short of violent revolution or dropping off the grid and becoming a self-made homesteader, I'm not sure how you're going to realize your goals as getting rid of the state is a difficult proposition indeed.
|
Anarcho-Capitalism=total stupidity, first few ideas about security being provided by private companies prove it. No abuse by the rich could possible come from that. I am sorry but A.C. is a pipe dream that will never happen. To take a quote from one of my favourite games...
"As long as there is money and guns there won't be any freedom" -John Marston
|
On September 01 2012 02:50 Zaqwert wrote:Why should others get to decide how much of someone else's stuff they get? 51% of people getting together and taking stuff way from those in the minority is somehow ok because it's dressed up in the guise of "taxes" and "government"? The idea that it's ok to steal from rich people because they'll still have alot is pretty warped IMO. I consider all taxation violence and theft BTW. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism)
So how will the state provide for the army, police, firefighters etc.. ? you want that to be also in the hands of companys?
LOL omg
|
On September 01 2012 01:45 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 01:31 coverpunch wrote:On September 01 2012 01:11 shell wrote:
It spends money in military for instance and those are not for the people but for the big guys that don't want to spend more money in taxes, make more money buy selling stuff for the wars!
Or to save the banks that made this fucking "crisis" and make a few more millions for the guys in charge that fucked the world!
yes i'm bitter.. your rich guys don't pay enought taxes to help the low income americans? are they any less because they don't have money?
Is it only their fault? Or the big rich guys that sent american factorys to chine are also to blame? Guess what those are the same that don't want to pay more taxes?
Is it the fault of low income americans that lost their homes because of the suprime crisis? Or is it also the fault of banks and mortgage companys? US saved the banks and the CEOS still got their bonuses but thousands of americans lost their homes.. why didn't the US saved those, instead of the fucking CEOS that had millions in the bank and still refuse to pay taxes when their people and country lose jobs, homes and live off on food stipends?
God bless america... NOT! This is the problem with Occupy Wall Street, you're mixing two separate issues so much that you lose sight of what we should do about it and end up with unacceptable solutions. Americans (not just low income) who fell into debt they can't afford have only themselves to blame. Nobody put a gun to their head and told them to buy houses or acquire debts they can't pay back. They're guilty of greed and all the evils of consumerism. And it's stupid and unfair for them to demand that everyone else pay their debts for them. As the old quote goes, protecting people from the consequences of folly is to populate the world with fools. Now, that's not to say at all that banks bear no blame. They've been stupid and greedy and abusive as well, and yes, CEOs of large institutions have paid themselves handsome rewards for avoiding the penalties they richly deserve. I don't really see outsourcing as a cause so much as a consequence of America's long-term problems and it should reverse if America ever fixes them. But with the fall-out, everyone has fled to the people who have cash, which right now are the rich. Interestingly, you're not blaming the government. It is a disgrace that Obama has refused to prosecute any frauds perpetrated by large banks or the mortgage industry, in the name of status quo and stability. He had his once in a generation chance to change our society and he blew it. Using taxes as slow motion torture on the rich is too little, too late. When he spends money to liquidate financial institutions, he seems to show very little concern about where the money is going or how it's being used. This has led to a lot of bait and switches and confusion about his policies, as you sort of note with using money to help homeowners. What a total crock of bullshit. Tell that to my friend who graduated with 20k in student loans (which is minute compared to many), a mechanical engineering degree, and no job prospects. His story is not unique.You also have a poor understanding of predatory lending and how the sub-prime mortgage crisis came about, as though we are to blame the hundreds of thousands of people who were literally tricked into terrible loans. Yes, blame the poor, for they deserve their misery.
How very strange. You apparently stopped at the sentence that you bolded. I go on to blame the banks and the government for not punishing the banks or the mortgage industry. But don't tell me everyone who made a dumb decision before 2008 got tricked. The vast majority of them knew what they were getting into.
But maybe you should go whole hog and start a Financial Prohibition movement. Make anti-bank PSAs and ads like they do with marijuana and alcohol. On that issue, we don't blame people for getting addicted to drugs either, we blame the drug lords and stupid government regulation. (being tongue in cheek but there's a connection to be made)
|
On September 01 2012 02:49 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 02:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 01:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 01 2012 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:
Under Jonny's logic, if Obama spent $~1 trillion on making bricks to be dumped into the Pacific ocean, we shouldn't blame him for blowing up the deficit. That would only be 40% of a $~2.5 trillion deficit. What about the other 60%? The other 60% is the marginal spending increases or tax cuts beyond the CBO baseline. You should include it along with the $1T in brick chucking. Otherwise you are just being dishonest. What? The other 60% IS the baseline. Under this example, the baseline is $1.5 trillion in deficit, then brick chucking causes the deficit to blow up another $1 trillion beyond the baseline. Just like how the baseline when Bush was first put in office was to have indefinite surpluses, but his policies blew up the budget, causing trillions more dollars spent relative to the baseline. If you increase the deficit more than the baseline, then you've made the deficit worse, if you reduce the deficit relative to the baseline, than you've made it better. Bush did the former. Let's use this report here.First let's ignore economic and technical changes to the baseline and just focus on policy changes. Let's also make one more change - the CBO does not include a line item for war costs so let's use the CBPP's number and take it from discretionary spending. For 2010 (last year of the Bush tax cuts) - the percentages refer to the change in the CBO 2001 baseline estimate. Bush Tax Cuts 12% War Costs 8% ARRA 19% Other Tax & Spend 10% Discretionary Spending 28% Medicare Part D 3% TARP 0% Net Interest 19% In total these policy changes moved the CBO baseline $1.5T more towards the red. Interest would still need to be allocated - which would make Bush-era percentages higher but that would apply to discretionary spending as well as the tax cuts and wars. The important thing is that we are not longer ignoring the increase in discretionary spending or the other small tax and spend policy changed that occurred under Bush. So now you're gonna blame the deficit mostly on "discretionary spending". Discretionary spending includes war spending, so nice double counting. So, wonder why discretionary spending blew up? Here's the CBO on what "discretionary spending" entails: Show nested quote +Discretionary outlays—the part of federal spending that lawmakers generally control through annual appropriation acts—totaled about $1.35 trillion in 2011, or close to 40 percent of federal outlays. Slightly more than half of that spending was for defense. The remainder went for a wide variety of government programs and activities, with the largest amounts spent for education, training, employment, and social services; transportation; income security (mostly housing and nutrition assistance); veterans' benefits (primarily for health care); health-related research and public health; international affairs; and the administration of justice. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/42728 So now you've linked a CBO report that shows Bush has blown the budget by about $1 trillion beyond the baseline in 2008, and still it's not Bush's fault? And still if Obama had spent $1 trillion on brick dumping, we cannot attribute blame to him for the increase in the deficit in this hypothetical example, because that would neglect the other 60% that is the baseline? You don't understand baselines. In the CBO report you linked it says that baselines are "designed to provide a benchmark against which to measure future policy changes", to which you say we can't measure the policy changes of Bush, because we haven't accounted for all the other spending that is accounted for in the baseline which is designed to provide a benchmark against which to measure future policy changes. "Bush blew up the deficit relative to the baseline that's designed to measure whether or not he blew up the deficit." Ingenious Jonny: "No that's all wrong, you have to consider that the spending that in the baseline contributed to the deficit, so it's not Bush's fault -- it's was the spending that was gonna happen anyway"
1) I separated out war spending from the CBO report using CBPP numbers.
2) I'm not claiming that Bush didn't add to the deficit. Please stop lying.
|
On September 01 2012 02:53 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 02:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 02:20 paralleluniverse wrote:Ben Bernanke's speech today: http://federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20120831a.htm Rather than attributing the slow recovery to longer-term structural factors, I see growth being held back currently by a number of headwinds. First, although the housing sector has shown signs of improvement, housing activity remains at low levels and is contributing much less to the recovery than would normally be expected at this stage of the cycle.
Second, fiscal policy, at both the federal and state and local levels, has become an important headwind for the pace of economic growth. Notwithstanding some recent improvement in tax revenues, state and local governments still face tight budget situations and continue to cut real spending and employment. Real purchases are also declining at the federal level. Uncertainties about fiscal policy, notably about the resolution of the so-called fiscal cliff and the lifting of the debt ceiling, are probably also restraining activity, although the magnitudes of these effects are hard to judge.30 It is critical that fiscal policymakers put in place a credible plan that sets the federal budget on a sustainable trajectory in the medium and longer runs. However, policymakers should take care to avoid a sharp near-term fiscal contraction that could endanger the recovery.
Third, stresses in credit and financial markets continue to restrain the economy. Earlier in the recovery, limited credit availability was an important factor holding back growth, and tight borrowing conditions for some potential homebuyers and small businesses remain a problem today. More recently, however, a major source of financial strains has been uncertainty about developments in Europe. These strains are most problematic for the Europeans, of course, but through global trade and financial linkages, the effects of the European situation on the U.S. economy are significant as well. Some recent policy proposals in Europe have been quite constructive, in my view, and I urge our European colleagues to press ahead with policy initiatives to resolve the crisis. Basically, stop the austerity now, and have a creditable plan for reducing the deficit over the long run, not blow it up with $4 trillion in tax cuts for the rich that is "mathematically impossible" to pay for within the promises of the Romney/Ryan plan. There's no austerity now. Uncle Ben doesn't want to see the fiscal cliff occur, which would be relative austerity to today. "State and local governments still face tight budget situations and continue to cut real spending and employment" isn't austerity only in your world of bizarro-semantics. Republicans should love the fiscal cliff given their deficit fetishism.
How are you defining austerity?
|
On September 01 2012 02:53 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 02:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 02:20 paralleluniverse wrote:Ben Bernanke's speech today: http://federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20120831a.htm Rather than attributing the slow recovery to longer-term structural factors, I see growth being held back currently by a number of headwinds. First, although the housing sector has shown signs of improvement, housing activity remains at low levels and is contributing much less to the recovery than would normally be expected at this stage of the cycle.
Second, fiscal policy, at both the federal and state and local levels, has become an important headwind for the pace of economic growth. Notwithstanding some recent improvement in tax revenues, state and local governments still face tight budget situations and continue to cut real spending and employment. Real purchases are also declining at the federal level. Uncertainties about fiscal policy, notably about the resolution of the so-called fiscal cliff and the lifting of the debt ceiling, are probably also restraining activity, although the magnitudes of these effects are hard to judge.30 It is critical that fiscal policymakers put in place a credible plan that sets the federal budget on a sustainable trajectory in the medium and longer runs. However, policymakers should take care to avoid a sharp near-term fiscal contraction that could endanger the recovery.
Third, stresses in credit and financial markets continue to restrain the economy. Earlier in the recovery, limited credit availability was an important factor holding back growth, and tight borrowing conditions for some potential homebuyers and small businesses remain a problem today. More recently, however, a major source of financial strains has been uncertainty about developments in Europe. These strains are most problematic for the Europeans, of course, but through global trade and financial linkages, the effects of the European situation on the U.S. economy are significant as well. Some recent policy proposals in Europe have been quite constructive, in my view, and I urge our European colleagues to press ahead with policy initiatives to resolve the crisis. Basically, stop the austerity now, and have a creditable plan for reducing the deficit over the long run, not blow it up with $4 trillion in tax cuts for the rich that is "mathematically impossible" to pay for within the promises of the Romney/Ryan plan. There's no austerity now. Uncle Ben doesn't want to see the fiscal cliff occur, which would be relative austerity to today. "State and local governments still face tight budget situations and continue to cut real spending and employment" isn't austerity only in your world of bizarro-semantics. Republicans should love the fiscal cliff given their deficit fetishism.
Personally, I'd call it "fiscal discipline." But meh, it's just a word war....
On September 01 2012 03:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
How are you defining austerity?
Don't like treading into semantics, but I'm interested too. What exactly is "austerity" and "growth" in your view?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://media.gazettextra.com/img/photos/2008/12/24/LastGMBannerPose_t715.jpg?529764a1de2bdd0f74a9fb4f856b01a9d617b3e9)
