• Who's Chatting

    There are no users currently in the chat room

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ghdi

Lets talk 2012.

390 posts in this topic

There is no "Jobs Bill" It is strictly a tax hike. The mythical nonexistent bill would kill any hope of any jobs being created. Thank GOD that he's saved millions of jobs already !!! :rolleyes:

Current tax revenues are at about 14-15% of GDP which would have been unsustainable under any president in modern history, Bush, Clinton Reagan, whomever. You can't cut enough spending to get from point A to B so while I would disagree that the jobs bill is "strictly a tax hike", you have to be burying your head in the sand if you don't think this country needs to increase it's tax revenues to get back to par.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to cut taxes, period. Flat tax or a consumption tax. That way , we ALL pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to cut taxes, period. Flat tax or a consumption tax. That way , we ALL pay.

Taxes and tax revenues are at historical lows for this country and almost ever single person in this country, legal or illegal, black, white, hispanic, old, young, rich, poor, democrat, republican, socialist, capitalist, OWS, tea party member etc etc pay taxes.

Federal income tax is just one tax, the Republicans fixation on this is a little baffling (actually it's not, obviously they are just grand standing and posturing), since it has always been around 40% dating back to when Reagan cut taxes.

In theory I am ok with a flat tax (consumption is regressive so I wouldn't agree there) but in practice it can't be done (the poor don't have anything else for you to tax). So because we live in reality I support realistic measures that can help steer the collective boat on the right course.

Edit: Just watched last nights daily show and it happened to have Clinton on and I thought he gave a great talk on how we got to where we are today and how to get out

Part 1: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-8-2011/exclusive---bill-clinton-extended-interview-pt--1?xrs=share_copy

Part 2: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-8-2011/exclusive---bill-clinton-extended-interview-pt--2?xrs=share_copy

Edited by squishyx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxes and tax revenues are at historical lows for this country and almost ever single person in this country, legal or illegal, black, white, hispanic, old, young, rich, poor, democrat, republican, socialist, capitalist, OWS, tea party member etc etc pay taxes.

Actually, you're wrong about tax revenues being at all time lows (compared to what by the way), if you actually look at the correct figure (which is total revenues as a percentage of gdp.)

U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg

See also My link

And actually, US corporate taxes are the highest in the developed world, which you can thank Ronald Reagan for (and which, by the way is the reason that US corporations set up revenue collecting entities overseas).

ADDENDUM: The dip in 2010 might be attributable to estate tax being reduced to zero, and going back up again to something like 50% for every dollar above $1 million if I recall correctly. FWIW, I think there should be an estate tax, but ONLY for the purpose of raising revenue in the fairest and most optimal means possible (as I believe should be the case with all taxes) and not as a vehicle to redistribute wealth or punish the Paris Hiltons of the world. Something like a 15 to 20 percent tax for every dollar above $5 million, excepting assets from family business and the like. (I don't like tax pinches).

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, you're wrong about tax revenues being at all time lows (compared to what by the way), if you actually look at the correct figure (which is total revenues as a percentage of gdp.)

U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg

See also My link

And actually, US corporate taxes are the highest in the developed world, which you can thank Ronald Reagan for (and which, by the way is the reason that US corporations set up revenue collecting entities overseas).

Your chart basically confirms my statement. It is currently 2011 and if you look at your chart our tax revenues as a % of GDP are at historic lows. I don't know how accurate those projections for the future are, they are certainly comforting but could they be taking into the expired tax breaks that likely wont come to pass?

Also, I have stated before I am in favor of outright eliminating corporate taxes or at least lowering them to much more competitive with other developed nations. My beef is basically with personal income tax and capital gains tax.

Edit #2: Your link itself also supports my premise

By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan’s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.

In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.

Edited by squishyx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ADDENDUM: The dip in 2010 might be attributable to estate tax being reduced to zero, and going back up again to something like 50% for every dollar above $1 million if I recall correctly. FWIW, I think there should be an estate tax, but ONLY for the purpose of raising revenue in the fairest and most optimal means possible (as I believe should be the case with all taxes) and not as a vehicle to redistribute wealth or punish the Paris Hiltons of the world. Something like a 15 to 20 percent tax for every dollar above $5 million, excepting assets from family business and the like. (I don't like tax pinches).

I don't wanna get caught up in an edit war so I hope you don't mind me quoting you twice just wanted to add my 2 cents to this:

I think you might just be missing the obvious here, we had a recession, the amount of revenue people made dropped so we collected less taxes. On top of that Obama did cut taxes for 95% of the country, just because he didn't cut everyone a check like Bush doesn't mean it was any less real or substantial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People got an average of like $14 a month in Obama's "cuts". Then everything

else went up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People got an average of like $14 a month in Obama's "cuts". Then everything

else went up.

Obama's basically getting dinged here for using a faster and more efficient distribution method. A spades a spade and the fact is 95% of working people got a $400 tax cut. You can break it down into pennies per hour if you'd like doesn't change the end sum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

........and people who pay no income tax manage to still get refunds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This $400 tax cut/credit ... it's for employed people, correct? What good does that do for an economy with at least 9% unemployment? The idea is to create an environment where businesses want to invest. Giving employees a tax refund ain't the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People got an average of like $14 a month in Obama's "cuts". Then everything

else went up.

Proof? You do realize all the stimulus packages were massive temporary tax cuts, right?

The only Republican tax plan that has a semblance of reality is John Huntsman who won't be nominated because he is actually articulate and believes in climate change. Perry and Cain plan would lessen taxable income while not reducing expenditures causing our debt to balloon. Taxes need to be raised Nixon did it, Reagan did it (his plan was chastised as voodoo economics by his eventual VP George Bush), and the first Bush did it. Which begs the question why are Republicans so anathema to the idea.

As for taxes being raised right now in this environment I'd say no. It would unleash inflation while economy puts along with anemic growth causing stagflation. If i was Obama I would unleash one last stimulus plan specifically tailored towards public works projects trains, roads, bridges, sewers, and the like. Projects like these would buttress our small and big businesses and put people back to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This $400 tax cut/credit ... it's for employed people, correct? What good does that do for an economy with at least 9% unemployment? The idea is to create an environment where businesses want to invest. Giving employees a tax refund ain't the way.

I forget if the unemployed qualified or not, but I like how you are summarily dismissing his tax cut because 9% of the nation was unemployed. I guess tax cuts are only worth praising when the country is at it's usual 5-6% unemployment.

Who said anything about the tax cut creating an environment to encourage business investment? As if any measure Obama supported, supports or will support is somehow supposed to be entirely related to every problem he has, is or will face in the future? give me a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said anything about the tax cut creating an environment to encourage business investment?

Isn't that what we should be aiming for? Isn't this where jobs come from?

The Bush rebate checks after 9/11 didn't work either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which begs the question why are Republicans so anathema to the idea.

Because the federal government has grown so massive that feeding it with more money is a waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the federal government has grown so massive that feeding it with more money is a waste.

So what would you cut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what would you cut?

How about 20% budget cuts for every federal agency? People are going to lose their jobs, but so be it. Bring on the pain. It's a necessary pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about 20% budget cuts for every federal agency? People are going to lose their jobs, but so be it. Bring on the pain. It's a necessary pain.

20% is a nice round number, but it isn't enough.

2010 spending 3.4T

2010 revenues 2.1T

3.4T - (3.4T x 20%) = 2.72T, annual deficit: 600 billion dollars

That ignores the social problems that occur from cutting every agency by 20%, that ignores the millions of people that are now unemployed (and will be draining welfare coffers even faster) and it ignores that you can't even tangibly cut 20% from certain things (ie you can't just stop paying interest on debt by 20%, or SS by 20%).

Then there is the biggest problem in this scheme in that a lot of the money we spend just goes back into states anyway. Sure, take 20% away of the money we give to states, what do you think is going to happen to them? they are going to lay off their state works, cut back on their programs etc etc.

Bottom line, even in fantasy world where you can cut 20% without negative effects you still can't balance the budget, you aren't even close. You need taxes, new revenues, socialism, retribution of wealth whatever you want to call it I say again you simply can not get from point A to point B on spending cuts alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about 20% budget cuts for every federal agency? People are going to lose their jobs, but so be it. Bring on the pain. It's a necessary pain.

You could even probably get by with no cuts if everyone would promise and follow through on having 0% growth in spending for awhile. The problem is nobody will do that. All the politicians have been talking about how good they're being with spending, getting rid of waste, being more efficient, etc... and I believe spending still went up 5% this past year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be frank. The elephant in the room is that business people won't do sh*t until Obama is out because they are petrified of how he treat's business and the private industry. He abhors it in favor of gov't control of every facet of our lives.

The minute Obama loses the election, companies start hiring in droves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be frank. The elephant in the room is that business people won't do sh*t until Obama is out because they are petrified of how he treat's business and the private industry. He abhors it in favor of gov't control of every facet of our lives.

The minute Obama loses the election, companies start hiring in droves.

How is the government controlling every facet of our lives?

As for Obama demise spurring a massive hiring spree, not going to happen. Corporations realize they can get more productivity today than ever before from its work force resulting in less money being spent and benefits. This is Wealth of Nations 101.

As for 20 percent cuts across the board I would take a different tact not to mention it would decimate certain programs. Most of the cuts should be centered around defense. I highly doubt in our life time we will fight a conventional war again. Nation states no longer go to war with one another and if they do its fought through a proxy. Drones, computer viruses, and special forces are the way of the future.

In fact you could save 191 billion dollars by 2015 if you reduce nuclear arsenal spending, reduce the military to pre iraq levels, reduce navy and air force fleets, cancel or delay weapon programs, and alter veteran health care plans who have not been wounded in battle.

I would also roll back tax rates to 1996 and institute a carbon tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be frank. The elephant in the room is that business people won't do sh*t until Obama is out because they are petrified of how he treat's business and the private industry. He abhors it in favor of gov't control of every facet of our lives.

The minute Obama loses the election, companies start hiring in droves.

Where did your Palin 2012 signature go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An economy needs two things for it's "middle class" to thrive: Low food and Low energy costs, forget taxes. Food prices have been climbing so fast since 9/11 as have fuel prices. Any canidate that acknowledges and addresses these issues has a good chance of winning.

Look at how many people take food stamps on every level and WIC and other programs. I know why social safety exists, but someone has to be paying for these. This president right or wrong can be blamed for expanding them. These programs are Herion or Lays potato chips once you start, you can't stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An economy needs two things for it's "middle class" to thrive: Low food and Low energy costs, forget taxes. Food prices have been climbing so fast since 9/11 as have fuel prices. Any canidate that acknowledges and addresses these issues has a good chance of winning.

Look at how many people take food stamps on every level and WIC and other programs. I know why social safety exists, but someone has to be paying for these. This president right or wrong can be blamed for expanding them. These programs are Herion or Lays potato chips once you start, you can't stop.

The price of everything goes up when the value of the dollar goes down. We need to end the federal reserve so we can stop devaluing our own currency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0