Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

12/06/2012 new

(Quote) Cathy-620979 said: You have absolutely no basis for making that assertion. Every credible projection shows that a mo...
(Quote) Cathy-620979 said:

You have absolutely no basis for making that assertion. Every credible projection shows that a modest tax increase would increase federal revenue, not decrease it. The Bush tax cuts did not pay for themselves. They resulted in lower tax revenues, not more. This has been established and nobody is arguing about it any more.

As far as the "austerity cycle", yeah that is a plausible reason Europe is struggling. But the dominant idea on CM is that the US should also practice austerity. I guess we want to adopt Europe's austerity policies.

--hide--

Sorry Cathy, revenue boomed. That is fact. The problem is that no matter which direction revenue goes, expenditures increase. Part of the reason for that, is that both Democratic and Republican congresses over the years have made their life easier by setting into law automatic increases in programs that they don't have to vote on.

The prime example is their own salaries. They turned the setting of their own pay to an "independent" commission whose recommendations automatically implement unless Congress votes otherwise. Of course, they never vote on the issue. And if their constituents complain they just shrug their shoulders and say that they had no say in the matter.

12/06/2012 new

www.factcheck.org

www.cbpp.org


Here's an article from National Review (conservative magazine) two years ago: "There is no evidence that the tax cuts on net produced more revenue than the Treasury would have realized without them. That claim could be true — if we were to credit most or all of the economic growth during the period in question to tax cuts, but that is an awfully big claim, one that no serious economist would be likely to entertain. It’s a just-so story, a bedtime fairy tale Republicans tell themselves to shake off fear of the deficit bogeyman. It’s whistling past the fiscal graveyard." www.nationalreview.com

Back when Bush was president:

Edward Lazear chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bush said "I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves."
www.csmonitor.com

Gregory Mankiw, the previous chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bush, addressed the talking point Stephen made that tax increases always result in lower revenue:

"Some supply-siders like to claim that the distortionary effect of taxes is so large that increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. Like most economists, I don't find that conclusion credible for most tax hikes"

gregmankiw.blogspot.com

Jim Nussle, director of the Office of Management and Budget, admitted the tax cuts did not pay for themselves: www.washingtonpost.com
.

A poll this year (2012) of academic economists about whether a tax cut would pay for itself:

www.igmchicago.org

0 of the 40 economists said they thought it would.

David Stockman is against extending the Bush tax cuts: www.nytimes.com

Alan Greenspan said the Bush tax cuts did not pay for themselves: www.huffingtonpost.com

.


There are legitimate reasons to prefer low tax rates. If people want to say taxes should be low, fine. But don't say tax cuts pay for themselves.

Henry Paulson, the Treasury Secretary in Bush's second term, takes this honest approach. He thinks it is important that taxes stay low and said in 2006" "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves."

www.marketwatch.com

Now there is some honesty I can respect. He doesn't lie and say tax cuts pay for themselves.

If internet message board posters would be so honest, we might be getting somewhere.


P.S. Arthur Laffer says he voted for Bill Clinton, twice.

P.P.S. I quote real facts. The others just like to say things like, Sorry Cathy, revenues boomed. Unsupported. Untrue. Live in your fantasy world if it makes you feel better. The rest of use are trying to solve this country's problems.

12/06/2012 new

(Quote) Cathy-620979 said: www.factcheck.org.
(Quote) Cathy-620979 said:

www.factcheck.org

www.cbpp.org


Here's an article from National Review (conservative magazine) two years ago: "There is no evidence that the tax cuts on net produced more revenue than the Treasury would have realized without them. That claim could be true — if we were to credit most or all of the economic growth during the period in question to tax cuts, but that is an awfully big claim, one that no serious economist would be likely to entertain. It’s a just-so story, a bedtime fairy tale Republicans tell themselves to shake off fear of the deficit bogeyman. It’s whistling past the fiscal graveyard." www.nationalreview.com

Back when Bush was president:

Edward Lazear chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bush said "I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves."
www.csmonitor.com

Gregory Mankiw, the previous chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bush, addressed the talking point Stephen made that tax increases always result in lower revenue:

"Some supply-siders like to claim that the distortionary effect of taxes is so large that increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. Like most economists, I don't find that conclusion credible for most tax hikes"

gregmankiw.blogspot.com

Jim Nussle, director of the Office of Management and Budget, admitted the tax cuts did not pay for themselves: www.washingtonpost.com
.

A poll this year (2012) of academic economists about whether a tax cut would pay for itself:

www.igmchicago.org

0 of the 40 economists said they thought it would.

David Stockman is against extending the Bush tax cuts: www.nytimes.com

Alan Greenspan said the Bush tax cuts did not pay for themselves: www.huffingtonpost.com

.


There are legitimate reasons to prefer low tax rates. If people want to say taxes should be low, fine. But don't say tax cuts pay for themselves.

Henry Paulson, the Treasury Secretary in Bush's second term, takes this honest approach. He thinks it is important that taxes stay low and said in 2006" "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves."

www.marketwatch.com

Now there is some honesty I can respect. He doesn't lie and say tax cuts pay for themselves.

If internet message board posters would be so honest, we might be getting somewhere.


P.S. Arthur Laffer says he voted for Bill Clinton, twice.

P.P.S. I quote real facts. The others just like to say things like, Sorry Cathy, revenues boomed. Unsupported. Untrue. Live in your fantasy world if it makes you feel better. The rest of use are trying to solve this country's problems.

--hide--


I appreciate your taking the time to write this. Thanks for replying to my post. I also forgot to mention this: the Bush tax, if memory serves me correctly, created the 10 percent tax bracket - an important point because it makes comparisons to previous tax years impossible (due to different structures).

Also - there was a more liberal source that did its own calculations and came up with an estimate that was about $500 billion higher than the JCT estimates. I can't find the source now (and apparently I didn't tag it, either, sorry about that) but on my calculations this nudges the Bush tax cuts in the period 2001-08 closer to break even or over it than the JCT estimate.

So, to summarize, complicating the problem here is that the administration (a) didn't create a pegged number of expected cost; nor (b) did it arrange to have that cost reimbursed (a problem of the current administration - the plague that affects all parties); and (c) it changed the tax brackets, making comparisons to the past more difficult. Further, for reasons unknown, the conservative ideal of paying back the tax cuts to the federal till never happened <- also a practice that would have allowed the creation of a number showing the exact cost of the tax cut in the first place.

So, yes, while we shouldn't forget that the cuts inspired ("produced" is too strong a word) benefits that couldn't have been achieved by legislation, they do appear to have been a wash. We all suffer in our discussions for lack of accuracy by Washington, D.C., politicians - a recurring illness, eh? ;)

12/06/2012 new

and to be clear, I'm not being redundant but am drawing a distinction here between (b) a program that has revenues returned to it by plan and (d) a tax cut that has revenues returned to it by new revenue (i.e. that which can't be planned, aka a civic bond that is repaid by sales tax over an indefinite period of time). This is probably more than anyone cares to read but I didn't want someone to think I was repeating myself myself myself myself myself ;)

12/06/2012 new

(Quote) Steven-706921 said: The problem with taxing the "top Two percent" is that the net result would be...
(Quote) Steven-706921 said:

The problem with taxing the "top Two percent" is that the net result would be to decrease revenue. That would result in greater deficits, and calls for harsher taxation.

It will create the vicious "austerity cycle" seen in Europe at present.

--hide--


I hear you, Steven. Believe me, I do.

12/06/2012 new

When someone presents an idea or point of view on a topic one should consider their credentials. What have they done in their life? Anything productive? Or are they merely politicians or businessmen. For instance Donald trump is a business man (land lord), amongst other things.


The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including fourteen of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.


"Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income and will hinder future fiscal policy.

Maybe these economists were stupid, maybe they had an axe to grind, maybe they were right, maybe we should listen to Donald Trump? After all he is a job creator.


www.epi.org


Since 1940 no republican presidential administration has had a balanced spending budget.

Dick Cheney. Remember that guy who declared “deficits don’t matter”? That was the old Dick Cheney. The new Dick Cheney wants President Obama to act faster to clean up the mess he and George W. Bush left behind.

For lack of a better word, this is … funny. Cheney pushed massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and didn’t even try to pay for them. He pushed for multiple wars, and didn’t even try to pay for them, either. He supported Medicare expansion and No Child Left Behind, and like the rest of his agenda, Cheney just threw the costs onto the national credit card, running up a bill for some future president to pay.

But now he’s worried about the deficit.

Let’s note a few details that Dick Cheney may not be aware of. For example, Cheney inherited a large surplus and turned it into a massive deficit. Cheney took a budget that was on track to eliminate the national debt altogether and instead added nearly $5 trillion to it in just eight years. The day Barack Obama took the oath of office, he found a $1.3 trillion deficit sitting on his desk — a little gift from Cheney and his team.

12/06/2012 new

(Quote) Ray-914631 said: When someone presents an idea or point of view on a topic one should consider their credentials. Wh...
(Quote) Ray-914631 said:

When someone presents an idea or point of view on a topic one should consider their credentials. What have they done in their life? Anything productive? Or are they merely politicians or businessmen. For instance Donald trump is a business man (land lord), amongst other things.


The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including fourteen of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.


"Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income and will hinder future fiscal policy.

Maybe these economists were stupid, maybe they had an axe to grind, maybe they were right, maybe we should listen to Donald Trump? After all he is a job creator.


www.epi.org


Since 1940 no republican presidential administration has had a balanced spending budget.

Dick Cheney. Remember that guy who declared “deficits don’t matter”? That was the old Dick Cheney. The new Dick Cheney wants President Obama to act faster to clean up the mess he and George W. Bush left behind.

For lack of a better word, this is … funny. Cheney pushed massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and didn’t even try to pay for them. He pushed for multiple wars, and didn’t even try to pay for them, either. He supported Medicare expansion and No Child Left Behind, and like the rest of his agenda, Cheney just threw the costs onto the national credit card, running up a bill for some future president to pay.

But now he’s worried about the deficit.

Let’s note a few details that Dick Cheney may not be aware of. For example, Cheney inherited a large surplus and turned it into a massive deficit. Cheney took a budget that was on track to eliminate the national debt altogether and instead added nearly $5 trillion to it in just eight years. The day Barack Obama took the oath of office, he found a $1.3 trillion deficit sitting on his desk — a little gift from Cheney and his team.

--hide--


Well, at least Bush and Cheney had budgets to use as comparisons. This presidency doesn't even bother.

Now America needs money to help its citizens pay for the extraordinary damages from Hurricane Sandy. With the irresponsible
spending going on at the top, lets hope they can muster up some funds for this national catastrophe.

12/06/2012 new

(Quote) Cathy-620979 said: You have absolutely no basis for making that assertion. Every credible projecti...
(Quote) Cathy-620979 said:

You have absolutely no basis for making that assertion. Every credible projection shows that a modest tax increase would increase federal revenue, not decrease it. The Bush tax cuts did not pay for themselves. They resulted in lower tax revenues, not more. This has been established and nobody is arguing about it any more.

As far as the "austerity cycle", yeah that is a plausible reason Europe is struggling. But the dominant idea on CM is that the US should also practice austerity. I guess we want to adopt Europe's austerity policies.

--hide--


Tax revenue increase would have to increase federal revenue.

But I think the point he is making is that if the person spent that
dollar by buying something, instead of giving it to the Government, it would help the retailer,
and whomever the retailer employs, and whomever the retailer buys his inventory from, and ultimately
that dollar would have more of an impact on the economy in the long run.

I think the money given to the Government that goes to Government employees is a lost dollar. There
are too many unproductive and redundant Government employees, and they produce no product.
Government is getting too big and unnecessary.

12/06/2012 new

(Quote) Cathy-620979 said: (Quote) Steven-706921 said: The problem with taxing the "top...
(Quote) Cathy-620979 said:

Quote:
Steven-706921 said:

The problem with taxing the "top Two percent" is that the net result would be to decrease revenue. That would result in greater deficits, and calls for harsher taxation.

It will create the vicious "austerity cycle" seen in Europe at present.


You have absolutely no basis for making that assertion. Every credible projection shows that a modest tax increase would increase federal revenue, not decrease it. The Bush tax cuts did not pay for themselves. They resulted in lower tax revenues, not more. This has been established and nobody is arguing about it any more.

As far as the "austerity cycle", yeah that is a plausible reason Europe is struggling. But the dominant idea on CM is that the US should also practice austerity. I guess we want to adopt Europe's austerity policies.


--hide--



Predictions are opinions, and without hard evidence, it's only an estimate. But for many people that will be the most affected, Steven is right. The smart ones have already started to make changes. In my individual case, my plans for 2013 have already been put in motion, and it will take revenue out of circulation and lower my AGI by one tax bracket. In addition, I'm waiting for my offshore banking application to be approved (and yes, as I'm finding out it takes a while these days). While this means I'll be living on a tighter budget, it also means these idiots can play this game of chicken until we do go over the edge, and I'll rest easy knowing no matter what they do, any net tax increase will be coming from from a much smaller pot while everything else is tucked firmly away from those greedy little paws of Obama.

12/06/2012 new

(Quote) Brian-699857 said: Predictions are opinions, and without hard evidence, it's only an estimate. But f...
(Quote) Brian-699857 said:




Predictions are opinions, and without hard evidence, it's only an estimate. But for many people that will be the most affected, Steven is right. The smart ones have already started to make changes. In my individual case, my plans for 2013 have already been put in motion, and it will take revenue out of circulation and lower my AGI by one tax bracket. In addition, I'm waiting for my offshore banking application to be approved (and yes, as I'm finding out it takes a while these days). While this means I'll be living on a tighter budget, it also means these idiots can play this game of chicken until we do go over the edge, and I'll rest easy knowing no matter what they do, any net tax increase will be coming from from a much smaller pot while everything else is tucked firmly away from those greedy little paws of Obama.

--hide--

Actually we do have the facts to back up the opinions. In Britain, where taxes on the top rate went up to 50%, 2/3 of those that declared themselves millionaires beforehand either restructured their assets to reduce their taxable income below the rate, or left the country.

In other words, when their money no longer was treated well, they either took away their money, or took themselves away.

www.telegraph.co.uk

Posts 11 - 20 of 44