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) Paul-866591 said: No matter how you try to explain it; anyone or couple earning $250K/Yr., no matter how th...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

No matter how you try to explain it; anyone or couple earning $250K/Yr., no matter how they earn it are earning more than 98% of taxpayers.

They are income rich, but potentially may not be asset rich.

On the other hand, a person or family with a net worth of $1 million is worth more than probably 98% of the population and are asset rich. However, they may only be as low as lower middle class in actual income.

To be truly rich a person would have to have an income in that top 2% range plus net assets of $1 million or more.

--hide--



Income rich at $250K would be a plausible argument for demonizing the higher end of the middle class if everyone in the US lived on say, the same 5000 sq ft. parcel with a similar 1500 sq ft home, and every state had the same tax rates. But that doesn't exist. Taxes, housing, and even utilities vary widely throughout the country and to lump them together is just bad business.

12/06/2012 new

(Quote) Steven-706921 said: Actually we do have the facts to back up the opinions. In Britain, where taxes on the t...
(Quote) Steven-706921 said:

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

--hide--



Yup, this is exactly what I'm talking about, and you don't have to be a millionaire to manage it that way. If you look at what's coming out of this mess with the AMT filtering its way down to those making $100k, and the raises in capital gains and dividends for all investments, it's a no brainer for anyone falling in the 83-98% range (or those bordering on $100k/year) to make immediate changes, and those bordering on the fringes of any of the tax brackets above 10% to consider it as well.

12/07/2012 new

(Quote) Marianne-100218 said: But I think the point he is making is that if the person spent thatdollar by buying someth...
(Quote) Marianne-100218 said:

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,

--hide--



... and this was shown by the Bush tax cuts which may or may not have paid for themselves, but it was the (ital)timing(ital) of the business segment of those cuts in 2003 - already a growth year for GDP - that further enabled the business sector to hand the nation a record year over the prior 20 of GDP in 2004. Thus, to your point, Marianne, more proof that the private sector can deliver more jobs and better growth than the federal government.

12/07/2012 new

(Quote) John-727073 said: ... and this was shown by the Bush tax cuts which may or may not have paid for themselves, but...
(Quote) John-727073 said:


... and this was shown by the Bush tax cuts which may or may not have paid for themselves, but it was the (ital)timing(ital) of the business segment of those cuts in 2003 - already a growth year for GDP - that further enabled the business sector to hand the nation a record year over the prior 20 of GDP in 2004. Thus, to your point, Marianne, more proof that the private sector can deliver more jobs and better growth than the federal government.

--hide--

The problem with the gibberish about the Bush tax cuts not paying for themselves is that the calculation is total nonsense. Best to illustrate by an example:

Say the tax cut is effective in 2011. They compare the tax actually collected for 2011 with the amount that would have been collected in 2011 if the old rates applied. The difference is the amount of the cut. Then they compare that figure to the increase in tax revenue in 2011 compared to 2010. That is a nonsense calculation.

Why? Because the assumption that the income to be taxed in 2011 would be the same with or without the tax cut is nonsense.

Examine the figures for the amount of Capital gains taxed under the old rates in the year before the Bush tax cuts to the amount of Capital gains reported in the year of the Tax cuts and you will see that the amount of Capital gains reported were substantially higher. And they were higher specifically because the tax rate dropped. And despite the Capital Gains tax cut more Capital Gains taxes were collected despite the lower rate.

The problem with the silly calculations is that they begin with the assumption that the Government owns it all and that when tax rates are cut the Government is giving you something out of their largess that belongs to Government. Reality is all that income belongs to us. And we give to Government from our largess. Government should collect in taxes only what is needed to pay for its operations. It is not Goveernment's job to continue to expand its operations as if the tax pot is unlimited.

12/07/2012 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: The problem with the gibberish about the Bush tax cuts not paying for themselves is that ...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

The problem with the gibberish about the Bush tax cuts not paying for themselves is that the calculation is total nonsense. Best to illustrate by an example:

Say the tax cut is effective in 2011. They compare the tax actually collected for 2011 with the amount that would have been collected in 2011 if the old rates applied. The difference is the amount of the cut. Then they compare that figure to the increase in tax revenue in 2011 compared to 2010. That is a nonsense calculation.

Why? Because the assumption that the income to be taxed in 2011 would be the same with or without the tax cut is nonsense.

Examine the figures for the amount of Capital gains taxed under the old rates in the year before the Bush tax cuts to the amount of Capital gains reported in the year of the Tax cuts and you will see that the amount of Capital gains reported were substantially higher. And they were higher specifically because the tax rate dropped. And despite the Capital Gains tax cut more Capital Gains taxes were collected despite the lower rate.

The problem with the silly calculations is that they begin with the assumption that the Government owns it all and that when tax rates are cut the Government is giving you something out of their largess that belongs to Government. Reality is all that income belongs to us. And we give to Government from our largess. Government should collect in taxes only what is needed to pay for its operations. It is not Goveernment's job to continue to expand its operations as if the tax pot is unlimited.

--hide--


Actually, Paul, I like your method much better. :) Why? A fiscal conservative would have done what you did: produce numbers for reference.

Also, as you saw me yammering in a previous post, just because the tax cuts may or may not have paid for themselves, they came close and it was the (ital)timing(ital) of them that was important to other sectors of civilian life. Look at all the economists in early 2003 who asked for the tax cuts to be removed because they were adding to the decific and debt. Then look at the placement that year of the tax cuts for small business. The GDP took off to well over 4%! President Bush would have been wiser to make sure that some of that revenue included new taxes to pay for the cuts, but, still ... one cannot argue with the fact that the timing of the tax break for small business generated a more powerful economic engine for the USA than any government program. <- That's a lesson the current administration doesn't want to admit.

12/07/2012 new


"It is not Goveernment's job to continue to expand its operations as if the tax pot is unlimited."

Preach, brother! For four years, some words have been missing from the national discussion of this sitting administration:

* Downsize government

* Merge departments

* Streamline processes

* Eliminate services the private sector can do

* Cut spending now, this year

* Level with the American people: tell them what it's going to cost this year, not across "ten years" rolling eyes

* ... and in light of the post that started this forum, don't tell me how you're going to pay for 8 days to operate the government by upping the taxes on people who who worked their way up to reach a certain income bracket ... tell me why in this country I should want my nieces and nephews to become millionaires.

We're going to need more millionaires, not fewer of them, to be able to afford the future. shhh scratchchin

12/07/2012 new

"Say the tax cut is effective in 2011. They compare the tax actually collected for 2011 with the amount that would have been collected in 2011 if the old rates applied. The difference is the amount of the cut. Then they compare that figure to the increase in tax revenue in 2011 compared to 2010. That is a nonsense calculation."

I have not see their calculations. But I have a hard time believing that all those smart people made an arithmetic error which you have somehow been able to elucidate.

"Reality is all that income belongs to us. And we give to Government from our largess. Government should collect in taxes only what is needed to pay for its operations. It is not Goveernment's job to continue to expand its operations as if the tax pot is unlimited."

Agreed. And if you want to advocate for low taxes with this argument, fine with me. This is the Henry Paulson position. The honest conservative position. It doesn't indulge in disproven fantasies that the Bush tax cuts paid for themselves. They DID NOT.

"it was the timing of them that was important to other sectors of civilian life"

Agreed. Keynesian economics is about timing and using the government to couteract business cycles. The Bush stimulus (tax cut) and the Obama stimulus (spending increase) were both about timing. The problem is, a permanent stimulus isn't a stimulus; it becomes a permanent part of government. When the business cycle comes back around to growth, the stimulus should disappear. The Bush tax cuts never disappeared.

12/07/2012 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--


This is just a little "side bar" to add interest.

For many years now, I have heard Government employees note that the accounting
records of the Federal Government are not very precise; i.e., they are a mess.

In other words, Government Accounting is not all that it is cracked up to be. This was from higher ups in the pecking order.
And I heard it many times from interviews.

Personally, I believe it.

12/07/2012 new

(Quote) John-727073 said: "It is not Goveernment's job to continue to expand its operations as if the tax pot i...
(Quote) John-727073 said:


"It is not Goveernment's job to continue to expand its operations as if the tax pot is unlimited."

Preach, brother! For four years, some words have been missing from the national discussion of this sitting administration:

* Downsize government

* Merge departments

* Streamline processes

* Eliminate services the private sector can do

* Cut spending now, this year

* Level with the American people: tell them what it's going to cost this year, not across "ten years"

* ... and in light of the post that started this forum, don't tell me how you're going to pay for 8 days to operate the government by upping the taxes on people who who worked their way up to reach a certain income bracket ... tell me why in this country I should want my nieces and nephews to become millionaires.

We're going to need more millionaires, not fewer of them, to be able to afford the future.

--hide--


John: I always wonder why taxes have to be raised anyway? The amount we pay in taxes should be sufficient to
cover our needs. If the population increases, then the tax base should increase, hence, more taxes collected.

OK, give a little increase for inflation, but that is about it.

12/07/2012 new

(Quote) Cathy-620979 said: "Say the tax cut is effective in 2011. They compare the tax actually collected for 2011 with...
(Quote) Cathy-620979 said:

"Say the tax cut is effective in 2011. They compare the tax actually collected for 2011 with the amount that would have been collected in 2011 if the old rates applied. The difference is the amount of the cut. Then they compare that figure to the increase in tax revenue in 2011 compared to 2010. That is a nonsense calculation."

I have not see their calculations. But I have a hard time believing that all those smart people made an arithmetic error which you have somehow been able to elucidate.

"Reality is all that income belongs to us. And we give to Government from our largess. Government should collect in taxes only what is needed to pay for its operations. It is not Goveernment's job to continue to expand its operations as if the tax pot is unlimited."

Agreed. And if you want to advocate for low taxes with this argument, fine with me. This is the Henry Paulson position. The honest conservative position. It doesn't indulge in disproven fantasies that the Bush tax cuts paid for themselves. They DID NOT.

"it was the timing of them that was important to other sectors of civilian life"

Agreed. Keynesian economics is about timing and using the government to couteract business cycles. The Bush stimulus (tax cut) and the Obama stimulus (spending increase) were both about timing. The problem is, a permanent stimulus isn't a stimulus; it becomes a permanent part of government. When the business cycle comes back around to growth, the stimulus should disappear. The Bush tax cuts never disappeared.

--hide--

Why would someone who reads the Harvard Business Review even mention Keynes? Modern Economics and economists pretty much dismisses him.

Your last sentence belies your statement in the 4th paragraph. Either you believe that Government owns everything and a tax cut is a giving from Government to us or you believe that we as individuals own it. You logically cannot hold both positions.

Posts 21 - 30 of 44