vin2basketball
Topic Author
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:31 pm

On US Tax Policy

Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:59 pm

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wqU44uQYrYo/T8_Fg41d2mI/AAAAAAAASbk/y4iqNidW_WU/s1600/irs.jpg

IRS data shows that the top 400 income earners in this country payed almost as much in income taxes as the entire bottom 50% of the US population.

Which is fine if the two groups had the same level of income, but the bottom 50% had income of $1.05 trillion and paid $19.5 billion in taxes, for an effective tax rate of 0.02%. Meanwhile, the top 400 paid $16.1 billion on $81 billion in income, or an effective rate of 20%.

Now, please explain to me how this shows that the rich aren't paying "their fair share"

And before you jump on the social security and FICA bandwagon, please note that Social Security is entirely paid for, yet the remainder of the budget is more than a trillion in the red (i.e we spend 3.9 trillion take in 2.7 or so, pull out social security and we spend some 2.6 odd trillion, and pull in 1.5 trillion or so). Furthermore, while it is true that the bottom 50% pay more into Social security, they also get more benefits out of it, so the net effect on govt finances is zero - the bottom 50% get at least what they pay into SS back in benefits.

And ultimately, the US cannot fiscally spend at the same level without taxing at all the bottom 50%. So literally the choices are, cut spending, or raise taxes on the bottom 50%
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:13 pm

Quoting vin2basketball (Thread starter):
cut spending

  

Before this thread turns into a battleground, I'll just note that no matter how high you raise taxes for all Americans it would only put a dent in our deficit... spending MUST be cut
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19604
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:14 pm

Quoting vin2basketball (Thread starter):
Which is fine if the two groups had the same level of income, but the bottom 50% had income of $1.05 trillion and paid $19.5 billion in taxes, for an effective tax rate of 0.02%. Meanwhile, the top 400 paid $16.1 billion on $81 billion in income, or an effective rate of 20%.

Meanwhile, I am in neither group and I paid 30%, so how is that fair?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:30 pm

Quoting vin2basketball (Thread starter):
cut spending

  

Quoting vin2basketball (Thread starter):
Now, please explain to me how this shows that the rich aren't paying "their fair share"

It sounds so cute & catchy when Barack gets in front of the camera and complains about the rich not paying "their fair share".
Bring back the Concorde
 
PSA53
Posts: 2928
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:54 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:41 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1):
spending MUST be cut

Boom! There it is.

Quoting vin2basketball (Thread starter):
Which is fine if the two groups had the same level of income, but the bottom 50% had income of $1.05 trillion and paid $19.5 billion in taxes, for an effective tax rate of 0.02%. Meanwhile, the top 400 paid $16.1 billion on $81 billion in income, or an effective rate of 20%.



This has always been the truth of the matter and why I have always oppose the democrats motto of taxing the rich.California rich pay 66% of the state's fiduciary liabilities.What the democrats and their media propaganda machine will manage to do is chase rich people away.And California is a prime example.
Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
 
vin2basketball
Topic Author
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:31 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:44 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):

Meanwhile, I am in neither group and I paid 30%, so how is that fair?


It really isn't; and what this data truly illustrates is that it's not the 1%, or the bottom 50% that are really bearing the brunt of our taxes, but rather the middle 49%, and even there heavily skewed towards the top 30 percentage points (i.e ppl with incomes in the 2nd-31st percentiles.

Ideally income taxes for everybody above the 50% line would settle in the 15-25% (those at the top paying 25%, those in the middle paying 15%). Then the bottom 50% paying 5-15%, again on a progressive scale.

This would literally make us (if we can also simulataneously push a cut in the corporate tax rate to around say 20-25% with zero deductions), the most tax competitive developed nation.

The resulting flow of capital would (hopefully) increase tax revenues in the long run.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19604
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:05 pm

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 5):
This would literally make us (if we can also simulataneously push a cut in the corporate tax rate to around say 20-25% with zero deductions), the most tax competitive developed nation.

The resulting flow of capital would (hopefully) increase tax revenues in the long run.

How does that compare to countries like France and Germany who have strong economies and higher taxes that we do?

And I mean REAL tax rates. Not effective tax rates?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Ken777
Posts: 9021
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:25 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Meanwhile, I am in neither group and I paid 30%, so how is that fair?

There are a lot of people who would be paying taxes, but the $1,000 per child tax credit eliminates their tax liabilities.

That Child Care Tax Credit was Newt's Brain Child in the Contract With America. The GOP understood that it would be a huge factor in winning votes (it was), but the GOP failed to look at the long term costs - $18,000 in taxpayer cash paid out for each child. Three kids and you have a $48,000 handout.

The quer part about that handout is that it is basically like the socialist Child Endowment in Australia and other countries. The GOP had no problem setting up a socialist program to win an election, and now they want to cut Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid to pay for that socialist program.

While I don't anticipate you becoming a father by tradition means there is a potential that you will adopt at some point in the future.

When you look at our debt let's try to remember that we have basically been at war for the past 10 years and we're waging war on the credit card. Our Defense spending is at a level of a world leader, but too many people don't want to pay the taxes necessary to support that level of leadership.

It might well be time to look at some serious adjustments to our Defense spending and our position in the world that spending gets us.

Do we really need to be the most powerful nation in the world? Is it worth reducing the quality of life and the health of the elderly and poor in this country? Maybe we need to take another look at that situation.

And maybe we need to take another look at the Bush tax cuts. We were told at the time that the country had a surplus and it should be returned to the taxpayers. We are still refunding that money, but the surplus has been gone for a long time. it is time to go back to the tax rates we had before W started those refunds. No use crying for the "job creators" as they sure as hell aren't creating jobs at the levels their tax refunds would support.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1):
spending MUST be cut

We do need to cut spending, but Defense needs to be at the top of the list. There are a lot of countries that manage to be protected without spending at the levels we spend. We need to take a very hard look at that spending before attacking the elderly and the sick.

We also need to take a very hard look at spending on health. This employer provided nanny care is one sorry ass key to our high costs and our outcomes are pathetic for the money spent. If we start looking at other countries with BETTER outcomes we might find ways to cut the deficit without lowering the standard of health care.

BTW, employer nanny care is a free tax ride for both employer and employee. Maybe if we looked at the tax revenue lost from that tax free ride we can see where a big chunk of national debt comes from.
 
vin2basketball
Topic Author
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:31 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:56 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
And maybe we need to take another look at the Bush tax cuts. We were told at the time that the country had a surplus and it should be returned to the taxpayers. We are still refunding that money, but the surplus has been gone for a long time. it is time to go back to the tax rates we had before W started those refunds. No use crying for the "job creators" as they sure as hell aren't creating jobs at the levels their tax refunds would support.

Following the Bush tax cuts, tax revenues raised from the top 20% and top 10% of taxpayers (by income) increased relative to what it was during the Clinton administration. And the funny part is that this held even through the late 2000s recession

Ken, have you ever heard of the Laffer Curve? When you lower tax rates, you increase total revenues because that stimulates GDP growth. There are two ways to increase tax revenues, take more of the pie, or grow the pie. The latter method tends to work better in the long run (as seen in the long run outcomes of the US and the USSR post WWII)

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
Do we really need to be the most powerful nation in the world? Is it worth reducing the quality of life and the health of the elderly and poor in this country? Maybe we need to take another look at that situation.

How has this worked out in Europe? For the most part in bankruptcy and default. Remember, our defense spending as a percentage of GDP is pretty much at its long run average, what has exploded is public sector wages and medicare; those two, along with government waste and duplicitous state/nat'l spending pretty much can account for all of our deficit.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11090
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:00 am

Quoting vin2basketball (Thread starter):
Now, please explain to me how this shows that the rich aren't paying "their fair share

It doesn't. But it's one of the liberal tenets: try to make everyone happy, just make sure you do it using someone else's money.

For that matter the whole Occupy Movement is based on the idea that they want what someone else has. But even actual theft is too much work for that bunch, so they've decided that the best option is to sit around and smell bad to try and get the government to do the stealing for them.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
Do we really need to be the most powerful nation in the world?

Yes.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
Is it worth reducing the quality of life and the health of the elderly and poor in this country?

That's for the poor and elderly to figure out. Not my problem.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
e do need to cut spending, but Defense needs to be at the top of the list.

Defense (including law enforcement) and education have to be the absolute last things on the list to be cut. Defense because there's no practical alternative and education since it wouldn't be nice to leave lower class people out in the cold. Not that we shouldn't squeeze the most out of every dollar in those parts of the budget, but those are the parts of the budget where the dollars really need to be. Cut the hell out of the rest of it.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:00 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1):
spending MUST be cut

We do need to cut spending, but Defense needs to be at the top of the list.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
Defense (including law enforcement) and education have to be the absolute last things on the list to be cut.

It goes against my interests but I actually agree the defense budget needs a huge haircut but it's absolutely critical it's done in the right places. Keep retirement for people in 20 years, keep full VA coverage for the often forgotten veterans, keep the most technologically advanced and powerful military out there. That being said, all these troops all over the place, these wars, etc... bring them home. That would (IMO) stop a lot of motivation for terrorism but that's another thread. We can still have the best military in the world for a fraction of the cost.

That all being said, defense shouldn't be the only thing being gutted. Pretty much everything should be cut to some extent. "Well what about ________?" Yes, it's gonna hurt, all sides and programs will feel some pain. But out spending is absolutely out of control and the quicker we curb it, the less damage will be done. We're just screwing ourselves, the longer we wait, the more painful our interest payment will be and the less we can actually spend on our citizens.

^^This is why I roll my eyes at proposed tax increases... the point that we are at now, no tax rate will solve. Not even close. Tax every citizen 100% and we won't even cover our outrageous debt (well maybe it would, that's not my point.) It would need to be outrageously high
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
Ken777
Posts: 9021
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:21 am

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 8):
Ken, have you ever heard of the Laffer Curve?

Yep.

I've also seen it put down. Here's a Google for you:

laffer curve debunked

pick any one you want.

There is an easy one at:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...sview/2007/10/whos-laffering-.html

Under "Who’s Laffering now?"

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 8):
is pretty much at its long run average,

And that spending has been huge. We really need to give it some thought. We have enough nukes for MAD.

And we (hopefully) have learned our lesson on invading another country.

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 8):
what has exploded is public sector wages and medicare

Medicare explodes because the health care costs in the US have exploded -far faster than the rest of the world.

But that is the price of employer nanny care.

Public sector wages are just like private sector wages. Competitive, but there are ceilings that the private sector don't have.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
Yes

You want that?

TIme to raise your taxes to pay for it.

And for any future unnecessary invasion for some conservative's ego.

Or maybe you'll just go for shafting Veterans like the GOP wants to do to the elderly and the sick.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
Not my problem

Therein lies a major problem in this country - pretending it is only someone else's problem.

I guess you are assuming you'll not grow old. Look at your assets today. (Or your parents assets)

Now figure out that a new Toyota Corolla will probably cost around $250,000 when you retire. Petrol? Maybe $35 a gallon, if you are lucky.

Health insurance? If the GOP keeps coddling the health insurance industry you'll be lucky with $15,000 per month.

At least the debt from your college years will look pretty cheap.

But your parents assets will also look a lot smaller.

There are a lot of things that are your problem - you just don't want to acknowledge them today.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
Defense (including law enforcement) and education have to be the absolute last things on the list to be cut.

We can protect this country without the level of over spending that we have had most of my life.

As far as police and education goes, look for that to have major cuts under the GOP.

We have a GOP Governor & Legislature. Education has been cut already and I can see more in the future.

Then take a look a Wisconsin. The cost to become a teacher keeps going up and they have a governor who will continue to shaft the teachers.

One queer bit is that when you talk about protecting education, look at companies like Exxon pushing for more education in the areas of math & science. But, hey, it is going to cost money to train math & science teachers. THe better the school the more it will cost. And the good math & science teachers will have multiple offers - and some from good companies that will pay more than Walker and deliver more benefits than Walker. And will be more trustworthy than Walker.

And you think education in this country will be protected?

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 8):
There are two ways to increase tax revenues, take more of the pie, or grow the pie.

You are still avoiding the reality that Bush pushed his Refund Of Our Surplus.

The Refund continues long after the Surplus disappeared.

And the Debt continues to grow.

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 8):
How has this worked out in Europe?

How did W's program of Guns & Butter & Cake work out for us?

We got The Great Recession. Remember?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
But it's one of the liberal tenets
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
Yes.
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:05 am

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 8):
Ken, have you ever heard of the Laffer Curve? When you lower tax rates, you increase total revenues because that stimulates GDP growth.

That's not true in all circumstances, otherwise it would be a line instead of a curve. Obviously, there is a point at which lower tax rates do not increase revenues. Which side of that point you're on determines which way tax rates should go if you want to increase revenues.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
BMI727
Posts: 11090
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:19 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 11):
We have enough nukes for MAD.

I guess there's no such thing as fungibility in your world.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 11):
I guess you are assuming you'll not grow old.

Oh I fully plan on growing old and I know I'll have to save and invest wisely to do so. I'm not about to count on the government run Ponzi scheme of Social Security to fund my retirement. It may still nominally be around just because the government can make it mandatory to keep the money rolling in. Telling people to sit down, shut up, and send their checks is a luxury Bernie Madoff didn't have.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 11):
Now figure out that a new Toyota Corolla will probably cost around $250,000 when you retire. Petrol? Maybe $35 a gallon, if you are lucky.

With the government spending like it is, inflation could make that a possibility. Or if the US declares war on cars and starts levying taxes on them like some other countries.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 11):
Health insurance? If the GOP keeps coddling the health insurance industry you'll be lucky with $15,000 per month.

Throw the doors open and make it a market based deal just like food and shelter. State run healthcare looks good until people use it as an excuse to have government butt into our lives like the New York soda law.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 11):
One queer bit is that when you talk about protecting education, look at companies like Exxon pushing for more education in the areas of math & science. But, hey, it is going to cost money to train math & science teachers. THe better the school the more it will cost.

So? If there's a lack of teachers, teacher pay has to rise and all of the sudden some smarter young people are going to decide that maybe they don't want a quarter million of debt from law school and do that instead. Market based solutions even these things out.

And there will be some more money if we stop throwing money at Jessie Mae Belle and her dozen kids in the trailer.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19604
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:34 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
We do need to cut spending, but Defense needs to be at the top of the list. There are a lot of countries that manage to be protected without spending at the levels we spend. We need to take a very hard look at that spending before attacking the elderly and the sick.

Do you know why those countries are protected? Because our tax dollars pay for it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
So? If there's a lack of teachers, teacher pay has to rise and all of the sudden some smarter young people are going to decide that maybe they don't want a quarter million of debt from law school and do that instead. Market based solutions even these things out.

Public teacher pay is not market-based.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:42 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
Do we really need to be the most powerful nation in the world?

Yeah let's turn that power over to more compassionate countries such as China or Russia.........  
Bring back the Concorde
 
vin2basketball
Topic Author
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:31 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:02 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 12):

That's not true in all circumstances, otherwise it would be a line instead of a curve. Obviously, there is a point at which lower tax rates do not increase revenues. Which side of that point you're on determines which way tax rates should go if you want to increase revenues.

-Mir


Yes, I'm familiar with the premise of the Laffer Curve and why it's a curve.

That being said, 6 years worth of rising tax revenues from the Bush tax cuts followed by 2 years of falling tax revenue during a recession does not in any way debunk the Laffer curve. So lets summarize this here.

When LBJ cut taxes on the wealthy in the 1960s, economy expanded and tax collections from the wealthy expanded. This trend came to an end when a supply side recession (i.e. the spike in oil) hit in the early 70s. Tell me how this debunks the Laffer Curve.

When Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy in the early 1980s, the economy expanded and tax collections from the wealthy increased this ended in 1990 when guess what, an oil spike helped drive another recession. Tell me how this debunks the Laffer Curve.

When Bush cut taxes on the wealthy in the early 2000s, the economy expanded for 6 years and there were 6 years worth of rising tax collections from the rich, followed by 1.5 yrs of falling tax revenue thanks to a recession caused by Democrat led housing policy (everybody should own a house regardless of ability to pay) and whoaa another oil spike, and again a rise in tax collections from the rich after the late 2000s recession

So Ken777 and Mir, the long run data shows that Bush had it right.

And, you wouldn't accept one year of data showing that temperatures fell following 6 years of rising temperatures as conclusive proof that global warming doesn't exist, yet you're willing to do that for the Laffer Curve. hmm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):

So? If there's a lack of teachers, teacher pay has to rise and all of the sudden some smarter young people are going to decide that maybe they don't want a quarter million of debt from law school and do that instead. Market based solutions even these things out.

And there will be some more money if we stop throwing money at Jessie Mae Belle and her dozen kids in the trailer.

Welfare really isn't the issue here; it's salaries for public employees. We need to do a little redistribution; let's spend less on DMV clerks and more on teachers.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 11):

How did W's program of Guns & Butter & Cake work out for us?

We got The Great Recession. Remember?


And 6 odd years of robust economic growth. A recession, from which the economy has rebounded (held back by federal policy but still a recovery), does not invalidate the economic gains of Bush's first 6 years in office. People seem to forget that he too inherited a recession from Bill Clinton, but instead of complaining about his predecessor's faults, he took action and secured years of economic growth.

And at the very bottom of the recession, GDP per capita in PPP terms was still higher than what it was at the start of his term. The life of the average American got better economically under GWB, though that of the poorest 20% did not.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 11):
You are still avoiding the reality that Bush pushed his Refund Of Our Surplus.

The Refund continues long after the Surplus disappeared.

And the Debt continues to grow.

Ehh, here's why the debt grows. In 2008, GWB pushed through what was supposed to be a temporary recovery package of emergency spending (TARP and similar), pushing up federal spending from ~$2.9 billion to $3.5 billion. Now, once the immediate threat had passed, President Obama, instead of cutting spending back to normal terms, increased spending from this EMERGENCY LEVEL. That alone has added some 3-4 trillion to our debt, or 25% of its current level

Meanwhile, Europe is a dying continent economically. I'd rather have the US situation than the EU's many times over..
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:32 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
That would (IMO) stop a lot of motivation for terrorism but that's another thread. We can still have the best military in the world for a fraction of the cost.

You don't need to take troops out of the terrorism areas to bring heaps of the home. IIRC the US has 50,000 troops in Germany and around another 50,000 troops in Japan. I'm sure there is a logic to keeping them there but it costs a lot of money to do so in countries that are actually more peaceful than the US.

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 8):
Ken, have you ever heard of the Laffer Curve? When you lower tax rates, you increase total revenues because that stimulates GDP growth. There are two ways to increase tax revenues, take more of the pie, or grow the pie.

That works when there is demand and the problem with this economy is that pretty much across the world demand has dropped off significantly, even in China. You can cut taxes all you want but if people aren't buying it's not going to make anything better.

Explain to me how Supply side economics is going to work when I'm not going to make any big purchases because I may not have a job tomorrow. You need to get someone to spend where I agree with the conservatives is I rather it not be debt riddled governments.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
Is it worth reducing the quality of life and the health of the elderly and poor in this country?

That's for the poor and elderly to figure out. Not my problem.

You want to be a rich person as you say in many of your posts. The best way for you to achieve that is you creating something that people want that isn't around yet. I honestly don't know if you have those aspirations but if you do then a large number of people in your country without money to buy whatever you want is going to be your problem.

People not wanting to spend money is your problem actually because in an economy someone's spending is another's income.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 15):
Yeah let's turn that power over to more compassionate countries such as China or Russia.........  

They own the US so the power is theirs if the ever want to exercise it. Those countries know however that a crippled US cripples them, lack of demand in the US is one of the reasons China is slowing down.

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 16):
That being said, 6 years worth of rising tax revenues from the Bush tax cuts followed by 2 years of falling tax revenue during a recession does not in any way debunk the Laffer curve. So lets summarize this here.

Well where were the surpluses then in 6 of those 8 years Bush had a rubber stamp from congress to balance the budget and reduce the deficit. Austerity would have worked then because no one really would have noticed because the economy was growing.

The reason that revenues went up then is that there was growth to make it so. Why as a rich person would I spend more if I had no buyers regardless of how much taxes I pay.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:37 pm

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 17):
They own the US so the power is theirs if the ever want to exercise it.



Which is why the US needs to pay down the debt and cut spending. 50% doesn't pay taxes at all and that needs to change.
Bring back the Concorde
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:01 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 18):
Which is why the US needs to pay down the debt and cut spending. 50% doesn't pay taxes at all and that needs to change.

That needs to change I agree but that 50% are not holding enough money to do much of anything to fixing the problem so yes spending needs to be cut it needs to be cut in areas that do not affect the poor and middle class because throwing them on the street when they aren't enough jobs to begin with is just going to make things worse. Cut defense, the war on drugs, farm subsidies and take a cost effective approach to welfare abuse and then I would be on board 100%.

If the US was at full employment and they had this many people out of work then I would side with the tea party 100% but it is not the case and that needs to be fixed also..
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
vin2basketball
Topic Author
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:31 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:46 pm

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 17):
Well where were the surpluses then in 6 of those 8 years Bush had a rubber stamp from congress to balance the budget and reduce the deficit. Austerity would have worked then because no one really would have noticed because the economy was growing.

The reason that revenues went up then is that there was growth to make it so. Why as a rich person would I spend more if I had no buyers regardless of how much taxes I pay.

GWB spent way too much, nobody's denying that. But it doesn't change the fact that his tax cuts helped the economy. Every major tax cut on the wealthy since the late 1940s (Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Reagan, GWB) has been correlated with an ensuing minimum of 3 yrs of positive and accelerating economic growth. This is not correlation, but rather causation.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 17):
That works when there is demand and the problem with this economy is that pretty much across the world demand has dropped off significantly, even in China. You can cut taxes all you want but if people aren't buying it's not going to make anything better.

Explain to me how Supply side economics is going to work when I'm not going to make any big purchases because I may not have a job tomorrow. You need to get someone to spend where I agree with the conservatives is I rather it not be debt riddled governments.

Investment spending. See the interesting thing about this recovery has been its nature. Consumption spending has pretty much returned to and surpassed 2007 levels. You know what hasn't though; business investment spending; it hasn't grown at the rate it normally does after a recession, despite the fact that interest rates are at near zero levels. And that in turn is tied to the crowding out effect of govt spending. And, higher growth rates of investment spending correspond to faster recoveries after a recession.

Furthermore, supply side tax cuts can help offset rising energy + food + commodity costs, which even for the wealthy, directly and indirectly composes about 20-25% of spending.

And they stimulate demand, more than govt spending (it's counter intuitive but); govt spending tends to flow to certain groups; this is inherently less economically efficient than allowing the market to distribute that capital; and the velocity of government spent money is less than that of private consumption spending.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:52 pm

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 19):
throwing them on the street

Who said anything about throwing people in the streets?

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 19):
Cut, the war on drugs,

Agreed.
Bring back the Concorde
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:28 pm

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 16):
That being said, 6 years worth of rising tax revenues from the Bush tax cuts followed by 2 years of falling tax revenue during a recession does not in any way debunk the Laffer curve.

Except if you take into account the precipitous drop in revenues immediately following the tax cut. Relative to GDP, tax revenues never got back to where they were before the tax cut. Not under Reagan, and not under Bush.

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 16):
a recession caused by Democrat led housing policy (everybody should own a house regardless of ability to pay)
"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

Sounds like a Democrat would have said that, but it was actually GWB, back in 2002. Don't try and pin the push for home ownership on the Democrats - the White House had plenty to do with that.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
Ken777
Posts: 9021
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:36 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
That being said, all these troops all over the place, these wars, etc... bring them home.

I believe we need to keep troops in South Korea because the North is not stable enough to be trusted. I also believe that South Korea is sufficiently developed to actually pay for the protection those troops provide.

There is also no doubt in my mind that we need a naval base in the Western Pacific. Pity we lost Subic Bay as that was effective for both the US and the Philippines. To be blunt, IMO the loss of that base hurt the Philippines more than it did us. Same with Clark.

I have a hard time, however, supporting a lot of troops in WestPac outside of South Korea. Not worth the money IMO.

Then there are NATO forces that need to be drawn down. Why should we pay out for that deployment when we can move those troops to Europe rapidly?

The Middle East is a really expensive problem because of the unnecessary military activity dumped on us from the last Administration. That is going to cost big time for a long time, but maybe we can replace the work done by Halliburton and others with actual troops. I never did figure out why we pay Halliburton and others out the a$$ to cook meals when the military can have their own cooks. Stupid and far over priced.

We also need to dump the mountain of "defense consultants". What the hell do we have Generals and Admirals for if not for their judgement and experience? Switch out the consultants, increase the number of upper level ranks and give the career officers more advancement opportunities.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
"Well what about ________?" Yes, it's gonna hurt,

Especially when "____________" is "taxes".

If you are looking to cut areas like eduction, police & fire, Social Security, and health care then you need to be prepared for a real deterioration in this country - and there will be a political cost down the road.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
But out spending is absolutely out of contro

It's called Guns & Butter & Cake. Leading to the Great Recession.

Quoting Mir (Reply 12):
Obviously, there is a point at which lower tax rates do not increase revenues

And we reached that point after a decade of unnecessary has reductions. Sure didn't stop that Great Recession.,

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
I'll have to save and invest wisely to do so.

And pray that you don't have those investments hit with a Bush/Cheney market crash. Or a crash in property investments.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
I'm not about to count on the government run Ponzi scheme of Social Security to fund my retirement.

That Ponzi tag is a cute little name used by people who don't want to pay the taxes. Previous generations have manned up and paid the increase in taxes, which has placed the fund TODAY fully funded. Now we need to make changes necessary to ensure it is solid a third of a century from now.

The issue you really need to be afraid of is the impact on the economy when you slip the shaft to the elderly. That presents an environment you really don't want to face down the road. Man up and pay up.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
With the government spending like it is, inflation could make that a possibility.

It is going to happen regardless of the level of government spending, unless there is a long term period of deflation on an international scale. Don't try to dump every problem in this country on "government". That simply doesn't fly.

You can expect that type of inflation with a combination of Republican & Democrat governments - and you will probably face both.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11090
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:25 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
And pray that you don't have those investments hit with a Bush/Cheney market crash. Or a crash in property investments.

In the long run almost all investments have paid off at a pretty nice rate. Even simple compound interest in a bank can build a pretty nice nest egg over the course of decades. And if you find yourself in such a position then frankly, you're kind of an idiot. Everybody knows that you can put more money in stocks and such when you are young and can take a hit like that and be okay. When you get into your fifties and sixties you should be moving money into safer investments so that a market crash likely won't jeopardize your retirement.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
That Ponzi tag is a cute little name used by people who don't want to pay the taxes.

One little detail: a Ponzi scheme is exactly what it is. The government pays off earlier "investors" with money being collected from new "investors." Of course if it's really taxes, where I pay my taxes now and then the government gives me someone else's tax money later, then the whole thing is just stupid. I'll keep my money and be better off later on.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
Previous generations have manned up and paid the increase in taxes, which has placed the fund TODAY fully funded.

Do you know why previous generations have had to pay the increase in taxes? It's because like all Ponzi schemes, Social Security relies on bringing in more new money to keep the scheme going, especially when a lot of people are asking for their money back all at once (the Baby Boomers). When the inflow of money levels off or drops the entire thing collapses.

The insanity has to stop. Social Security must be phased out in an orderly fashion before it collapses or sucks up every bit of wealth in the nation.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5356
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:58 pm

Quoting vin2basketball (Thread starter):

Which is fine if the two groups had the same level of income, but the bottom 50% had income of $1.05 trillion and paid $19.5 billion in taxes, for an effective tax rate of 0.02%. Meanwhile, the top 400 paid $16.1 billion on $81 billion in income, or an effective rate of 20%.

How do you get an effective tax rate of .02% for the bottom 50%?

19.5bllion over 1.05 is ~19.5% effective tax rate for all 69 million folks.


The point should be made that the ~70 million had an average of 15,000 in effective income to be taxed vs the 40 million in effective taxes of income that the Top 400 got taxed on.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9021
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:15 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 24):
In the long run almost all investments have paid off at a pretty nice rate.

Especially ones that were made with Madoff.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 24):
The government pays off earlier "investors" with money being collected from new "investors."

It has never been a secret that PART of the revenues go towards payment of current retirees. And it has never been a secret that part is loaned to the US Treasury, and put to use on infrastructure and other long term projects. Long term investments in long term projects is far more intelligent than, say, letting some nationally recognized expert (like Madoff) handle that investment in the market.

Maybe you prefer to put your retirement in the hands of an expert at AIG.   

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 24):
I'll keep my money and be better off later on.

In order for you to be better off the country needs to be better off. If the wealthy manage to destroy Social Security and Medicare then we have some major problems. Look for a full time depression, instead of the Simple Great Recession Bush?Cheney delivered. Spreading poverty throughout the country ensures that you will get hit also. We simply don't need to promote misery at a national level, not matter how much the hard right turns you on.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11090
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:47 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 26):
Especially ones that were made with Madoff.

Early investors didn't do so bad, just like early recipients of Social Security. My generation, however, is going to walk straight into a buzz saw. There are only three endgames for Social Security: it runs out of new money and collapses like most Ponzi schemes, the government passes FICA increases until it sucks up every bit of wealth in the nation or the population just increases to unsustainable levels, or we do the smart thing and dismantle the whole system in an orderly way before anything really bad happens.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 26):
It has never been a secret that PART of the revenues go towards payment of current retirees.

...because it's a Ponzi scheme.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 26):
And it has never been a secret that part is loaned to the US Treasury, and put to use on infrastructure and other long term projects.

Then sell bonds rather than making it a mandatory investment. Or just make it a tax and give the rest of the money back to people to invest. Either way, there's no reason for Social Security.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 26):
Long term investments in long term projects is far more intelligent than,

So, exactly what is the huge, insurmountable barrier that is stopping me from buying government bonds? Is some rogue stockbroker going to tackle me, put a gun to my head, and force me to put my money in riskier investments? Because that would be a problem for the government to solve, but not with Social Security.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 26):
Maybe you prefer to put your retirement in the hands of an expert at AIG.

If you're going to be an idiot with your money, then there is nothing the government can do to save you. You're really full of it. As soon as the government hands everybody their money back you act as if they're all going to run to the nearest scam artist and hand them their entire life savings. Anyone who does that deserves to work until they are 90.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 26):
In order for you to be better off the country needs to be better off.

...then get government hands off of everyone's money. Drop spending, drop taxes, and watch the market fix itself.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 26):
Spreading poverty throughout the country ensures that you will get hit also.

Poverty is not a national problem. If you don't want to be impoverished, that is a problem for you to solve, not the government.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8544
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:53 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
So, exactly what is the huge, insurmountable barrier that is stopping me from buying government bonds? Is some rogue stockbroker going to tackle me, put a gun to my head, and force me to put my money in riskier investments? Because that would be a problem for the government to solve, but not with Social Security.

BMI727, you should know by know that liberals are all about forcible control of individuals. They don't want what is best for you, they want what is best for them. We are watching this play out in Wisconsin. Give people the choice not to be in a union and half of the members drop out. Give people the choice to leave East Germany and communism falls. Give people the choice to opt out of Social Security and it would collapse overnight. Liberals need walls to keep people in their clutches or their sacred institutions would vaporize.
 
threeifbyair
Posts: 939
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:44 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:37 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
There are only three endgames for Social Security: it runs out of new money and collapses like most Ponzi schemes, the government passes FICA increases until it sucks up every bit of wealth in the nation or the population just increases to unsustainable levels, or we do the smart thing and dismantle the whole system in an orderly way before anything really bad happens

There is another option - reduce benefits. This will actually happen automatically when the trust fund is depleted, at which point taxes will only be sufficient to pay about 75% of promised benefits.

Medicare, OTOH, is a whole different animal.
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:30 am

Quoting threeifbyair (Reply 29):
There is another option - reduce benefits. This will actually happen automatically when the trust fund is depleted, at which point taxes will only be sufficient to pay about 75% of promised benefits.

It should start happening now, in order to avoid reaching that point.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
Ken777
Posts: 9021
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:07 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
My generation, however, is going to walk straight into a buzz saw.

Only if you let the politicians and the Koch Brothers convince you that you are.

Might be interesting to see just how politicians will respond when they face angry voters over ending Social Security and Medicare. Their right wing BS can only go so far before it fails. Just like the end of the Bush/Cheney Years.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
the government passes FICA increases until it sucks up every bit of wealth in the nation or the population just increases to unsustainable levels,

LOL!

It's amazing that previous generations (including mine) could handle increases to FICA without crying all over the place.

It's also amazing to listen to the wimps who actually believe that right wing BS.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
...because it's a Ponzi scheme.

Say it often enough and you might believe it. Not matter how often you say it I'll pass - far too convenient for the wealthy to kill Social Security and Medicare.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
If you're going to be an idiot with your money, then there is nothing the government can do to save you.

Take a hard look at investors in AIG and Madoff. Mot your basic idiot. (Didn't Madoff get voted to the top position in the NYSE by fellow members?)

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):

...then get government hands off of everyone's money.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
Drop spending, drop taxes, and watch the market fix itself.

Just like during the Bush/Cheney Years?

Remember the Great Recession? We got that the last time the Conservatives showed us how to run the economy.

And you are probably voting for Bush III this November.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
Poverty is not a national problem

Of course it is. The more you increase poverty the greater impact you have on pulling the economy for everyone down.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
If you don't want to be impoverished, that is a problem for you to solve, not the government.

You sound like you are straight out of the 1800's. The get a job or get a gun mentality.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
Drop spending, drop taxes, and watch the market fix itself.

So we can cut big chunks out of infrastructure davelopment & maintenance and those PRIVATE companies who do the work will reach new heights of profitability? And hire more & more people? Sure.

Same for defense. You cut the budget and Defense will get their cuts. Look for falling profits and employment in private companies who work in the Defense Sector.

Every where you cut spending you will reduce corporate profits and employment.

So start with how many "government employees" you are ready to fire. To be effective you need to talk in millions of jobs lost - sort of like the end of the Bush/Cheney areas.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 28):
BMI727, you should know by know that liberals are all about forcible control of individuals.

LOL!

I remember that old Liberal named Huey Long. He had that horrible socialist program that had conservatives totally spastic.

Remember what that horrible socialist program was?

Free text books in high school.

Guess that was forcible control of individuals.  
Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 28):
We are watching this play out in Wisconsin.

To judge the success of the Wisconsin program we will need to look at just how far they push the teachers down. Then look at the continuing increases in costs to become a teacher. Do you really believe that Walker can maintain a balance that will motivate good students in Wisconsin to become teachers there. Do you really believe that he gives a $hit?

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 28):
Give people the choice to leave East Germany and communism falls

It is really pathetic to even attempt to compare non-conservatives in the US to communists in East Germany. Your judgement slipped big time there, totally missing any level of judgement.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 28):
Give people the choice to opt out of Social Security and it would collapse overnight.

And poverty would explode to the point that even the conservatives would be backpedalling before the next election.

But we shall see just how the Ryan Rape will play in November.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8544
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:50 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 31):
Guess that was forcible control of individuals.  

Let's see what else has been on the liberal agenda lately:

- Card check to do away with secret ballots in union elections   
- Health insurance mandate of questionable constitutionality   
- Curtailment of political free speech for groups of Americans in the form of corporations or unions   

Quite the model of a free society.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 31):
To judge the success of the Wisconsin program we will need to look at just how far they push the teachers down. Then look at the continuing increases in costs to become a teacher. Do you really believe that Walker can maintain a balance that will motivate good students in Wisconsin to become teachers there. Do you really believe that he gives a $hit?

You are missing the point. The teachers are the ones leaving the union. No one is forcing them to leave. Walker's policy gave them the freedom to choose and they are choosing to leave. The rate at which they are leaving would suggest that they didn't want to be there in the first place.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 31):
It is really pathetic to even attempt to compare non-conservatives in the US to communists in East Germany. Your judgement slipped big time there, totally missing any level of judgement.

You believe in a powerful coercive government that denies the individual the freedom to make critical personal decisions in matters of personal finance. If it stings that deeply, maybe you should rethink your position.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 31):
And poverty would explode to the point that even the conservatives would be backpedalling before the next election.But we shall see just how the Ryan Rape will play in November.

The people who would opt out of receiving benefits are those like BMI727 and myself who are decades away from retirement. Paying down the existing pool of benefit recipients has been the subject of countless economic studies. It's feasible, and it needs to be done. The sooner, the better.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9021
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:17 am

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 32):
The teachers are the ones leaving the union.

The simple fact is that the unions have been show down and don't have the ability to negotiate. No negotiation power and there is no need to pay the dues.

There is also no need for Wisconsin to take care of teachers. Look for teachers compensation to fail to keep up with COLA.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 32):
You believe in a powerful coercive government that denies the individual the freedom to make critical personal decisions in matters of personal finance.

You telling me what yo believe? LMAO! You don't have a clue - just a right wing indoctrination that makes every one not in lock step a liberal.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 32):
If it stings that deeply, maybe you should rethink your position.

It doesn't "sting me" - it is simply pathetic IMO to make that comparison. Sort of like saying that the hard right are a bunch of jack boot brown shirts. Sounds to me that you are one of Cheney Cadets. LMAO!

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 32):
The people who would opt out of receiving benefits are those like BMI727 and myself who are decades away from retirement

You tend to forget that there are also insurance benefits tied to the Social Security part of FICA. Back in the 80s we had a salesman who worked with us. Top notch guy, knew his product well and worked effectively to ensure we knew the product. The guy was working in his territories and was in an auto accident while working in Kansas City.

Overnight he was a quad. There was a bit of money from insurance - after fighting more legal battles than he should have. His only support after his personal savings ran out. was Social Security. He had paid out for that insurance and it was the most responsible insurance policy he had.

So when you look at getting out of SS be sure to understand that we will need a mandatory private insurance program to ensure you don't become a burden on the public. You don't pay FICA taxes then you should be left on your own if you happen to get hit with a problem like that guy. Becoming a para or quad is a flip of the coin when it comes to luck. Be very sure that long term insurance programs are mandatory and buy the best you can afford.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 32):
The people who would opt out of receiving benefits are those like BMI727 and myself who are decades away from retirement

And I doubt if either of you have sufficient disability insurance to protect you if you're the next one to become a quad.
 
QXatFAT
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:51 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:48 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Meanwhile, I am in neither group and I paid 30%, so how is that fair?

   here here!

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
There are a lot of people who would be paying taxes, but the $1,000 per child tax credit eliminates their tax liabilities.

I know that is pretty douchy of me but when my friends that have kids start talking about how much money they get back from the government for having their kids, my response every time is "You're welcome". Douche, I know.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):

Of course we need to be the strongest nation! There is no doubt about that. Also, defense spending still has to be high. Why? Because how many of those other countries that you are thinking about have people always trying to kill them? How many of them are in a constant conflict? Who calls on America to come save them when oppressed? Them all!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 15):
Yeah let's turn that power over to more compassionate countries such as China or Russia

  
And of course who are the people pumping money at a faster rate than the United States? The ones you just mentioned. They see what the Dems are trying to do in cut the spending so they see the opportunity to spend the money to try to play catch up.

On a little bit of a side note but still has to deal with taxes and spending of government money...it is sad when my friends start picking and changing their majors to things in which the GOVERNMENT is hiring so they can get a job that has the benefits they receive. In my industry, there are now more newer and newer faces that are starting to tell me how I should do MY job or run our industry when they haven't spent even 1 hour in the private side of this industry.
Don't Tread On Me!
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:26 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 24):
In the long run almost all investments have paid off at a pretty nice rate. Even simple compound interest in a bank can build a pretty nice nest egg over the course of decades. And if you find yourself in such a position then frankly, you're kind of an idiot.

There are things that people can't control and yes there is people that you refer to in this post who don't think ahead. But suppose you or one of you children has a medical condition that costs an absolute fortune to treat, you might not have the money to save because you have a massive debt for treatment and health insurance in the US only goes so far.

The best thing to do in that situation at the moment is to declare bankruptcy because IIRC your retirement funds are protected.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 24):
Do you know why previous generations have had to pay the increase in taxes? It's because like all Ponzi schemes, Social Security relies on bringing in more new money to keep the scheme going, especially when a lot of people are asking for their money back all at once (the Baby Boomers). When the inflow of money levels off or drops the entire thing collapses.

If SS is a ponzi scheme which there is logic to then banking and insurance are also, actually SS is a type of insurance. None of them can pay if everyone wants their money at once with banking, that is a run. Also insurance companies can't cope if everyone claims at once.

That is what brought down AIG they were insuring all these supposed AAA rated mortgage backed securities and when they turned out to be crap they had to pay out all those claims.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 31):
Only if you let the politicians and the Koch Brothers convince you that you are.

   We know that this is an issue so we can if we choose can be proactive to deal with it if there is a will.

I am actually for people refusing to pay taxes but then they have to deal with paying as you go for all public services.

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 34):
Why? Because how many of those other countries that you are thinking about have people always trying to kill them? How many of them are in a constant conflict? Who calls on America to come save them when oppressed? Them all!

Follow Ron Paul and say no. Most of the problems that the US faces in the Middle East is because they have meddled where they shouldn't have. They did nothing in Egypt, Libya was NATO led and the US has a supporting role, who knows what is going to happen in Syria but I doubt that the US is going to to anything substantial.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
Poverty is not a national problem. If you don't want to be impoverished, that is a problem for you to solve, not the government.

An increase of poverty leads to a less stable country and increased crime, this is not good as it will eventually lead to a revolution by the impoverished. That was the reason for the French revolution and one of the main causes of the Arab spring was the government not taking an effort to improve general living standards. This is something that the US government did very well from WWII until 1980.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
AustinAllison
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:30 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:26 am

A flat tax is the only solution here.
 
vin2basketball
Topic Author
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:31 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:41 am

Quoting casinterest (Reply 25):

Uhh, 19.5 billion divided by 100 billion would be an effective rate of 19.5%.

When the income is 1 trillion, then that's an effective rate of 1/20 or 0.05 percent.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 31):

Only if you let the politicians and the Koch Brothers convince you that you are.

Might be interesting to see just how politicians will respond when they face angry voters over ending Social Security and Medicare. Their right wing BS can only go so far before it fails. Just like the end of the Bush/Cheney Years.


SS isn't a Ponzi scheme; heck with smart immigration laws to improve demographics, increase in age to reflect new realities (I'd say 70), switch over to chained COLA increases, we can extend its lifespan by a good 30-40 years.

Medicare is unsustainable; again, remind me why we should be paying every dollar and every cent worth of health care for non-veteran elderly (i.e. those that didn't serve in the military).

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 31):

LOL!

I remember that old Liberal named Huey Long. He had that horrible socialist program that had conservatives totally spastic.

Remember what that horrible socialist program was?

Free text books in high school.

Guess that was forcible control of individuals.  

Huey Long? The corrupt Louisiana politician with the "Share Our Wealth Plan," yeah he was a real genius that one.

If I make money, I think that I have a reasonable right to that money after paying my dues (to answer your question, yes I do pull an income).

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 35):

We know that this is an issue so we can if we choose can be proactive to deal with it if there is a will.

I am actually for people refusing to pay taxes but then they have to deal with paying as you go for all public services.


I think most people accept the need for taxes, just not at this level with this much waste.
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:45 am

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 37):
I think most people accept the need for taxes, just not at this level with this much waste.

Most people envy US tax rates in the developed world   .
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
BMI727
Posts: 11090
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:52 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 31):
It's amazing that previous generations (including mine) could handle increases to FICA without crying all over the place.

It's amazing that nobody saw Social Security for what it is. And nobody looked far enough ahead to see all of the Baby Boomers coming which could, in essence, create a run on the system the way the recession created a run on Madoff's system and bring the whole thing to a screeching halt.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 31):
Take a hard look at investors in AIG and Madoff. Mot your basic idiot. (Didn't Madoff get voted to the top position in the NYSE by fellow members?)

Except they are idiots if they didn't diversify. They got sucked in and fell for the BS hook, line, and sinker. Not unlike people who expect Social Security to fund their whole retirement. They've got another thing coming.

I don't care if it's your own brother, you shouldn't invest all of your money with one person no matter how great the returns are or how much you like them. This isn't rocket science.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 31):
So we can cut big chunks out of infrastructure davelopment & maintenance and those PRIVATE companies who do the work will reach new heights of profitability? And hire more & more people? Sure.

It's going to have to get some cuts. And a lot of infrastructure can be privatized. What money does get spent has to have the value squeezed from every last penny and the best way to do that is competitive bidding among private contractors.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
So when you look at getting out of SS be sure to understand that we will need a mandatory private insurance program to ensure you don't become a burden on the public.

A better solution would be voluntary insurance and people, not the public, assumes the risk if one chooses not to purchase it.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 35):
If SS is a ponzi scheme which there is logic to then banking and insurance are also,

They aren't actually. Social Security takes money paid in now and sends it right back out to retirees. Real investments (banks, hedge funds, mutual funds, insurance, etc.) actually invest the money or loan it out and pay off early investors using the profits from those investments.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 35):
That is what brought down AIG they were insuring all these supposed AAA rated mortgage backed securities and when they turned out to be crap they had to pay out all those claims.

They made a bad bet and lost a lot of money, which isn't the same as running a scam.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:14 am

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 37):
I think most people accept the need for taxes, just not at this level with this much waste.

Do they? Do they really?

North Dakota is having a referendum on constitutionally abolishing the property tax. Never mind the fact that the state's extra revenue that they think will pay for it is already legally devoted to other matters, never mind the fact that amending a constitution to outright ban a tax is setting yourself up for trouble down the road when those extra revenues aren't there. They just want to not have to pay money for things now, and worry about tomorrow tomorrow (because surely things will be better then, right?). It's so short sighted it's ridiculous - hell, that sort of thinking is what got us into this problem in the first place.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:14 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
Real investments (banks, hedge funds, mutual funds, insurance, etc.) actually invest the money or loan it out and pay off early investors using the profits from those investments.

Banks do the exact same thing, up to 90-95% (depending on capitalization requirements) of your deposits are going to someone who is borrowing that money.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
They made a bad bet and lost a lot of money, which isn't the same as running a scam.

Scam means that it was intended to be theft, the principle is the same.

If you live in LA and an earthquake wipes out your house and 100,000 more and all those people claim do you think that insurer is going to be able to pay every claim. Note they have a contract signed with all of those home-owners.


Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
It's going to have to get some cuts. And a lot of infrastructure can be privatized.

What do you suggest get privatized in terms of infrastructure?? A lot is but their money comes from your taxes anyways.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
BMI727
Posts: 11090
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:57 am

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 41):
Banks do the exact same thing, up to 90-95% (depending on capitalization requirements) of your deposits are going to someone who is borrowing that money.

The key word there is "borrow." Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, which means no borrowing and no investment. The money paid in by workers today goes right back out as the payoff to retirees collecting benefits. The money retirees get is not coming from interest or dividends like money paid by a bank or other investments, it comes straight from new investors.

Now there is no reason for the government to borrow anything from Social Security. Either the government should get that money from taxes or by selling bonds voluntarily. Social Security fails as a Ponzi scheme and as a mandatory bond selling scheme.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 41):
Scam means that it was intended to be theft, the principle is the same.

No it isn't. When you make an investment there is a legitimate risk, which you are responsible for weighing yourself when making the decision to invest. Investments fail from time to time. Some more than others but it happens, and how much risk you can take is a personal decision that should be based on your personal situation.

Few at AIG really thought these were bad investments. They made a mistake and paid the price, or at least they would have if it weren't for the bailout. If they know that it is a poor investment but present it to investors as being better than they know it is, then that is a scam, just like if someone collects investments for a gold mine in Africa they know doesn't exist.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 41):
If you live in LA and an earthquake wipes out your house and 100,000 more and all those people claim do you think that insurer is going to be able to pay every claim.

I've never heard of an issue with that. And there is a lot of regulation in place to ensure that does not happen.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 41):
Note they have a contract signed with all of those home-owners.

There is always the risk of default when you sign a contract with anyone for anything.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 41):
What do you suggest get privatized in terms of infrastructure??

A lot of roads and airports for one. My philosophy is that infrastructure should be funded on as local a level as possible, which gives the most flexibility for each locality to get the infrastructure that best serves them and fund it in the most prudent way possible. Of course there is no way that infrastructure can ever be removed from the federal budget, but states and cities should be competing for federal dollars.

I would make one major law regarding this: any road project receiving federal money can charge tolls that only go to pay for the construction and maintenance of that road. When the construction is paid off the tolls have to drop so they only cover maintenance and expansion. There would probably have to be some protection against perpetual construction too.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 41):
A lot is but their money comes from your taxes anyways.

It's a matter of squeezing every last bit of value out of those dollars.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:35 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
I've never heard of an issue with that. And there is a lot of regulation in place to ensure that does not happen.

There hasn't been an 8.5 earthquake in LA since it became a large city. I'm making the point that if an insurance company has to pay a lot of claims at once it can't either and for it to remain solvent it has to collect premiums to modify the amount.

The exact same as SS as people are insuring old age payment, insurance uses the pool of money to pay out claims and people old enough are just making claims, same as your auto insurance payments go to someone who had a car accident to get their car fixed.
I will give you if you want to opt out feel free and perhaps that will be an option if the mandate for Obamacare is deemed unconstitutional.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
My philosophy is that infrastructure should be funded on as local a level as possible, which gives the most flexibility for each locality to get the infrastructure that best serves them and fund it in the most prudent way possible

A lot of it is, most roads are built locally, utilities are, sanitation is, in the US telecommunications is generally regional.

I have done a lot of infrastructure inspection work and the highest I have worked with is the province of Ontario but most of my work was done by developers and local municipalities. All of the contractors are private companies also that submit bids to get the contracts.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
A lot of roads and airports for one.

I'll give you airports and a lot of them do have to pay for themselves in terms of upgrades and the passengers pay for them though taxes on airline tickets and not a lot would change if they were private.

People would go nuts if roads were private. The conditions may be better but private roads are toll roads and the private company can bill you for their road use however they please similar to how turnpikes are done. Most drivers would need a transponder in their car so the private company knows when you use their roads and failing that they will get your license place number and send you a bill. It's likely a zero sum game and that private company doesn't have to answer to voters like a local municipality would.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5356
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:20 pm

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 37):
When the income is 1 trillion, then that's an effective rate of 1/20 or 0.05 percent.

Actually it is 2% but the difference in disposable income is key.

If you raised the income tax on the bottom 50% by 5% you would raise pnlyy another 50 billion and piss of 69 million voters/taxpayers.
As their 15000, in taxable income would lose on average aother 750 bucks.

If you Raised the income tax on the top 400 by 5% you would raise 3.2 billion dollars. Only 400 people get higher taxes. and you piss off 68,999,6000 less people.

Somewhere in between is the sweet spot of raising revenue and ensuring re-election.

Currently the politicians on both sides are not doing what is needed to
1. balance the budget
2. Pay off the debt


Both avenues must be used in order to evenly distribute the pain.
1. Raise Revenue
2. Cut spending.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
vin2basketball
Topic Author
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:31 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:46 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 44):

True, but it needs to be weighted more towards spending cuts
,

Because there are diminishing returns to tax increases Whereas a dollar in cuts is a dollar saved
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:01 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 44):
Both avenues must be used in order to evenly distribute the pain.
1. Raise Revenue
2. Cut spending.

I wouldn't say evenly distribute... you're gonna need to cut a LOT more than you could ever raise
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 5968
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:54 am

Look, I don't know what people expect in these discussions. If they expect "fair" then it all depends on what fair means to that person and how they define it/what the expectations are. Regarding the discrepancy paid between the wealthy (or more accurately high income earners) and the poor, how can anyone not expect the delta presented?

I mean, those top income earners (the "400") bring in something like 18,000 times more than the poorer people (the "bottom 50%") and on top of that pay a higher rate (though perhaps only marginally so when all adjustments are factored in) so of course the amount paid is going to be hugely different.

I personally am fine with the higher taxes things may revert too (and I will get to pay those taxes) because we need to get things back on track in the USA. I think that the tax structure and rates that were in place from the Reagan through Clinton administrations are about right but I know there is no exact science when saying that and that many things changed over that time. However those taxes and policies worked better than what we have now. And if we change things cut spending, return taxes to previous levels and cut and pay down the debt then the USA may be OK, if not then it will be in more trouble than it already is.

Regarding the question first posed: Is US tax policy "fair"? Sure.Why not, what else is going to get put in place the way things are right now? I have generally advocated for a "flat tax" based on wealth not income. It would be something like a 6%-7% flat tax calculated on all monies and wealth that everyone owns/controls and earns each year, it would apply to corporations and people. Everyone. But I am sure those impacted (read "the wealthy") would advocate the horrors of such an idea, double taxation, job destruction, unfair... etc.

Basically that fact that the bottom 50% pay a very small percentage makes sense when they only own/control 2.5% of the wealth of the nation. That the "wealthy" pay more than that makes sense as they own and control more of the wealth in the nation. Basically it breaks out like this: The bottom 50% have about 2.5% of the wealth, those in the 50%-80% range control 12-13%, the "19%" from 80% to 99% control 50% (this is the middle class of today, though many would call it the upper middle class), and finally the top 1%, everybody's favorite target, controls some 35%.

Now these numbers are rough because there is mixing of wealth vs income etc. but it essentially shows what I consider to be "fair" (not claiming you will) for the level of tax paid by groups/individuals.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1208137 (I have to source more on the bottom 50% but there isn't as much on them)

And finally I always have to point out that the "bottom 50%" of earners were removed from the tax rolls (effectively) by Republican's back during the Reagan years (yes the Dems were all for it but it was the Republican's that launched it). And it was done for a very good reason: the cost of collection and enforcement was basically equal to what was paid. Though with that said, I still think it was a mistake. EVERYONE should pay some level of tax so that when they go to vote and decide how their community or the nation should go they have "skin in the game".

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
FlyPNS1
Posts: 5258
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

RE: On US Tax Policy

Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:45 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 24):
Even simple compound interest in a bank can build a pretty nice nest egg over the course of decades.

If you believe this, you are extremely naive.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 24):
In the long run almost all investments have paid off at a pretty nice rate.

Stocks are a ponzi scheme too you realize. Those who got in early got all the gains and drove prices up. The past performance of the stock market is totally meaningless. Most investors going forward will be lucky to get a 3% rate or return on stocks...barely enough to keep up with inflation.

Quoting tugger (Reply 47):
And finally I always have to point out that the "bottom 50%" of earners were removed from the tax rolls (effectively) by Republican's back during the Reagan years (yes the Dems were all for it but it was the Republican's that launched it).

Conservatives always like to forget about this part. Their demi-god of Reagan actually wanted to remove the poor from the tax roles to help buy some of their votes.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
The money paid in by workers today goes right back out as the payoff to retirees collecting benefits. The money retirees get is not coming from interest or dividends like money paid by a bank or other investments, it comes straight from new investors.

Patently false since historically far more has been paid in than paid out. Where did the rest go?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
They made a bad bet and lost a lot of money, which isn't the same as running a scam.

Except that they new the securities were junk, but made it seem like they were a good investment...hence a scam.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
I would make one major law regarding this: any road project receiving federal money can charge tolls that only go to pay for the construction and maintenance of that road. When the construction is paid off the tolls have to drop so they only cover maintenance and expansion. There would probably have to be some protection against perpetual construction too.

Again, very naive. No private company would sign up to this as you kill their ability to make a long-term profit.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
Few at AIG really thought these were bad investments.

They all knew they were bad investments.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11090
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: On US Tax Policy

Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:08 pm

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 48):
If you believe this, you are extremely naive.

...except for the slight detail that it is true.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 48):
Stocks are a ponzi scheme too you realize.

No it isn't, since there is actual underlying value. Ponzi schemes are simply money in - money out.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 48):
Patently false since historically far more has been paid in than paid out. Where did the rest go?

Wasted on entitlements in the federal budget as a backdoor tax or mandatory bond purchase, however you want to look at it. Either way the system has to be phased out before it collapses.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 48):
Again, very naive. No private company would sign up to this as you kill their ability to make a long-term profit.

No they wouldn't, which is why they would be doing their work without federal money. Or localities taking federal money and then not keeping tolls at high levels, however they prefer. I'm not necessarily against private operators taking some profit like utility companies, though certainly far less on federally funded projects than private ones to keep the feds from being used as a bank. The intent of the law is to keep localities or companies from building Freeway A, collecting tolls to pay it off, and then keeping tolls at those levels indefinitely to bankroll Freeway B, the fire department, an airport or whatever else.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: akiss20, BartSimpson and 37 guests