Quoting Superfly (Reply 49): Besides, Joe the Plumber will never get to that income bracket until he gets his license.

Speculation all around. If he were to buy the business he would not have to be a plumber and his income, if he were to run the business correctly could exceed 250k. His questions were legitimate, the left just doesn't want to face the facts that they are. Just because taxes went up on the higher incomes in the past doesn't mean that they have to again. It's been proven time and time again if you keep the rates low the return in tax reciepts is greater.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 51): It's been proven time and time again if you keep the rates low the return in tax reciepts is greater.

Link?

If this were true why didn't Bush drop the tax rates to a flat 10% tax then? I mean we'd be rolling in huge surpluses then using your "facts".  

[Edited 2008-11-02 17:59:51]

Quoting FruteBrute (Reply 52): If this were true why didn't Bush drop the tax rates to a flat 10% tax then? I mean we'd be rolling in huge surpluses then using your "facts".

Because there is more involved than personal rates. As to surpluses, as I've stated before, until we seperate SS from the general budget again we will never truly have a surplus. We also would be doing much better if the GOP Congresses, all of them, and the Presidents, all of them, also cut spending but unfortunately they have the ability to spend more than they take in endlessly. I don't expect that to change any time soon.

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...rporate-Income-Tax-Cuts-Boost.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...me-Tax-Receipts-Stay-Constant.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...Corporate-Income-Tax-Receipts.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...ederal-Spending-Has-Increased.html

This is going to be the country killer, not some foreign army.

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...datory-Spending-Has-Increased.html

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 51): Just because taxes went up on the higher incomes in the past doesn't mean that they have to again.

But they've gone down since then, haven't they? Is it a problem to raise them to what they already were?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 51): if you keep the rates low the return in tax reciepts is greater

I'd say I'm more concerned with this than the "how do we get it" part. What do you propose we do with the cash?

How do you propose we solve problems in healthcare? Do you agree that there are problems?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 50): if you keep the rates low the return in tax reciepts is greater.

Probably pointless to offer a logical argument to you, RJdxer, but that is mathematically impossible. If rates are lowered, assuming that incomes remain at the same level, the tax receipts must go down, not up.

Unless you are somehow arguing that if tax rates are lowered people magically stop evading tax?

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 54): Probably pointless to offer a logical argument to you, RJdxer, but that is mathematically impossible. If rates are lowered, assuming that incomes remain at the same level, the tax receipts must go down, not up. Unless you are somehow arguing that if tax rates are lowered people magically stop evading tax?

It is all in the magic of the Laffer curve - or should it be Laughter curve? Laffer came to prominence at about the same time as Friedmanite concepts, so I will take the opportunity to add a reference to Perspective from 3 Novemmber 2008. It gives a nice demolition of the Friedman-Hayek school of thought - quite concise, just an A4 page and a half.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/perspective...tories/2008/2408838.htm#transcript
Last paras are:
As that painful process unfolds, Greenspan and his intellectual heroes-Hayek, Rand, and Friedman-should be tossed into the dustbin of history. We need to replace ideology-whether of the right or the left-with an empirically grounded understanding of the workings of a market economy, warts and all.

The new, realistic economics, will be built on the shoulders of Schumpeter, Keynes, and Hyman Minsky.

Steve Keen

I just hope they do not come up with Milton Keynes as a compromise as that is not one of the best places in the world - IMHO - you know what rhymes with Buckingham!

Palin is now in full lie mode.

She either hasn't checked what she is saying to see if it is true, or she is being purposefully deceitful. Which is it? Does either of these indicate that she is a candidate of integrity?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 55): you know what rhymes with Buckingham!

Not our problem, Baroque. The first Tuesday in November is only important in the United States every four years.

Whereas, as you'll well know, in Australia it's important EVERY year. The Melbourne Cup - the horserace that stops the nation......

Hope you win a few bucks..........  

[Edited 2008-11-03 06:29:54]

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 53): Is it a problem to raise them to what they already were?

Yes. When has the government shown it has the efficiency to do something while controlling cost?

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 53): Do you agree that there are problems?

Yes, the problem began when government got involved. It will only get worse even if nothing more is added in terms of government health care.

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...titlements-Alone-Will-Eclipse.html

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 54): If rates are lowered, assuming that incomes remain at the same level, the tax receipts must go down, not up.

That assumes that incomes remain at the same level which they do not, neither personal or corporate. Your theory is the closed pie where no new business or jobs are created. Everytime one is, a new source of tax revenue is created.

Quoting AirportSeven (Reply 56): She either hasn't checked what she is saying to see if it is true, or she is being purposefully deceitful. Which is it? Does either of these indicate that she is a candidate of integrity?

I think it is sad that she is stooping this low in hopes of swaying voters! Also does she not realize in this day and age of 24 hour news and the internet her speeches can be checked ASAP!

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 58): Your theory is the closed pie where no new business or jobs are created. Everytime one is, a new source of tax revenue is created.

Funny how people generally so easily gloss over that one.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 59): I think it is sad that she is stooping this low in hopes of swaying voters! Also does she not realize in this day and age of 24 hour news and the internet her speeches can be checked ASAP!

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 53): Is it a problem to raise them to what they already were?

The argument that McCain always presents is that by lowering the taxes (or keeping them at the current level) for the upper class encourages those high earners to either hire more people for the businesses they own or spend more money on goods and services provided by the lower classes (and thus creating more jobs that way). My problem with this argument is that if small businesses suddenly have more money in their hands their first priority would be to save it or invest it, not to hire new people. In fact, as a business you want the highest productivity from your employees, meaning it is your goal to have 3 folks do the work of 5 and so on. Business owners are not charities, and won't create jobs just for the sake of helping out.

The other argument about them increasing spending is true to a certain extent, but how do you ensure that their dollars stay here? They'll vacation abroad, are likely to purchase goods manufactured abroad (German cars, French fashion, Japanese gadgets), or simply save their money or invest on foreign markets. Again, the assumption that their excess money will stay here is just that, an assumption.

Based on these personal observations that's why I see a better chance of Obama's plan actually helping the middle class than the McCain's plan. And I doubt I'm alone in my view, and McCain simply didn't do a good job in convincing me otherwise.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 62): Business owners are not charities, and won't create jobs just for the sake of helping out.

But business owners are in the business to make money, and if it makes sense to hire a person at 6 dollars an hour because demand allows them to make 12 dollars extra an hour, then they will.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 62): ), or simply save their money or invest on foreign markets. Again, the assumption that their excess money will stay here is just that, an assumption

The idea is eventually the money would return in that the people down the line would need services produced in the US. The high value of the dollar makes this difficult though. Although eventually the idea would be that the dollar would devalue itself till it makes sense for investment to come back in. This is the reason why I support Obama's tax plan. The dollar has to be made a level playing field. Currenty far too many countries are pegged to the dollar, those companies must face economic sanctions/taxes if they are artificially holding their currency values in check.

McCain's Free Trade rule is good in the long run, but I don't have 500 years to wait for the rest of the world to have equal labor laws, or currency values.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 47): Oh for f*ck's sake, who cares about that? We are so judgmental about the personal lives of others - who REALLY cares other than people stuck in the past? Same thing as the Clinton escapade - immaterial and NOT worth mentioning

But, that was reason enough to try to remove a sitting president. If a sitting Democrat president is nearly removed from office for an affair, why, then, do we need to ignore a Republican nominee for an affair?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 47): Where's the loyalty? Where's the sense of community? That's the real story there - and the media gave him a free pass.

Did they? He actually stayed with that same congregation even AFTER Rev Wright retired. Obama did not leave the congregation until the next pastor came in. And, Obama is still Christian. I am still trying to figure out how someone's religous belief should be so important for an elected office. We are not voting for a religous leader. We are voting for a political leader. I thought there was freedom of religion.

About the Palin/McCain economy: How can low taxes and constant spending be good? Has that worked over the past 8 years? If the ultra rich have all this money to invest, do they invest in American workers? Where are all the jobs we were told would happen if the ultra rich have money to build factories in the Untied States?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 58): Quoting NAV20 (Reply 54): If rates are lowered, assuming that incomes remain at the same level, the tax receipts must go down, not up. That assumes that incomes remain at the same level which they do not, neither personal or corporate. Your theory is the closed pie where no new business or jobs are created. Everytime one is, a new source of tax revenue is created.

OK that is one model, now provide some empirical data to show the actual increases in income that result from a stated tax cut.

Until you do that it is just your assertion against Nav's. There is an argument, but you need to make it in detail, and show the linkages too to generate the multipliers that you no doubt will assume if you do produce some empirical data.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 65): Quoting RJdxer (Reply 58): Quoting NAV20 (Reply 54): If rates are lowered, assuming that incomes remain at the same level, the tax receipts must go down, not up. That assumes that incomes remain at the same level which they do not, neither personal or corporate. Your theory is the closed pie where no new business or jobs are created. Everytime one is, a new source of tax revenue is created. OK that is one model, now provide some empirical data to show the actual increases in income that result from a stated tax cut. Until you do that it is just your assertion against Nav's. There is an argument, but you need to make it in detail, and show the linkages too to generate the multipliers that you no doubt will assume if you do produce some empirical data.

You know, that's an interesting point: It has been often argued, and I believe demonstrated, that when taxes area lowered, tax receipts by the government go up. BUT does this extend to a net increase in the AVERAGE, or likely more accurately, the median wealth of the nation's citizens?

In other words is there a net benefit to the nation when taxes go down and tax receipts go up or is there an increased spending as there are more outlays of capital to support the withering "average" (from welfare to police to disaster relief to more requests by local politicians as their tax base has eroded due to less money being spent and the resulting sales taxes being reduced)?

Can an argument be made that as the median wealth increases the local, regional, and state receipts increase, thereby offsetting a decrease in tax receipts on the national level?

Tugg

Quoting Tugger (Reply 66): BUT does this extend to a net increase in the AVERAGE, or likely more accurately, the median wealth of the nation's citizens?

Very interesting point you have there Tugger. If you look at an indicator such as the savings rate for Americans, one could start a spirited debate, that it doesn't increase the median wealth of the nation's citizens.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 65): OK that is one model, now provide some empirical data to show the actual increases in income that result from a stated tax cut.

Irrevelant. That is up to the individual taxpayer to make happen, not the government by increased reciepts. Here is where the government versus individual responsiblity clash. You see increased reciepts via lower taxes as a mandate for the government to insure that the average tax payer makes more money. I see lower taxes as a way to keep more of what I earn. If I want a bigger paycheck over all that is up to me to achieve, not the government.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 65): Until you do that it is just your assertion against Nav's

Same as above. Lower taxes to a point mean higher reciepts. It does not mean that the average citizen is going to get a raise from their employer nor should it.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 68): You see increased reciepts via lower taxes as a mandate for the government to insure that the average tax payer makes more money. I see lower taxes as a way to keep more of what I earn. If I want a bigger paycheck over all that is up to me to achieve, not the government.

Your view is pretty easy to understand. Lower taxes --> more tax receipts. More money in your pocket.

I believe the question is regarding whether or not you really would have more money in your pocket at the end of the day. Not you specifically, but average Americans. If more people have to spend more money on things like education, transportation, healthcare, law enforcement, etc - - then are they really better off than they would have been if wealthy people had to pay a very slightly higher tax bill?

Aaron747:
(Re: post #49)

The Israel / Palestine situation is too toxic and I doubt Obama nor McCain wants to touch it with a 10-foot pole. I don't expect any major party candidate to change the status quo in that situation.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 50): His questions were legitimate,

His questions would be legitimate if he actually paid his taxes.     

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 64): If a sitting Democrat president is nearly removed from office for an affair, why, then, do we need to ignore a Republican nominee for an affair?

Because perpetuating the ever lower standards of political discourse is not the direction to be going in. Eventually we'll get beyond hanging people out to dry for what they do in bed.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 70): The Israel / Palestine situation is too toxic and I doubt Obama nor McCain wants to touch it with a 10-foot pole.

Only because both major parties are so beholden to lobbying money representing Israeli interests - it's just disgusting.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 58): That assumes that incomes remain at the same level which they do not, neither personal or corporate. Your theory is the closed pie where no new business or jobs are created. Everytime one is, a new source of tax revenue is created.

You're only making an assumption RJdxer - that cutting taxes automatically generates new investment and jobs. Certainly it can - but there is plenty of room for doubt that it will. In recent times all the evidence is that increases in the money supply without other measures designed to channel it into productive investment just produces a lot of stock market speculation. You've probably seen a little bit of that recently?  

Obama is saying that he will channel tax cuts to people with 'normal' incomes. The economic case for that is that they are likely to spend the money straight away on goods and services that they need, thus prserving and creating jobs and reviving the economy.

McCain is saying that he will leave taxes on people with normal incomes as they are and cut taxes for what amounts to the 'super-rich.' I have no idea what the economic case for that is - especially after the recent re-run of the Wall Street Crash.

You'll have to tell me how McCain's strategy is supposed to work?

What RJ conveniently leaves out is the $5.6 TRILLION we borrowed over the Bush budgets to stay afloat from these lower taxes. Currently we have approx. 138 million taxpayers in this country. We have borrowed $40,000 per taxpayer over the 8 years of Bush budgets or about $5,000 per taxpayer, per year. If you have 2 working people in your household/family, congratulations we borrowed $80,000 on your behalf.

What did we get for this money? Did we build a kick ass infrastructure system of the 21st century like airports, rail, roads, and ships? Did we invest in our environment? What do we have to show for each our $40,000 in borrowing under Bush?

Oh, hey we've spent a trillion in Iraq. That's been a great investment hasn't it?

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 69): Your view is pretty easy to understand. Lower taxes --> more tax receipts. More money in your pocket

Holy S--t we are agreeing?

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 69): then are they really better off than they would have been if wealthy people had to pay a very slightly higher tax bill?

There is no way that the top 5% are going to make up the difference year in and year out without pulling up stakes and heading for greener pastures. Several a UK citizen has moved here because of that very problem with taxation over there.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 70): His questions would be legitimate if he actually paid his taxes.

His questions would be legitimate if he were a homeless bum living under a freeway over pass. He is still a citizen and has the right to ask those questions.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 72): You've probably seen a little bit of that recently?

Every American with a 401k retirement account has seen that. Those losses are not confined to the wealthy.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 72): Obama is saying that he will channel tax cuts to people with 'normal' incomes.

Define "normal" because even though I'm doing pretty well for myself 250K is still a whopping pay check per annum to me. I think it is wrong to take from those that have built wealth to give to those who for whatever reason have not. I'm not talking about those below the poverty line, they should recieve help and since we've decimated private charities in this country from what they once were the government is left standing as the only entity that can do it. But for those above the poverty line? The ones that have run up huge credit card debt not by paying for health care or their kids educations, but instead run up huge personal debt just keeping up with their nieghbors that are trying to keep up with them? No way.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 72): The economic case for that is that they are likely to spend the money straight away on goods and services that they need, thus prserving and creating jobs and reviving the economy.

Then they are going to Wal Mart and purchasing good made overseas. How much of a Chevy is made or assembled here in America anymore? It just a red herring that if you give the "normal" people cash they are going to spend it on goods and services that benefit other Americans. Some of it will but a lot of it probably won't because of globalization.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 72): McCain is saying that he will leave taxes on people with normal incomes as they are and cut taxes for what amounts to the 'super-rich.'

I have not seen the plan to cut taxes on the very wealthy anymore than they are. I have seen his plan to make the tax cuts now in force permanent which I agree with.

Quoting FruteBrute (Reply 73): What RJ conveniently leaves out is the $5.6 TRILLION we borrowed over the Bush budgets to stay afloat from these lower taxes.

Irrevelant. Since tax reciepts go up when you cut taxes then the opposite is that we would have had less tax reciepts had the rates stayed up. On top of that reciepts have nothing to do with spending which as I have said over and over again was, is, and will continue out of control by the looks of things.

Quoting FruteBrute (Reply 73): Oh, hey we've spent a trillion in Iraq. That's been a great investment hasn't it?

So where did your other 4.6 trillion go? Care to take a look at the 1trillion pound gorilla called "entitlement spending"?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 74): Define "normal" because even though I'm doing pretty well for myself 250K is still a whopping pay check per annum to me.

As best I understand it, RJdxer, it boils down to $150K for singles, $200K for couples, $250K (net profit, NOT turnover) for companies. Had to choose a word, 'normal' seemed the best choice.

In any case, aren't you rather arguing against yourself when you say:-

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 74): I think it is wrong to take from those that have built wealth to give to those who for whatever reason have not.

What do you want to do instead? Take money from the people who are struggling and give it to the ones that have 'made it'?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 74): I think it is wrong to take from those that have built wealth to give to those who for whatever reason have not.

RJ, it seems to me that you have an ax to grind when it comes to people who could very well take care of themselves end up being supported by the government. In that respect I feel the same way. However, when Obama talks about taxing the high earners it doesn't mean that their "hard-earned" money will go directly to healthy slackers surfing the net the entire day. No, the extra revenue they'll bring will go to pay for things like the national debt, defense, transportation, the wars in the ME, etc, you know, for running the government. Like it or not our budget is unbalanced and although both candidates talk about cuts in spending, cuts alone will not be enough. With the current crisis it is predicted that tax revenue will be even less next year. Now, you probably want the government to pay for that new shiny F-22 or to ensure that no more interstate bridges fall down, don't you? And that's where the higher taxes come in. Best case scenario is what Obama is proposing right now, let the tax cuts for those earning $250K or more expire while the rest of us pay the same. Worst case (which can happen regardless of who wins) we all end up paying more taxes.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 75): What do you want to do instead?

I want, for once, the government to look at cutting spending before they look at raising taxes.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 76): No, the extra revenue they'll bring will go to pay for things like the national debt

You don't actually believe that do you?

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 76): Like it or not our budget is unbalanced and although both candidates talk about cuts in spending, cuts alone will not be enough.

But that would be a great place to start. If, after all the arguing, cajoling, cat calling, and mud wrestling is done we are still short then and only then should the government come looking for more money. When they can demonstrate that beyond a shadow of doubt there is nothing left to cut. That is not the case now and rarely if ever is a cut really a cut. In Washington a cut means that you are not going to get the same or a bigger increase than you got last year and that is just the wrong way to go about it.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 77): But that would be a great place to start. If, after all the arguing, cajoling, cat calling, and mud wrestling is done we are still short then and only then should the government come looking for more money. When they can demonstrate that beyond a shadow of doubt there is nothing left to cut.

RJ this is probably your best post that I've seen. Unfortunately, and it saddens me a lot to say it, we are far too embedded with powerful lobbying machines and Washington "insiders" that this is far from reality. The President may very well be the one signing a budget into law but you know very well that Congress will make sure that it is so fat with earmarks, entitlements, pork, and personal favors that a substantial cut in spending is nigh to impossible. a 20% cut across the board as McCain proposes? Dream on. Reading the budget line by line as Obama says? Sure, when unicorns fly. And exactly how do you prioritize funding? Do we buy one more aircraft carrier or is it better to keep open an additional 50 national parks? Do we upgrade 200 bridges nationwide to avoid another collapse or provide troops for a peacekeeping op in Africa? Do we get more bang for the buck from more childcare centers or from more college research grants? We may very well have enough right now to fund the things that are truly critical if we do some cuts but no one wants to go back to their state/district without the promised playground. It's the way our government is set up, for better of for worse, and a new President probably won't have much of an impact.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 78): Unfortunately, and it saddens me a lot to say it, we are far too embedded with powerful lobbying machines and Washington "insiders" that this is far from reality.

One way or the other it is going to happen. Either voluntarily, or under financial collapse. Shame they can't think of the nation before they think of re-election.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 77): I want, for once, the government to look at cutting spending before they look at raising taxes.

But look at exactly what your party did. Shall we? When is the last time your party actually cut spending? Bush was a huge spender. In fact he increased the govt spending more than any President in the past 40+ years. Reagan too. So the whole "cut spending" thing is such a red herring.

But you and I agree for once. Spending should be slashed. I'm glad we agree.

The military budget needs to be slashed by 50%. Period. No ifs, no ands, no buts.

The Iraq war needs to end ASAP. Even 16 months is too long. Serve Iraq a 12 month notice that they will be on their own. We can keep a normal military base operation there of 20,000 or less but that's it.

Corporate welfare needs to be cut off completely, 100%, totally, and immediately. Gasoline taxes need to be raised by $ .50 per gallon tomorrow. The Bush tax cuts be let expire, but eliminate the AMT.

Then as part of our energy independence program to offset the military spending we need to slash highway spending. Increase mass transit funding and alternative energy tax breaks.

According to this budget program under my plan of decreased spending, I would take this country from over $11 TRILLION in debt (50% of total GDP) in 2008 to $4.1 trillion in 2018 (18.3% of total GDP). Also, my budget shrinks the total size of govt from 21.4% of GDP to 18.8% in 2018. Give it a whirl: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/2008/05/budget_hero/

[Edited 2008-11-03 19:53:54]

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 78): RJ this is probably your best post that I've seen.

Very much agree.

Actually there IS a way of reducing wasteful expenditure. But it would be at the expense of a lot of bureacracy.

Not SO long ago, government organisations at all levels had to present their proposed next-year budgets for approval in detail, project by project; and then stick to them. In the cases of Australia and Britain, this all fell apart after the 1973 oil crisis. Costs were rising so fast that budgets were being topped up quarter by quarter, or even month by month, by a percentage based on inflation during the period.

After the crisis had eased, cost inflation was reduced; but the principle stuck. Further, in the interests of 'reducing bureaucracy,' the practice developed of giving most departments an annual budget amount equal to what they'd spent the previous year, plus inflation. So long as they stuck within that figure, the money flowed. They only had to apply in detail for an increase if they wanted to spend more than their previous annual budget. I imagine that the USA also adopted a similar system.

So the government culture changed from 'projects in search of a budget' to 'a budget in search of projects.' It became a point of honour never to underspend your budget, because that meant you'd have to make do with less for good.

Best example of this that I can think of is what we call here 'roads month.' For some weeks before the end of the financial year, there's an annoying rush of small road and drainage projects. This isn't because the roads have suddenly collapsed - it's simply and solely because the approved budgets would otherwise be underspent........

Two things a determined government could do about that. The first would be to cut out the automatic inflation increase - make the various departments make a case for it. The second would be to require detailed proposals for any individual projects above a given level of cost.

Might just help to put some sort of brake on ever-expanding government expenditure. At the cost though, as I've said, of more bureaucracy.