Democrats in the House introduce PAYGO

[Stunt]

Sure it *sounds* good...but last time the Dems ran in a presidential election they advocated more spending and tax the rich. I don't know if they know or not...but the US is in a deficit situation and equal amounts will not be sufficient. How bout starting with spending cuts first; they would gain far more credibility with this.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Sure it *sounds* good...but last time the Dems ran in a presidential election they advocated more spending and tax the rich. I don't know if they know or not...but the US is in a deficit situation and equal amounts will not be sufficient. How bout starting with spending cuts first; they would gain far more credibility with this.

First you gotta undo the damage of the last 6 years. Gotta return to Clinton levels of taxes and spending.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Stunt
Sure it *sounds* good...but last time the Dems ran in a presidential election they advocated more spending and tax the rich. I don't know if they know or not...but the US is in a deficit situation and equal amounts will not be sufficient. How bout starting with spending cuts first; they would gain far more credibility with this.

First you gotta undo the damage of the last 6 years. Gotta return to Clinton levels of taxes and spending.

Tax cuts didn't do the damage, it was the huge amounts of spending by the Republicans; it's disgusting.

In your own life when your books aren't balanced, do you stop excessive spending and look to reduce costs or do you go look for a second job? More revenue isn't a long term solution to a spending problem. Spending in the US has been growing faster than GDP (and the economy has been booming); and simply is not sustainable.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Techs, I refer to congress in general, or the CBO which is in charge of projections.

They still believe that if you cut capital gains from 28% to 15% you lose all that money from the cut. When reality shows that the cut from 28% to 15% results in more money due to increase capital gains activity.

Um... no it doesn't. The laffer curve has never been demonstrated to work in either a micro or macro aspect. It has been repeatedly an soundly refuted time and time again, and *real* economists laugh at it.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Techs, I refer to congress in general, or the CBO which is in charge of projections.

They still believe that if you cut capital gains from 28% to 15% you lose all that money from the cut. When reality shows that the cut from 28% to 15% results in more money due to increase capital gains activity.

Um... no it doesn't. The laffer curve has never been demonstrated to work in either a micro or macro aspect. It has been repeatedly an soundly refuted time and time again, and *real* economists laugh at it.

QFT

 

[Lemon law]

The laffer curve was totally debunked in the late 1980's---but it just goes to show you---bad ideas never die-- they just get repacked.

But its still a testable hypothesis--does trickle down work---and a rising tide lift all boats?---gotta say no when only the rich are getting richer
and everyone else is staying put or moving backwards---and the income gap between rich and poor is greater now than it ever was.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: crownjules

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Washington D.C. has proven it does not know how to control spending. This will be the same until America folds.

President Clinton and the corresponding Congress would like a word with you.

Those were the good old days, when republicans acted like republicans.
Then Newt got run out of town and the place hasnt been the same since.

Agreed entirely, on both posts. Spending is their problem, and I miss Newt.

I think I'll have to be in favor of this Bill, except it does not take into account the economic growth (higher revenue) that tax cuts stimulate.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Genx87---wrong again as he writes--Those were the good old days, when republicans acted like republicans.
Then Newt got run out of town and the place hasnt been the same since.

Little bit of revisionist history---Clinton and the republicans didn't reach that balanced budget until Newt was run out of town. With Newt there was
hostility and no bi-partisan co-operation--with Newt gone Republican and dems quit their bickering and started to do the peoples business. Both
parties deserve the credit for the only time in recent American history where the Federal government balanced its budget.

Then GWB came in 2001--destroyed all bi-partisanship---and its been red ink ever since.

Lesson---united in common purpose we can plan and act prudently---divided we spend like there is no tomorrow.

quote:" Both parties deserve the credit for the only time in recent American history where the Federal government balanced its budget."

Wrong. Bill Clinton's tax hike was not supported by ONE Republican in the house, they were all predicting the sky would fall. Instead, it ushered in the largest post-war boom in history and the first (almost) balanced budget in many years. The Republican answer of cutting taxes, in peace, in war, has been shown not to work. Democrats are the only ones left with some grip on reality, Republicans are living in a pie-in-the-sky dreamworld.
And the real damage of Bush's tax cuts lies in the future, when he is retired to his ranch.

This pay as you go idea is crap, this a Republican wet dream. They proposed this to try and starve social programs. Look up David Stockman if you want to know what the Reagan agenda was.

 

[Jadow]

my take on paygo is, Sure, go for it, but only achieve it by cutting spending! Not by raising spending AND raising taxes.

The dems want to do it the latter way unfortunately.

 

[her209]

Lets take it one step further. Regional PAYGO. Want that Alaskan bridge that goes to nowhere, you pay for it!

EDIT: I don't see why I have to pay for government projects that don't benefit me. 😀

 

[techs]

Amazing how PAYGO is misunderstood.
It has been the ONLY workable plan that has ever balanced the budget in 80 years and people are saying things like it will never work. Well it has worked. And it will work great again if the Republicans are kept out of power.

 

[ProfJohn]

We have gone over this Laffer curve thing time and time again, so I'll just repost what I wrote about it last time.

This is the capital gains taxes that I talked about in my first post.

In January of 2003 the CBO estimated that the capital-gains tax liabilities would be $60 billion in 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a two year total of $125 billion.

The tax cuts went into effect in 2004.

The actual liabilities for capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004 and $80 billion in 2005. For a two year total of $151 billion.

Notice that the actual total was $26 billion MORE than what had been expected!
In other words, the cut in tax RATES ended up giving us more revenue.

Source of info for my post.
2003 Projections
The Budget and Economic outlook published in 2003 on page 82 of PDF
Actual revenue
Budget and Economic Outlook page 112 of PDF

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Stunt
Sure it *sounds* good...but last time the Dems ran in a presidential election they advocated more spending and tax the rich. I don't know if they know or not...but the US is in a deficit situation and equal amounts will not be sufficient. How bout starting with spending cuts first; they would gain far more credibility with this.

First you gotta undo the damage of the last 6 years. Gotta return to Clinton levels of taxes and spending.

Done. Tax revenues exceed those levels now. Time to cut excess spending...

 

[Jadow]

I'm all for the Laffer curve. When someone can pinpoint what the tax rate at the top of the curve should be, then go for it. It's retarded to be ABOVE the peak tax rate, however a case could be made to be below it.

 

[Tom]

Cutting spending isn't a panacea either. Hoover strangled the economy by trying to balance the budget by cutting spending, and deepened the depression.

There has to be a balance between taxes and spending. Looking at the big picture, it's my opinion that there's no way we can cut spending in the aggregate, thanks mostly to the Iraq war. Just keeping spending where it is will require big cuts in most discretionary spending, to fund the rebuilding of the military, and to pay the war debt that Bush pretends isn't a real expense.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Stunt
Sure it *sounds* good...but last time the Dems ran in a presidential election they advocated more spending and tax the rich. I don't know if they know or not...but the US is in a deficit situation and equal amounts will not be sufficient. How bout starting with spending cuts first; they would gain far more credibility with this.

First you gotta undo the damage of the last 6 years. Gotta return to Clinton levels of taxes and spending.

Under Clinton we sent more money as a % of GDP to Washington than at any other time since WW 2.
When Clinton took office in 1993 federal receipts were 17.6% of the GDP.
When he left in 2000 that number had jumped to 20.9% of GDP. (This is the ONLY time since WW 2 that the government took more than 20% of the GDP.)
Which means that 20 cents of every dollar in this country went to the government. We are now back to around 17.5%.

Do you really think the government needs 1 out of every 5 dollars?
Or perhaps instead of taking more of our money they could just spend less?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Stunt
Sure it *sounds* good...but last time the Dems ran in a presidential election they advocated more spending and tax the rich. I don't know if they know or not...but the US is in a deficit situation and equal amounts will not be sufficient. How bout starting with spending cuts first; they would gain far more credibility with this.

First you gotta undo the damage of the last 6 years. Gotta return to Clinton levels of taxes and spending.

Under Clinton we sent more money as a % of GDP to Washington than at any other time since WW 2.
When Clinton took office in 1993 federal receipts were 17.6% of the GDP.
When he left in 2000 that number had jumped to 20.9% of GDP. (This is the ONLY time since WW 2 that the government took more than 20% of the GDP.)
Which means that 20 cents of every dollar in this country went to the government. We are now back to around 17.5%.

Do you really think the government needs 1 out of every 5 dollars?
Or perhaps instead of taking more of our money they could just spend less?

But the government knows how to spend our money much better than we do.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Stunt
Sure it *sounds* good...but last time the Dems ran in a presidential election they advocated more spending and tax the rich. I don't know if they know or not...but the US is in a deficit situation and equal amounts will not be sufficient. How bout starting with spending cuts first; they would gain far more credibility with this.

First you gotta undo the damage of the last 6 years. Gotta return to Clinton levels of taxes and spending.

Under Clinton we sent more money as a % of GDP to Washington than at any other time since WW 2.
When Clinton took office in 1993 federal receipts were 17.6% of the GDP.
When he left in 2000 that number had jumped to 20.9% of GDP. (This is the ONLY time since WW 2 that the government took more than 20% of the GDP.)
Which means that 20 cents of every dollar in this country went to the government. We are now back to around 17.5%.

Do you really think the government needs 1 out of every 5 dollars?
Or perhaps instead of taking more of our money they could just spend less?

I thought you said in other threads that the reason the budget was balanced under Clinton was because the Gingrich Congress cut spending ?

 

[Lemon law]

To Non-Prof John --who wrote---In January of 2003 the CBO estimated that the capital-gains tax liabilities would be $60 billion in 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a two year total of $125 billion.

The tax cuts went into effect in 2004.

The actual liabilities for capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004 and $80 billion in 2005. For a two year total of $151 billion.

Notice that the actual total was $26 billion MORE than what had been expected!
In other words, the cut in tax RATES ended up giving us more revenue.

The question becomes---is this steady--or a one time effect?---here some guy is sitting there and filthy rich---with lots of money in stocks and bonds---and very worried the profits will be
be taxed at the same rate as if he had actually worked for it and done something to add value---instead of sitting in some arm chair and doing nothing.---so to prevent being taxed--you just hold the investment.---thus avoiding taxes.

Then you get this great news---the repubs slashed capital gains tax---so you sell out---and pay tax peanuts---and hope to do so before the Federal government comes to its senses. So to fairly appraise this, you have to realize you have at least a 5X increase in normal sell rates of stocks to account for those numbers---and what happens to the money they get in cash---much of it went overseas---into swiss banks---or is invested in overseas sweatshops that hurt American workers.

Think before you post non-Prof John---you should know by now ---what you and Rush don't think about---will be pointed out to you?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Non-Prof John --who wrote---In January of 2003 the CBO estimated that the capital-gains tax liabilities would be $60 billion in 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a two year total of $125 billion.

The tax cuts went into effect in 2004.

The actual liabilities for capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004 and $80 billion in 2005. For a two year total of $151 billion.

Notice that the actual total was $26 billion MORE than what had been expected!
In other words, the cut in tax RATES ended up giving us more revenue.

The question becomes---is this steady--or a one time effect?---here some guy is sitting there and filthy rich---with lots of money in stocks and bonds---and very worried the profits will be
be taxed at the same rate as if he had actually worked for it and done something to add value---instead of sitting in some arm chair and doing nothing.---so to prevent being taxed--you just hold the investment.---thus avoiding taxes.

Then you get this great news---the repubs slashed capital gains tax---so you sell out---and pay tax peanuts---and hope to do so before the Federal government comes to its senses. So to fairly appraise this, you have to realize you have at least a 5X increase in normal sell rates of stocks to account for those numbers---and what happens to the money they get in cash---much of it went overseas---into swiss banks---or is invested in overseas sweatshops that hurt American workers.

Think before you post non-Prof John---you should know by now ---what you and Rush don't think about---will be pointed out to you?

Yea, those evil rich people, how dare they make money!!!:|

Non-Lemon-Law - Have you ever invested in the stock market?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Non-Prof John --who wrote---In January of 2003 the CBO estimated that the capital-gains tax liabilities would be $60 billion in 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a two year total of $125 billion.

The tax cuts went into effect in 2004.

The actual liabilities for capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004 and $80 billion in 2005. For a two year total of $151 billion.

Notice that the actual total was $26 billion MORE than what had been expected!
In other words, the cut in tax RATES ended up giving us more revenue.

The question becomes---is this steady--or a one time effect?---here some guy is sitting there and filthy rich---with lots of money in stocks and bonds---and very worried the profits will be
be taxed at the same rate as if he had actually worked for it and done something to add value---instead of sitting in some arm chair and doing nothing.---so to prevent being taxed--you just hold the investment.---thus avoiding taxes.

Then you get this great news---the repubs slashed capital gains tax---so you sell out---and pay tax peanuts---and hope to do so before the Federal government comes to its senses. So to fairly appraise this, you have to realize you have at least a 5X increase in normal sell rates of stocks to account for those numbers---and what happens to the money they get in cash---much of it went overseas---into swiss banks---or is invested in overseas sweatshops that hurt American workers.

Think before you post non-Prof John---you should know by now ---what you and Rush don't think about---will be pointed out to you?

Same thing happened when the cut capital gains in the 90s. If tax rates are to high, money wont move and it will not be taxed.

 

[Lemon law]

To JD50,

Who wrote---Yea, those evil rich people, how dare they make money!!!

Never said there was anything wrong with making money---what is evil is when they pay the half the taxes as someone who actually worked to create something of value.
A capital gains tax rate of 28% is fair---15% is way too low.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To JD50,

Who wrote---Yea, those evil rich people, how dare they make money!!!

Never said there was anything wrong with making money---what is evil is when they pay the half the taxes as someone who actually worked to create something of value.
A capital gains tax rate of 28% is fair---15% is way too low.

Why is 15% too low when it brings in more revenue than 28% rate?

Is you object to "soak" the rich or collect the most taxes possible? A tax rate too high results in lower revenues, not higher revenues.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To JD50,

Who wrote---Yea, those evil rich people, how dare they make money!!!

Never said there was anything wrong with making money---what is evil is when they pay the half the taxes as someone who actually worked to create something of value.
A capital gains tax rate of 28% is fair---15% is way too low.

Why is 15% too low when it brings in more revenue than 28% rate?

Is you object to "soak" the rich or collect the most taxes possible? A tax rate too high results in lower revenues, not higher revenues.

A problem with having a capital gains rate that is lower than the highest income bracket is that some wealthy people can structure their income to take advantage of the disparity.

Because capital gains aren't as regular a source of income as wages or interest, it makes sense to let people spread capital gains income over several years, to prevent extreme tax bracket jumps, but beyond that the tax rate ought to be the same as other forms of income.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To JD50,

Who wrote---Yea, those evil rich people, how dare they make money!!!

Never said there was anything wrong with making money---what is evil is when they pay the half the taxes as someone who actually worked to create something of value.
A capital gains tax rate of 28% is fair---15% is way too low.

Why is 15% too low when it brings in more revenue than 28% rate?

Is you object to "soak" the rich or collect the most taxes possible? A tax rate too high results in lower revenues, not higher revenues.

A problem with having a capital gains rate that is lower than the highest income bracket is that some wealthy people can structure their income to take advantage of the disparity.

Because capital gains aren't as regular a source of income as wages or interest, it makes sense to let people spread capital gains income over several years, but beyond that the tax rate ought to be the same as other forms of income.

So you would rather have a higher tax rate that has proven to collect less taxes from the rich than a lower tax rate....

And why on earch would you want to tax investment too heavily....