Democrats in the House introduce PAYGO

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison
Bowfinger,

Let me clear a few things up. First of all there is exists an optimal tax rate, meaning a rate that collects the most revenue for government. Going above this rate keeps money from being tax as it finds shelters to go into, that is what tax acountants are for. Going below this rate less revenue is generated simply because it is just not high enough. This is the basic laffer curve and that is how real life works. I am sorry you disagree with this, but most economist genenraly agree on this basic principle. The debate is more about where the optimal point is at.


At one point our top marginal rate was 90%, JFK dropped that 70%. Even with a lower rate, the wealthy in country found themselves paying a larger share of the government costs.
This happened again with reagan when he droppd the 70% rate to 38%. The same thing happened, the rich found themselves paying a larger share of governments costs. ANd the same thing has happened with the latest tax cuts, they rich have found themselves paying a larger share of governments cost. This is nto even up for debate as it is backed up by many years of IRS data. The same thing happened in the 90s when capital gains was cut, Same thing happened with the latest capital gains cut. The same thing has happened in other countries that dropped their top marginal rates, so we are not in a unique situation. So without a doubt the data backs up the laffer curve.

It would be very helpful if you read and respond to the things I actually say instead of your twisted assumptions about what I must really mean. I agree with the above. Where we disagree is whether we are to the left or the right of the optimal revenue point.

So we are back to, do you want to collect less revenue at a higher tax rate. or more revenue at a lower tax rate. You seem to keep opting for the higher rates, even though the data continues to show them being less effective at collecting revenue.

And this is where you make the giant leap of illogic, a fatal non sequitur of sorts. Repeat after me:

• Correlation does not prove causation.
  Correlation does not prove causation.
  Correlation does NOT prove causation.
  Correlation does NOT prove causation.
  Correlation does NOT prove causation.
  Correlation does NOT prove causation.

Though they have been offered many times by many people, you continue to ignore the counter-examples to your lower-rates dogma and the alternative explanations that work with all the data, not just your cherry-picked subset. Yes, tax revenues generally rise after tax cuts -- except for GWBush's tenure -- but revenues also almost always rise after tax increases and after no major tax changes. A rational person would realize this seemingly contradictory behavior, that revenues increase after both tax cuts and tax increases, demonstrates that tax revenues are at most indirectly affected by tax rates, yet the tax cut zealots ignore it. The fact is that the general growth of the economy and inflation are far more important factors than modest rate changes.

Your specific point about why the wealthy often continue to pay an increasing portion of total tax revenues has also been addressed multiple times. The total income and wealth of the financial elite is increasing dramatically faster than the income of the middle and lower classes. In short, the rich are getting richer -- much, much, richer. So, even while their marginal rate drops, they still end up paying more because they're making so much more. It is NOT because their rate dropped, it is in spite of it. The math is really pretty simple: 15% of 500 is more than 30% of 100. (And before the inevitable diversion, those are example numbers, not actual data.)

And as far as regressive taxation goes, that has not even been discussed.

On the contrary, you have discussed it, and you continue to advocate it every time you justify the extremely preferential treatment of capital gains. Given that capital gains primarily benefit the wealthy, giving them preferential tax treatment is regressive. That is "how real life works" as you put it. Sure, the less-than-wealthy also have capitial gains, but they are comparitively a drop in the bucket.

But as far a greed goes, the only thing greedy is a government wanting a 30% cut for one mans labor or investment.

LOL. What a crock. All "the government" is doing is paying for the services and infrastructure demanded by the public, including special interests who want their piece of the public purse. When spending is reduced, tax rates can follow.

I contend that much of this government spending is essential to building and maintaining the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure necessary to providing plentiful opportunities to rise to the 30% tax bracket. It makes no sense to cut taxes in half if the result is a 90% drop in average income.

Personally, I'm a glass-is-half-full kind of guy. I enjoy what I get to keep rather than whining about what I don't. I'd rather have 50% of $1 million than 95% of $1 thousand. For those who disagree, I hear Guatemala is nice this time of year.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50
How is that a lie? Taking more money from someone, just because they have been more succesful than someone else is punishing them for their success. I have seen it said many times here, that the rich should pay more as a percentage of taxes, because they just don't need the money, or other silly claims. The rich, percentage wise, pay much more in taxes than the poor do. Generally, the poor pays no taxes. So where is the lie?

The lie is that it is "punishment" for success. The wealthy pay more because they benefit more. Do you consider it "punishment" that a guy with a skybox pays more than a guy in the outfield bleachers? It's the same principle.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50
[ ... ] The rich, percentage wise, pay much more in taxes than the poor do. Generally, the poor pays no taxes. ...

One more thing. While it may be true that the rich pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the poor, that misses the real issue. The problem is that the wealthy pay a lower effective tax rate, on the average, than much of the middle and upper-middle class. This is due to several factors including the FICA cap, the highly preferential treatment of capital gains, and assorted tax dodges and shelters which almost exclusively benefit the wealthy.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Bowfinger,

Let me clear a few things up. First of all there is exists an optimal tax rate, meaning a rate that collects the most revenue for government. Going above this rate keeps money from being tax as it finds shelters to go into, that is what tax acountants are for. Going below this rate less revenue is generated simply because it is just not high enough. This is the basic laffer curve and that is how real life works. I am sorry you disagree with this, but most economist genenraly agree on this basic principle. The debate is more about where the optimal point is at.

At one point our top marginal rate was 90%, JFK dropped that 70%. Even with a lower rate, the wealthy in country found themselves paying a larger share of the government costs.
This happened again with reagan when he droppd the 70% rate to 38%. The same thing happened, the rich found themselves paying a larger share of governments costs. ANd the same thing has happened with the latest tax cuts, they rich have found themselves paying a larger share of governments cost. This is nto even up for debate as it is backed up by many years of IRS data. The same thing happened in the 90s when capital gains was cut, Same thing happened with the latest capital gains cut. The same thing has happened in other countries that dropped their top marginal rates, so we are not in a unique situation. So without a doubt the data backs up the laffer curve.

It would be very helpful if you read and respond to the things I actually say instead of your twisted assumptions about what I must really mean. I agree with the above. Where we disagree is whether we are to the left or the right of the optimal revenue point.

I read your response and this was my response, sorry you dont like the format.

So we are back to, do you want to collect less revenue at a higher tax rate. or more revenue at a lower tax rate. You seem to keep opting for the higher rates, even though the data continues to show them being less effective at collecting revenue.

And this is where you make the giant leap of illogic, a fatal non sequitur of sorts. Repeat after me:

• Correlation does not prove causation.
  Correlation does not prove causation.
  Correlation does NOT prove causation.
  Correlation does NOT prove causation.
  Correlation does NOT prove causation.
  Correlation does NOT prove causation.

Though they have been offered many times by many people, you continue to ignore the counter-examples to your lower-rates dogma and the alternative explanations that work with all the data, not just your cherry-picked subset. Yes, tax revenues generally rise after tax cuts -- except for GWBush's tenure -- but revenues also almost always rise after tax increases and after no major tax changes. A rational person would realize this seemingly contradictory behavior, that revenues increase after both tax cuts and tax increases, demonstrates that tax revenues are at most indirectly affected by tax rates, yet the tax cut zealots ignore it. The fact is that the general growth of the economy and inflation are far more important factors than modest rate changes.

Actually If you check the cbos numbers, revenues is back above where it was before the tax cuts. THe difference in revenues were no doubt because of the change in tax laws and more importantly the dot com bust which caused tax revenues to drop everywhere. And to you should recognize that a 38 to 35% top marginal rate cut is not that big of a cut in the grand scheme of things.

You right correlation does not prove causation, however the data is overwhelming that lower tax rates can and will generate more revenue for the government. There are plenty of examples of lower tax rates generating more revenues and there is also the case of Sweden killing its economy by raising tax rates too high.

Your specific point about why the wealthy often continue to pay an increasing portion of total tax revenues has also been addressed multiple times. The total income and wealth of the financial elite is increasing dramatically faster than the income of the middle and lower classes. In short, the rich are getting richer -- much, much, richer. So, even while their marginal rate drops, they still end up paying more because they're making so much more. It is NOT because their rate dropped, it is in spite of it. The math is really pretty simple: 15% of 500 is more than 30% of 100. (And before the inevitable diversion, those are example numbers, not actual data.)

Yes, the rich are getting richer in the country, however the poor are also getting richer as well. As much as the pessimists in this country want to see us sinking to 3rd world status, this is about farthest from the truth possible. But lets be also realist, the tax cut did not cause an individuals wealth to balloon from 100 to 500 just because tax laws changed.

And as far as regressive taxation goes, that has not even been discussed.

On the contrary, you have discussed it, and you continue to advocate it every time you justify the extremely preferential treatment of capital gains. Given that capital gains primarily benefit the wealthy, giving them preferential tax treatment is regressive. That is "how real life works" as you put it. Sure, the less-than-wealthy also have capitial gains, but they are comparitively a drop in the bucket.
[/quote]

Actually I dont have a real problem with progressive taxation. I have far bigger issues with the monstrosity we call our tax code. We should have lower rates and broader tax base without loopholes or exceptions. I would prefer a flat tax or a national sales tax, but cleaned up tax would be a great improvement over what we have now. But this is not really the subject at hand.

But as far a greed goes, the only thing greedy is a government wanting a 30% cut for one mans labor or investment.

LOL. What a crock. All "the government" is doing is paying for the services and infrastructure demanded by the public, including special interests who want their piece of the public purse. When spending is reduced, tax rates can follow.

[/quote]

Everu dime sent to DC will get spent, no matter who is power there.

I contend that much of this government spending is essential to building and maintaining the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure necessary to providing plentiful opportunities to rise to the 30% tax bracket. It makes no sense to cut taxes in half if the result is a 90% drop in average income.

Let see our top marginal tax rate has fallen from 90% to 35% since JFK nad our inflation adjusted incomes have only gone up. Where is this 90% drop in income that you speak of.

Personally, I'm a glass-is-half-full kind of guy. I enjoy what I get to keep rather than whining about what I don't. I'd rather have 50% of $1 million than 95% of $1 thousand. For those who disagree, I hear Guatemala is nice this time of year.

If you are willing to accept a 50% tax rate, you also must accept that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do. The federal government shoulw never need to confiscate 50% of anyones wealth.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
[ ... ] I am sorry you disagree with this, but most economist genenraly agree on this basic principle. ...

It would be very helpful if you read and respond to the things I actually say instead of your twisted assumptions about what I must really mean. I agree with the above. Where we disagree is whether we are to the left or the right of the optimal revenue point.

I read your response and this was my response, sorry you dont like the format.

Your response was dishonest, a too-frequent theme with you. You attacked a position I did not take. Try reading all the words. I've trimmed it down to the relevent parts.

Actually If you check the cbos numbers, revenues is back above where it was before the tax cuts.

Yes, finally, after an unprecedented four year gap. Once again, you pretend to refute something I didn't say. What part of "four year" was unclear to you the first several times I mentioned it? How long has Bush been in office? I know math isn't your forte, but come on. Six minus four isn't calculus.

THe difference in revenues were no doubt because of the change in tax laws and more importantly the dot com bust which caused tax revenues to drop everywhere. And to you should recognize that a 38 to 35% top marginal rate cut is not that big of a cut in the grand scheme of things.

Which is exactly my point. Total tax revenues are influenced by a multitude of factors, of which tax rate changes are only a minor component. It is preposterous to keep insisting that revenue increases that usually follow rate cuts are due to the rate cuts, especially when the record shows that revenues go up almost every year, including after rate increases. You keep insisting on a cause and effect relationship that simply is not proven.

You right correlation does not prove causation, however the data is overwhelming that lower tax rates can and will generate more revenue for the government. There are plenty of examples of lower tax rates generating more revenues ...

Bull. You keep making this assertion while ignoring all the data outside your cherry-picked subset. The data is equally "overwhelming" that higher tax rates can and will generate more revenue for the government, and is even more overwhelming still that leaving rates alone increases revenue. The only way to reconcile this conflicting data is to accept that your simplistic model is fundamentally flawed.

and there is also the case of Sweden killing its economy by raising tax rates too high.

So what? Another attack on an imaginary position. I don't know of anyone who's advocating raising taxes to crippling levels.

[ ... ] The total income and wealth of the financial elite is increasing dramatically faster than the income of the middle and lower classes. ...

Yes, the rich are getting richer in the country, however the poor are also getting richer as well. ...

Once again, read all the words. The gap between the wealthy elite and everyone else is growing dramatically, and that's a fact.

But lets be also realist, the tax cut did not cause an individuals wealth to balloon from 100 to 500 just because tax laws changed.

Duh. Yet another attack on something I neither said, nor implied. Preferential tax treatment only means they get to keep more of their disproportionately increasing wealth. The reasons their wealth is increasing so dramatically is a topic for another thread.

[ ... ]

Everu dime sent to DC will get spent, no matter who is power there.

That would be an improvement over the current situation where they are spending all the dimes we spend them ... and far, far more.

I contend that much of this government spending is essential to building and maintaining the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure necessary to providing plentiful opportunities to rise to the 30% tax bracket. It makes no sense to cut taxes in half if the result is a 90% drop in average income.

Let see our top marginal tax rate has fallen from 90% to 35% since JFK nad our inflation adjusted incomes have only gone up. Where is this 90% drop in income that you speak of.

It's the difference between the incomes in modern, developed countries like the United States, countries that have invested in the superb physical, financial, and educational infrastructure necessary to providing plentiful opportunities for success, and the incomes in third-world hell-holes which lack such infrastructure. One would think the Guatemal reference might have been enough to tip you off.

Personally, I'm a glass-is-half-full kind of guy. I enjoy what I get to keep rather than whining about what I don't. I'd rather have 50% of $1 million than 95% of $1 thousand. For those who disagree, I hear Guatemala is nice this time of year.

If you are willing to accept a 50% tax rate, you also must accept that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do. The federal government shoulw never need to confiscate 50% of anyones wealth.

And you close with the biggest lie of all, that being willing to adequately fund the government is tantamount to theft, and that it somehow means one blindly trusts everything the government does. It is empty partisan propaganda, meant to obfuscate and divert.

Are you an anarchist? If not, then I'll assume you recognize that government has a legitimate role, and that it needs adequate funding to perform that role for the overall best interests of its citizens. With that assumption, we differ only on where to draw the line.

So, where should we draw that line? What is the right tax rate?

In order for you to make a credible and rational case for claiming current taxes are too high you have to dig into the details of exactly how and where to trim government services. We're a democracy, so you'll then have to negotiate with your fellow citizens to sell your opinion on the appropriate role of government. Once you reach a consensus, you must then determine the cost of providing the agreed services. Finally, then and only then can you determine what the necessary tax rates are. Unless you're able to do so, your complaints about tax rates are empty whining, purely partisan propaganda with no basis in reality.

The right rate may be 10%, it may be 50%, it may be somewhere in between. The fact of the matter is you do not know what rates should be. All you have is your "tax cuts are good" dogma. While that's a great sound bite, it's incompetent fiscal policy.

 

[charrison]

Bowfinger,

I going address the major points as we are nearing something that is impossible to keep quoted propery.

1. Dishonesty. I have no point been dishonest. I believe and the data backs me up, that lower tax rates can generate more revenue than higher tax rates. It is dishonest to think otherwise.

2. 4 year gap. I have not analyzed the 200+ annual budgets this country has had, but I doubt a 4 drop in revenues due to a recession is unprecedented. Show me the data this is the first and only time it has happened.

3. Yes making economic policy is not easy and has a multitude of factors, but it higher tax are not always best.

4. Regarding higher rates, why has this country never returned to 70 or 90% marginal rates that existed between post WWII JFK. Probably because it has been realized that it would further reduce revenues.

5. AT least you realize high taxation can cripple a country, but that is the point I am trying to make. An optimal rate does exist and it does not have to be higher one. This is the point I have been trying to make, but you would rather call me dishonest when this is only point I have been trying to make in this thread.

6.Guatemala reference. The Us dropped its top marginal rate from 90 to 35% and our country does not resemble guatmala. This is the implication you tried to make.

7. Bit paragraph at the bottom. If you accpet a 50% taxation rate, you accept the nanny state and get all your services from the government. No thanks, I will pass.

I recognize the needs for government to exist, but I do not recoginize its need to tax a 30% cut out of mans labor or investment. And it appears the people of this country have been negotiating lower tax rates. This country is in need of major tax reform.

 

[ProfJohn]

Can someone show me each groups effective tax rate including the FICA amount in it?

For the record, an employee?s share of FICA is 6.2% up to $94,200. After that there is no more taken. The number of people in that category is only around 10% of the country though.
The over $100,000 group is also the only group in the country with a positive ratio of income share to tax share. Meaning they are paying more than their share of the taxes vs. what the earn.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison
Bowfinger,

I going address the major points as we are nearing something that is impossible to keep quoted propery.

1. Dishonesty. I have no point been dishonest. I believe and the data backs me up, that lower tax rates can generate more revenue than higher tax rates. It is dishonest to think otherwise.

You made all of the following claims:

• Well at least you are being honest now and admit that you view taxation as punishment and not a means to collect revenue for the government.
  
  ... you believe in the higher rate that "punishes" the wealthy.
  
  You want to claim that raising the tax rate will always generate more revenue ...
  
  Your claim is that is impossible for a lower tax rate to generate more revenue than a higher tax rate.
  
  So we are back to you wanting to "punish" the wealthy with higher tax rates ...
  
  I am sorry you disagree with this ...
  
  If you are willing to accept a 50% tax rate, you also must accept that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do.

None were true. None of them matched anything I said or positions I held. You intentionally lied about my comments and positions so you had something to attack instead of responding to what I actually said. You still owe me an apology.

2. 4 year gap. I have not analyzed the 200+ annual budgets this country has had, but I doubt a 4 drop in revenues due to a recession is unprecedented. Show me the data this is the first and only time it has happened.

First, we haven't had income taxes for 200+ years, More to the point, in my first post on this, I discussed only the last 50 years. All subsequent references are for this same time period.

By the way, the data is available from the CBO here.

3. Yes making economic policy is not easy and has a multitude of factors, but it higher tax are not always best.

4. Regarding higher rates, why has this country never returned to 70 or 90% marginal rates that existed between post WWII JFK. Probably because it has been realized that it would further reduce revenues.

I have never suggested higher taxes are always better. Your continued references to the 90% top rate after WWII is a red herring. In the first place, those rates applied to an extremely tiny number of taxpayers. More importantly, nobody is suggesting a return to such high rates. You keep bringing them up only to divert discussion from the reall issues at hand, for example the preferential treatment of capital gains income.

5. AT least you realize high taxation can cripple a country, but that is the point I am trying to make. An optimal rate does exist and it does not have to be higher one. This is the point I have been trying to make, but you would rather call me dishonest when this is only point I have been trying to make in this thread.

The one point you've been trying to make? Not exactly. You claimed that it is proven that lowering taxes yields more revenue from the wealthy. That it is proven. That statement is false, which has been my point from the beginning. You have steadfastly declined to provide such proof, instead repeating the same anecdotal evidence that even you now admit is driven by a host of factors besides tax rates.

6.Guatemala reference. The Us dropped its top marginal rate from 90 to 35% and our country does not resemble guatmala. This is the implication you tried to make.

No, it's not. Once again you use the 90% rate as a diversion, refusing instead to discuss current rates and recent changes. You also take my comment out of context:

• "Personally, I'm a glass-is-half-full kind of guy. I enjoy what I get to keep rather than whining about what I don't. I'd rather have 50% of $1 million than 95% of $1 thousand. For those who disagree, I hear Guatemala is nice this time of year."

If you read all the words, you'll note I suggest Guatemala as an example of a country where you pay only a 5% tax rate (and that may be too high). The point is that if you cut taxes too low, we can no longer provide the infrastructure needed to give most Americans an opportunity to prosper. It is both greedy and short-sighted to whine about paying for the very infrastructure that helps one become wealthy.

7. Bit paragraph at the bottom. If you accpet a 50% taxation rate, you accept the nanny state and get all your services from the government. No thanks, I will pass.

I recognize the needs for government to exist, but I do not recoginize its need to tax a 30% cut out of mans labor or investment.

And you totally dodge the question: what is the right rate? The fact is that you don't know. It may well be 50%. It may be something less. You. Don't. Know.

And it appears the people of this country have been negotiating lower tax rates. This country is in need of major tax reform.

See above. People have been duped into accepting lower tax rates, either because they can't see they are robbing from their children, or they are too greedy to care. People have been duped into accepting lower tax rates for the wealthy by a shrewd misdirection campaign of propaganda just like yours and ProfJohn's. Americans are notoriously ignorant and irresponsible financially, which is all the more reason we need fiscal responsibility in D.C.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Bowfinger,

I going address the major points as we are nearing something that is impossible to keep quoted propery.

1. Dishonesty. I have no point been dishonest. I believe and the data backs me up, that lower tax rates can generate more revenue than higher tax rates. It is dishonest to think otherwise.

You made all of the following claims:

• Well at least you are being honest now and admit that you view taxation as punishment and not a means to collect revenue for the government.
  
  ... you believe in the higher rate that "punishes" the wealthy.
  
  You want to claim that raising the tax rate will always generate more revenue ...
  
  Your claim is that is impossible for a lower tax rate to generate more revenue than a higher tax rate.
  
  So we are back to you wanting to "punish" the wealthy with higher tax rates ...
  
  I am sorry you disagree with this ...
  
  If you are willing to accept a 50% tax rate, you also must accept that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do.

None were true. None of them matched anything I said or positions I held. You intentionally lied about my comments and positions so you had something to attack instead of responding to what I actually said. You still owe me an apology.

Considering you still believe that it is impossible for a lower tax rates to generate more revfenue than a tax rate too high, I ow you nothing. You consistently advocate higher taxes even if those rates bring in less revenue. And because of that my statements are in fact consistant with what you believe.

You will get your apology if you admit that you would accept lower rates if those rates were more effective at3e generating more revenue for the government.

2. 4 year gap. I have not analyzed the 200+ annual budgets this country has had, but I doubt a 4 drop in revenues due to a recession is unprecedented. Show me the data this is the first and only time it has happened.

First, we haven't had income taxes for 200+ years, More to the point, in my first post on this, I discussed only the last 50 years. All subsequent references are for this same time period.

By the way, the data is available from the CBO here.

[/quote]

We have had taxes since this country started, if you want to play the last 50 years fine. But either way we are collecting more today at lower rates and well that is a good thing for everyone in this country.

3. Yes making economic policy is not easy and has a multitude of factors, but it higher tax are not always best.

4. Regarding higher rates, why has this country never returned to 70 or 90% marginal rates that existed between post WWII JFK. Probably because it has been realized that it would further reduce revenues.

I have never suggested higher taxes are always better. Your continued references to the 90% top rate after WWII is a red herring. In the first place, those rates applied to an extremely tiny number of taxpayers. More importantly, nobody is suggesting a return to such high rates. You keep bringing them up only to divert discussion from the reall issues at hand, for example the preferential treatment of capital gains income.
[/quote]

So what about a return to a 70% rate then. That would undo the Reagan tax cuts what the left hates so much. Or are we going to debate the return to 38 from 35%?

As far as capital gains gos, the date still show lower rates returns more revenue to government. IT is time for you to at least admit that.

5. AT least you realize high taxation can cripple a country, but that is the point I am trying to make. An optimal rate does exist and it does not have to be higher one. This is the point I have been trying to make, but you would rather call me dishonest when this is only point I have been trying to make in this thread.

The one point you've been trying to make? Not exactly. You claimed that it is proven that lowering taxes yields more revenue from the wealthy. That it is proven. That statement is false, which has been my point from the beginning. You have steadfastly declined to provide such proof, instead repeating the same anecdotal evidence that even you now admit is driven by a host of factors besides tax rates.

[/quote]

I have provided numerous examples that you are free to look up. The lowering of marginal rates here and the US had left the rich paying a larger share of taxes. The raising of taxes to high killed the Swedish economy. This data is not hard to find.

6.Guatemala reference. The Us dropped its top marginal rate from 90 to 35% and our country does not resemble guatmala. This is the implication you tried to make.

No, it's not. Once again you use the 90% rate as a diversion, refusing instead to discuss current rates and recent changes. You also take my comment out of context:

• "Personally, I'm a glass-is-half-full kind of guy. I enjoy what I get to keep rather than whining about what I don't. I'd rather have 50% of $1 million than 95% of $1 thousand. For those who disagree, I hear Guatemala is nice this time of year."

If you read all the words, you'll note I suggest Guatemala as an example of a country where you pay only a 5% tax rate (and that may be too high). The point is that if you cut taxes too low, we can no longer provide the infrastructure needed to give most Americans an opportunity to prosper. It is both greedy and short-sighted to whine about paying for the very infrastructure that helps one become wealthy.

[/quote]

Where did I ever advocate cutting taxes so low that we could not provide infrastructure.

7. Bit paragraph at the bottom. If you accpet a 50% taxation rate, you accept the nanny state and get all your services from the government. No thanks, I will pass.

I recognize the needs for government to exist, but I do not recoginize its need to tax a 30% cut out of mans labor or investment.

And you totally dodge the question: what is the right rate? The fact is that you don't know. It may well be 50%. It may be something less. You. Don't. Know.

[/quote]

What is the right rate, neither of us know. I know that 50% is theft and that 5% is probably too low. I think in general taxes are currently too high and more importantly too complicated and that fed is involved it too much of our daily lives.

And it appears the people of this country have been negotiating lower tax rates. This country is in need of major tax reform.

See above. People have been duped into accepting lower tax rates, either because they can't see they are robbing from their children, or they are too greedy to care. People have been duped into accepting lower tax rates for the wealthy by a shrewd misdirection campaign of propaganda just like yours and ProfJohn's. Americans are notoriously ignorant and irresponsible financially, which is all the more reason we need fiscal responsibility in D.C.

[/quote]
ANd if people dont agree with you, they are sheep. I get it.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Lower tax rates can increase tax revenue if the tax rates are pretty significantly high and distortionary. However, I don't think that was the case with the capital gains tax nor with the cut in income taxes. That may have been the case in the 1960s or 1980s when the income tax rates were cut from very high levels but it seems highly unlikely now.

 

[Jhhnn]

"I contend that much of this government spending is essential to building and maintaining the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure necessary to providing plentiful opportunities to rise to the 30% tax bracket. It makes no sense to cut taxes in half if the result is a 90% drop in average income. "

While I fully agree with your first sentence, the second conclusion depends entirely on your perspective. Current rightwing economics defy that pov, apparently preferring the old adage about how in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king... they plan on being that guy, and on blinding the rest of us... a third world distribution of wealth and income is entirely to their liking, so long as they're at the top... They don't see the advent of democracy and the growth of the middle class as a good thing, at all, but rather as an aberration, an affront to the "natural order" of extremes of wealth and poverty that have been the lot of mankind for thousands of years.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"I contend that much of this government spending is essential to building and maintaining the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure necessary to providing plentiful opportunities to rise to the 30% tax bracket. It makes no sense to cut taxes in half if the result is a 90% drop in average income. "

While I fully agree with your first sentence, the second conclusion depends entirely on your perspective. Current rightwing economics defy that pov, apparently preferring the old adage about how in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king... they plan on being that guy, and on blinding the rest of us... a third world distribution of wealth and income is entirely to their liking, so long as they're at the top... They don't see the advent of democracy and the growth of the middle class as a good thing, at all, but rather as an aberration, an affront to the "natural order" of extremes of wealth and poverty that have been the lot of mankind for thousands of years.

This is such a crock of shite I dont even know where to begin. Most right wingers believe in the free market, that govt forced redistribution of wealth is a tool for the elite to control the masses, and govt isnt the answer to everything.

You claim 3rd world distribution of wealth is a right winged agenda yet run down the line of left winged govts and the distribution of wealth within it, and you will find what you proclaim. Which is the lie in which the left wingbats live.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"I contend that much of this government spending is essential to building and maintaining the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure necessary to providing plentiful opportunities to rise to the 30% tax bracket. It makes no sense to cut taxes in half if the result is a 90% drop in average income. "

While I fully agree with your first sentence, the second conclusion depends entirely on your perspective. Current rightwing economics defy that pov, apparently preferring the old adage about how in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king... they plan on being that guy, and on blinding the rest of us... a third world distribution of wealth and income is entirely to their liking, so long as they're at the top... They don't see the advent of democracy and the growth of the middle class as a good thing, at all, but rather as an aberration, an affront to the "natural order" of extremes of wealth and poverty that have been the lot of mankind for thousands of years.

Stereotyping your own straw man, from your own countrymen. Telling us we?re evil is the ardency of civil war.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You made all of the following claims:

• Well at least you are being honest now and admit that you view taxation as punishment and not a means to collect revenue for the government.
  
  ... you believe in the higher rate that "punishes" the wealthy.
  
  You want to claim that raising the tax rate will always generate more revenue ...
  
  Your claim is that is impossible for a lower tax rate to generate more revenue than a higher tax rate.
  
  So we are back to you wanting to "punish" the wealthy with higher tax rates ...
  
  I am sorry you disagree with this ...
  
  If you are willing to accept a 50% tax rate, you also must accept that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do.

None were true. None of them matched anything I said or positions I held. You intentionally lied about my comments and positions so you had something to attack instead of responding to what I actually said. You still owe me an apology.

Considering you still believe that it is impossible for a lower tax rates to generate more revfenue than a tax rate too high, I ow you nothing. You consistently advocate higher taxes even if those rates bring in less revenue. And because of that my statements are in fact consistant with what you believe.

You will get your apology if you admit that you would accept lower rates if those rates were more effective at3e generating more revenue for the government. ...

There you go again. Even though I've already stated -- twice -- that this allegation is false, that taxes can be too high (and you acknowledged it), and that higher taxes are not always better, you continue to repeat these blatant lies. Shameful. You do realize that bleating the same lies over and over won't make them true, right? Perhaps you are like Bush himself, too egotistical and immature to ever admit you are wrong about anything. So be it. Until you are able and willing to engage in honest discussion, you are a waste of my time and Anand's bandwidth.

The balance of your post is the same unsupported propaganda we've already refuted. You've done nothing to address the points I raised. I will only note that no matter how many times you claim to understand correlation does not prove causation, you continue to wave your cherry-picked, circumstantial evidence as "proof" lowering taxes increases tax revenues. Sorry, that's blind faith, not logical analysis. It doesn't prove anything, and that's a fact.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: senseamp

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?

If the government spends 20% of the GDP, it needs to take in 20% of the GDP.
It's simple math that Republicans forgot.

Yep. You'll note PJ conveniently ignores the fact that the biggest spender of all was Ronald Reagan. (This is doubly "ironic" given that PJ's first post in this thread claimed the problem is spending, not taxes.) Under Reagan, federal spending as a percent of GDP rose to 23.5% (while tax revenue was far below that, of course, which is why Reagan had then-record deficits). This trend reversed under Clinton, with spending as a percentage of GDP dropping and revenues increasing until the budget was nominally balanced. As we all know, Bush 43 reveresed Clinton's fiscal responsibility, returning us to the Reagan school of drunken-sailor spending and record deficits.

A more intellectually honest question woud be whether the Reagan government needed almost 1 out of every 4 dollars. That doesn't fit the partisan dogma as well as diversions about Clinton.

Hey PJ, you've been back to the thread a couple of times. Are you ever going to explain why you initially said spending is the issue, not taxes, yet then proceeded to berate Clinton for higher taxes (as a percentage of GDP) while ignoring the much higher spending of Reagan and the Bushes? Inquiring minds want to know.

Do you truly wonder why you are frequently accused of blind partisanship and hypocrisy?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone show me each groups effective tax rate including the FICA amount in it?

For the record, an employee?s share of FICA is 6.2% up to $94,200. After that there is no more taken. The number of people in that category is only around 10% of the country though.

It's pretty easy to calculate. Up through $94,200, add 6.2 points to the effective federal tax rate for each group (or 12.4 points for the self-employed). Above $94,200, the effective rate drops according to income. At $188,400 (94.2 x 2), add 3.1 points to the effective rate. At $1 million, add 0.58 points, at $10 million, add 0.058 points, etc.

The over $100,000 group is also the only group in the country with a positive ratio of income share to tax share. Meaning they are paying more than their share of the taxes vs. what the earn.

That's a bit deceptive. Is it still true after you factor in FICA withholding and tax shelters that reduce AGI? Is it true for the top 1%? The top 0.5%? The top 0.1%. It is the middle and upper middle class who are paying the highest effective rates, not the wealthy elite.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"I contend that much of this government spending is essential to building and maintaining the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure necessary to providing plentiful opportunities to rise to the 30% tax bracket. It makes no sense to cut taxes in half if the result is a 90% drop in average income. "

While I fully agree with your first sentence, the second conclusion depends entirely on your perspective. Current rightwing economics defy that pov, apparently preferring the old adage about how in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king... they plan on being that guy, and on blinding the rest of us... a third world distribution of wealth and income is entirely to their liking, so long as they're at the top... They don't see the advent of democracy and the growth of the middle class as a good thing, at all, but rather as an aberration, an affront to the "natural order" of extremes of wealth and poverty that have been the lot of mankind for thousands of years.

This is such a crock of shite I don't even know where to begin. Most right wingers believe in the free market, that govt forced redistribution of wealth is a tool for the elite to control the masses, and govt isn't the answer to everything.

You claim 3rd world distribution of wealth is a right winged agenda yet run down the line of left winged govts and the distribution of wealth within it, and you will find what you proclaim. Which is the lie in which the left wingbats live.

Well if that's what most right-wingers believe they really fvcked up when elected people with their free market views. The current batch of Republicans in office are not even close to embracers of the free market. I wouldn't call the prescription drug bill an ideal free market program nor would I call the giant farm subsidies that Republican states are so fond of free market.

At least one of the parties is open about the fact that they don't support a completely free market. If you want a party of real free market thinkers you go to libertarians not the Republicans who are faux free markets thinkers.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"I contend that much of this government spending is essential to building and maintaining the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure necessary to providing plentiful opportunities to rise to the 30% tax bracket. It makes no sense to cut taxes in half if the result is a 90% drop in average income. "

While I fully agree with your first sentence, the second conclusion depends entirely on your perspective. Current rightwing economics defy that pov, apparently preferring the old adage about how in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king... they plan on being that guy, and on blinding the rest of us... a third world distribution of wealth and income is entirely to their liking, so long as they're at the top... They don't see the advent of democracy and the growth of the middle class as a good thing, at all, but rather as an aberration, an affront to the "natural order" of extremes of wealth and poverty that have been the lot of mankind for thousands of years.

This is such a crock of shite I don't even know where to begin. Most right wingers believe in the free market, that govt forced redistribution of wealth is a tool for the elite to control the masses, and govt isn't the answer to everything.

You claim 3rd world distribution of wealth is a right winged agenda yet run down the line of left winged govts and the distribution of wealth within it, and you will find what you proclaim. Which is the lie in which the left wingbats live.

Well if that's what most right-wingers believe they really fvcked up when elected people with their free market views. The current batch of Republicans in office are not even close to embracers of the free market. I wouldn't call the prescription drug bill an ideal free market program nor would I call the giant farm subsidies that Republican states are so fond of free market.

At least one of the parties is open about the fact that they don't support a completely free market. If you want a party of real free market thinkers you go to libertarians not the Republicans who are faux free markets thinkers.

Why do you think there was a such a collective cricket from conservatives in 06? Even the most die hard republicans are finally realizing the current batch of republican leadership arent fiscal conservatives but neo-cons who want to expand the govt at ridiculous rates.

 

[lotus503]

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.

Yeah how is spending a couple million to look into BlowJobs and DNA testing for sperm stains good economical sense.

Newt was/is a joke

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think it is a good plan.

EXCEPT: they still rely on the old idea that tax cuts lead to less taxes, and that has been proven false time and time again.

What we need is a plan or idea that controls spending. The problem is the spending, not the tax cuts. We are still growing government spending at like 7% a year WAY to much.

Get the growth figure down to 4-5% where it belongs.

The problem is both.

As far as your laffer curve example. The Laffer curve exists in a vacuum where only one variable is changed and all others are constant, that one variable is the tax rate. However, applying the curve in the real world is almost impossible and using it as an example borders on the insane.

In the cases where taxes have been cut and revenues have gone up, there have been other factors included in that equation, many independant variables that cause the same variation in the dependant variable. The biggest of those is the economic environment that cannot be controlled by simple tax cuts.

For example, Bush's latest tax cut occurred during a housing boom, which wasn't driven by taxes but by low interest costs and high demand driven by the same. The equity cash-out and high appreciation gains after sale lead to a massive spending spree and large tax inflows as Americans were doing better. Jobs were (and are) high, as are wages, also increasing tax input. None of this had to do with the actual tax cut. Cutting taxes didn't do much for interest rates, nor the cause the primary motivator for appreciating houses or the desire to earn the next dollar that would be taxed less.

Reagan's upshoot was nothing more than the continuation of the economic cycle, which had been in a recessed downcycle and naturally (reversion to the mean) went back up. His plethoric spending the defense area certainly helped, but taxes were a small affect on the dependant variable.

So, we have a boom economy not caused by taxes, which leads to higher tax collections. Is this a prime example of trickle down economics? Heck no, nor was Reagan's ideas either. Both just drove us more in debt than ever before. Meanwhile, foolish Republicans utilize both examples as evidence of some type of economic miracle, which is utterly false.

:thumbsup:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: S0Lstice
Yeah how is spending a couple million to look into BlowJobs and DNA testing for sperm stains good economical sense.

Newt was/is a joke

Last I heard it was $70 million -- about six hours in Iraq -- but who's counting?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: S0Lstice
Newt was/is a joke

Newt has a great shot at the Republican nomination.

You may have just called your next hero a joke.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You made all of the following claims:

• Well at least you are being honest now and admit that you view taxation as punishment and not a means to collect revenue for the government.
  
  ... you believe in the higher rate that "punishes" the wealthy.
  
  You want to claim that raising the tax rate will always generate more revenue ...
  
  Your claim is that is impossible for a lower tax rate to generate more revenue than a higher tax rate.
  
  So we are back to you wanting to "punish" the wealthy with higher tax rates ...
  
  I am sorry you disagree with this ...
  
  If you are willing to accept a 50% tax rate, you also must accept that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do.

None were true. None of them matched anything I said or positions I held. You intentionally lied about my comments and positions so you had something to attack instead of responding to what I actually said. You still owe me an apology.

Considering you still believe that it is impossible for a lower tax rates to generate more revfenue than a tax rate too high, I ow you nothing. You consistently advocate higher taxes even if those rates bring in less revenue. And because of that my statements are in fact consistant with what you believe.

You will get your apology if you admit that you would accept lower rates if those rates were more effective at3e generating more revenue for the government. ...

There you go again. Even though I've already stated -- twice -- that this allegation is false, that taxes can be too high (and you acknowledged it), and that higher taxes are not always better, you continue to repeat these blatant lies. Shameful. You do realize that bleating the same lies over and over won't make them true, right? Perhaps you are like Bush himself, too egotistical and immature to ever admit you are wrong about anything. So be it. Until you are able and willing to engage in honest discussion, you are a waste of my time and Anand's bandwidth.





The balance of your post is the same unsupported propaganda we've already refuted. You've done nothing to address the points I raised. I will only note that no matter how many times you claim to understand correlation does not prove causation, you continue to wave your cherry-picked, circumstantial evidence as "proof" lowering taxes increases tax revenues. Sorry, that's blind faith, not logical analysis. It doesn't prove anything, and that's a fact.

So you admit that that taxes can infact be too high( i was not ignoring this), however you continue to to act as though as it impossible for us to lower taxes and generate more revenue. All you can say to that is corelation is not causation. Welll at what point do you look at all the correlating data and say, maybe there is something to this. Take the last capital gains cut, the cbo estimated it would cost the treasury 25B, but yet is gave the treasury an extra 25B. So the top marginal rates cuts around the world have the lead the rich paying more and made the the tax code more progressive, this has been show to be true the US and around the world. So when does you logical analysis kick and realize there is something to this, other than random correlation.

And speaking of wasting bandwidth, it does not do much good to call anyone who disagrees with a misquided sheep, or a liar or dishonest.

we will have to agree to disagree again.....

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

[ It has been proven that tax cuts increase tax revenues ... ]

No it hasn't, as you well know. Record tax revenues for 41 out of 45 years ... and then Bush came in with his costly tax loans and had an unprecedented four year failure to increase revenues. Clinton had record revenues eight of eight years, in spite of his supposedly "huge" tax increases. Bush 41 was either 3 of 4 or 4 for 4 (don't rememebr off the top of my head). Reagan managed seven of eight. Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, etc., all had record revenues most years, through tax increases and tax cuts alike. Only Bush 43 showed such dismal performance.

That doesn't prove cause and effect, of course, but it nicely refutes the myth that tax cuts increase revenues. They didn't for Bush 43, and that's a fact.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

[ The rich paid more taxes after tax cuts ... ]

Multiple reasons. First and foremost, because they make even more money, i.e., the rich get richer faster than other taxpayers. Second, because the economies continue to grow. Third, because of inflation.

You know better than to try to claim such simplistic cause and effect relationships with something so complex as tax revenues. To claim that it is "proven" is false.