• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

GOP Senators filibuster the Buffett Rule

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jhhnn said:
What if we restored pre-Reagan tax rates on the Wealthy?
Click to expand...

It would be one helluva a mess.

I was working as a CPA back then. You simply have no idea how many objectionable deductions were permitted under tax law in the pre-Reagan era.

Go look at historical charts of federal revenue. You 'll see collections/revenue changed little from before to after Reagan tax law changes. He blew out a crap load of deductions etc and flattened the rates. It wasn't entirely revenue neutral, but it wasn't too far from it either.

We need to do that again. Too many old/unnecessary deductions and credits and have lingered long past their usefulness and our corporate rates are now higher than others.

Fern
 
eskimospy said:
Out of sheer curiosity, can you tell us a time in which it would be okay to raise taxes?
Click to expand...

While not addressed to me I'd like to respond.

I've been considering an idea. Currently when the economy heats ups we use interest rates to bring it back down and prevent inflation.

Since everyone now agrees taxes can affect the economy (e.g., even Obama touts his payroll tax credit as an economic booster etc.) why not use higher tax rates instead of interest rates?

It would apply the desired breaking effect to the economy, let those making the big bucks pay in extra taxes (higher interest rates hurt those who aren't even making good money, but higher tax rates wouldn't) and let us pay down the deficit when the economy is going well.

Fern
 
Based on our current level of spending, you somply can't tax the evil rich enough to balance the budget. This bill is nothing more than political show for the class envy dems. The only way we're going to balance the budget is by serious budget cutbacks and re-energizing the private sector - you know, the part of society that acutally generates tax revenue.

And of course Ausm doesn't mind taxes going up on the middle class. I'd bet he's part of the near 50% that doesn't pay FIT.
 
Fern said:
I've been considering an idea. Currently when the economy heats ups we use interest rates to bring it back down and prevent inflation.
Click to expand...

I'm probably going to be blown out of the water on this since you're a former CPA, but I'd like to challenge this.

Inflation doesn't happen when the economy takes off. It happens when the government prints money. Is that not true?
 
Fern said:
While not addressed to me I'd like to respond.

I've been considering an idea. Currently when the economy heats ups we use interest rates to bring it back down and prevent inflation.

Since everyone now agrees taxes can affect the economy (e.g., even Obama touts his payroll tax credit as an economic booster etc.) why not use higher tax rates instead of interest rates?

It would apply the desired breaking effect to the economy, let those making the big bucks pay in extra taxes (higher interest rates hurt those who aren't even making good money, but higher tax rates wouldn't) and let us pay down the deficit when the economy is going well.

Fern
Click to expand...

The process for adjusting tax rates is far more cumbersome than interest rates, for one.
 
Atreus21 said:
I'm probably going to be blown out of the water on this since you're a former CPA, but I'd like to challenge this.

Inflation doesn't happen when the economy takes off. It happens when the government prints money. Is that not true?
Click to expand...

It happens for lots of different reasons, including the economy 'taking off' and the government printing money.

When more people are working and producing, demand for goods increases, which in turn raises their price. You can sort of look at it like an auction, macro scale. If only 1 person wants to buy your widget, your asking price will probably be low. If 10 people want to buy it, you can ask for considerably more. When everyone does this, inflation happens.
 
FerrelGeek said:
Based on our current level of spending, you somply can't tax the evil rich enough to balance the budget. This bill is nothing more than political show for the class envy dems. The only way we're going to balance the budget is by serious budget cutbacks and re-energizing the private sector - you know, the part of society that acutally generates tax revenue.

And of course Ausm doesn't mind taxes going up on the middle class. I'd bet he's part of the near 50% that doesn't pay FIT.
Click to expand...

I most certainly pay federal income taxes, and while in the short term I don't support tax increases on anyone in the medium to long term I am open to tax increases on the middle class to go along with large scale tax increases on the rich.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Well then explain why generation after generation of single women on welfare are having more and more children when contraception is free? I suspect you are isolated from the world these people live in.
Click to expand...

lol, one of my best friends teaches special ed at an elementary school in Bushwick. As for your question, it's sort of a non sequitur.
 
Fern said:
Yes, exactly.

What it shows quite clearly that Harry Reid is more interested in useless 'show votes' like this, held merely for political games in anticipation of the upcoming election, than actually getting anything done. There are bipartisan bills from the House with the Admin's support that still haven't seen the light of the day in the Senate.

Where's the F'ing budget, Harry?

Fern
Click to expand...

As I've mentioned in other threads, why do you care about the budget? It's a nonbinding, largely meaningless document.
 
PokerGuy said:
Because those who don't think proper budgeting is important have no chance of actually controlling spending and actually balancing the books.
Click to expand...

Nobody said that proper budgeting wasn't important, but federal budgets the like of which Fern was referring to are almost entirely meaningless when it comes to federal spending. They are nonbinding documents with no force of law.

Why would you possibly think that such a completely impotent resolution would be a necessary precondition to balancing the budget?
 
Atreus21 said:
I'm probably going to be blown out of the water on this since you're a former CPA, but I'd like to challenge this.

Inflation doesn't happen when the economy takes off. It happens when the government prints money. Is that not true?
Click to expand...

There is more than one cause for inflation.

When the economy is too 'hot' excess demand can cause price inflation. Speculative bubbles are examples of this. E.g., real estate, the old/famous case of tulip bulbs etc.

Fern
 
Fern said:
Yes, exactly.

What it shows quite clearly that Harry Reid is more interested in useless 'show votes' like this, held merely for political games in anticipation of the upcoming election, than actually getting anything done. There are bipartisan bills from the House with the Admin's support that still haven't seen the light of the day in the Senate.

Where's the F'ing budget, Harry?

Fern
Click to expand...

What's the point...anything that the Senate would produce would die in the house courtesy of the Teapublicans we have been to this dance many many times now.
 
eskimospy said:
Nobody said that proper budgeting wasn't important, but federal budgets the like of which Fern was referring to are almost entirely meaningless when it comes to federal spending. They are nonbinding documents with no force of law.

Why would you possibly think that such a completely impotent resolution would be a necessary precondition to balancing the budget?
Click to expand...

It speaks volumes that congress has such little regard for budgeting and planning that they can't even pass a budget. The results are as predictable as they are self evident.
 
xBiffx said:
Ausm, yet again making up partisan bullshit. But then that's all this issue is about, giving something for the left to have faux rage over. Good thing you drank up the Kool-aid once again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

This bill/issue has zero to do with reducing debt.

Since you brought it up, what exactly are the leftists in Congress and Bobo's plans for job growth again? Oh that's right, blame Bush, yet again.
Click to expand...

Were you conveniently comatose when the Senate tried to pass numerous infrastructure bills that all died in the house?
 
PokerGuy said:
It speaks volumes that congress has such little regard for budgeting and planning that they can't even pass a budget. The results are as predictable as they are self evident.
Click to expand...

What results are you talking about, specifically? In relation to those results, how would Congressional budget resolutions as they currently exist improve these results?
 
eskimospy said:
The process for adjusting tax rates is far more cumbersome than interest rates, for one.
Click to expand...

Bah.

You can change the top marginal rate, or all the rates for that matter, on a bill written on less than half a single sheet of paper.

Fern
 
eskimospy said:
As I've mentioned in other threads, why do you care about the budget? It's a nonbinding, largely meaningless document.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm. Let's see.

What kind a damn fool would run a large business without a budget?

And the govt is infinitely bigger than a large business.

See the problem?

Fern
 
PokerGuy said:
That sentiment, which I'm sure is shared by liberals in general explains a LOT about why we're 15 trillion in debt. :whiste:
Click to expand...

Try the following....

1)Bush Tax cuts

2) Two unfunded wars on the Taxpayers credit card

3) The reach around to big pharma called Mediscare Part D.
 
Ausm said:
What's the point...
-snip-
Click to expand...

I'll tell you the point.

This is the election year with many Dem Senate seats up for reelection in purple or red districts and Reid won't allow a vote in order to protect those seats.

That's the real point to what's going on, and has been since the stomping in 2010.

Fern
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top