PDA

View Full Version : More painful truth ...



LWW
08-12-2011, 03:12 AM
If we raise the:

- lowest income tax tier ($0.01 TO $17,000.00 TAXABLE INCOME) from 10% to 25% and ...

- second lowest income ($17,000.01 TO $69,000.00 TAXABLE INCOME) tax tier from 15% to 37.5% and ...

- third lowest income tax tier ($69,000.01 TO $139,3500.00 TAXABLE INCOME) from 25% to 62.5% and ...

- third highest income tax tier ($139,350.01 TO $212,300.00 TAXABLE INCOME) from 28% to 70% and ...

- second highest income tax tier ($212,300.01 TO $379,150.00 TAXABLE INCOME) from 33% to 82.5% and ...

- highest income tax tier ($379,150.01 AND UP TAXABLE INCOME) from 35% to 87.5% ...

we still wouldn't be able to balance the US federal budget. In fact, we would still be running a deficit of in excess of $250B a year ... higher than 4 of the 8 years of Bush II ... higher than 7 of 8 years of Clinton ... higher than 3 of 4 years of Bush the Elder ... higher than all but 6 of the first 232 years of the nation's existence. And that's if we doubled the income tax rate across the board.

Yet, if we cut as little as 0.55% from next year's budget ... what the budget deal actually calls for ... we hear the far left screaming about <span style='font-size: 11pt'>"DR-DR-DR-DRA C-C-C-CONIAN C-C-C-CUTS!!!!</span>

So ... let's eliminate the EITC and save $46B ... that way even the poor are de facto taxed. Now we are down to about $204B.

Now ... to those who say we must tax our way out of this, how high do you propose we raise the rates? Do you really want to tax your case to the electorate that you need something north of a 62.5% rate on the heart of the working middle class ... plus 7.65% FICA/MEDICARE ... for a 70.15% rate on families making between $69K and 139K?

And, from the long view of history ... this is how every other "WORKER'S PARADISE" has ended up.

CURRENT TAX RATES (http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-Income-Taxes/qt/Tax-Rates-For-The-2011-Tax-Year.htm)

SPENDING AND DEFICIT DATA (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/)

EITC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit#Cost)

FICA/MEDICARE RATES (http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f9/U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png/800px-U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png

Soflasnapper
08-12-2011, 07:10 PM
A) Balancing the budget is a chimerical goal when there are nearly 10% officially unemployed (U-2), and about double that number if more broadly counted (U-6), and still more unemployed that even THAT, if you adjust for the workforce participation number's decline. It's arguable there are 24% unemployed, Great Depression levels of unemployment. You among others have made that argument, right here.

It is folly to try to balance the government's income and outlays in such an unemployment situation. Worse than folly, it would create a downward spiral of worsening conditions.

B) Setting aside that counterproductive goal until less crisis exists in our employment, do the math with say, 6% unemployment, the old NAIRU limit, and see how close you get.

C) Stop trying to get large amounts of money out of the poor, sick, and elderly, and go where the real money is. The Libertarian Party says end the wars and cut defense by 50%, which would save not a meager $46B by ending the EITC, but $150B + $350B = $500B a year = &gt;$5 TRILLION over 10 years (larger savings than that, considering interest charges)

D) Fully reinstitute the top bracket from Clinton's tax rates (39.6%) on the $250k+ crowd, and add in a 'millionaire income' bracket (whether kicking in at $1 million a year, or $700k a year), at 50%, the rate Reagan thought was great, placing it at that rate for his 6 first years. The first is scored around $800B over 10 years, and I ballpark the second at the same figure, $800B additional revenue. (As the last is now making the rounds as a proposal, eventually CBO will score it upon request.)

E) Take off the cap of earned income subject to the 6.2% payroll tax, as it has already been lifted from the MC tax of 1.4% on payrolls.

F) End the off-shore mail box drop scam for corporate residence, and repatriate the earnings of American companies back here, taxable

llotter
08-12-2011, 07:56 PM
the correct tax in a flat 7% without any exemptions. A one page tax code and a one page tax return. This would raise enough revenue to cover the cost of a constitutional powers of the federal government. No corporate tax, no death tax, no any other taxes.

Tax freedom from the cost of government would come a lot sooner than Aug 12th as it is this year.

How much easier life would be.

LWW
08-13-2011, 04:51 AM
What did any of that have to do with the thread topic?

Stretch
08-13-2011, 09:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What did any of that have to do with the thread topic? </div></div>

I don't blame you for not touching that one. Those points were far too valid. St.

LWW
08-13-2011, 09:37 AM
Nobody is surprised that neither of you has the courage to address the topic.

Stretch
08-13-2011, 10:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nobody is surprised that neither of you has the courage to address the topic. </div></div>

i know it's a much harder sell than with your Tea Bagging jihadist friends. You have to know your audience. St.

Soflasnapper
08-13-2011, 10:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nobody is surprised that neither of you has the courage to address the topic. </div></div>

I addressed it, you just missed it.

No, raising taxes without spending cuts, or even with spending cuts, will not balance the budget in the face of this kind of huge (and understated, you'll agree) unemployment. NOBODY SAID IT WOULD.

Whether this COULD work (and again, using BOTH spending cuts AND tax increases, which is the Dem alternative to the GOP's preferred spending cuts only), it could ONLY work with a country back to work to more normal employment levels. Otherwise, while the deficits could be reduced, they could not be eliminated.

How to do that arithmetic is understood (by budgetary experts, economists, etc., if not by you or I), and what I said is plug in a more moderate level of unemployment, and then work the following proposals (which I gave) under those assumed employment numbers.

For now, a balance in the budget is impossible except as an aspirational direction we'll see it going towards. Reduction, not elimination, of the deficits.

LWW
08-13-2011, 11:21 AM
And again, you dodge.

We have HUGE UE because we have HUGE DEFICITS!

Every billion sucked out of the economy to be squandered by the state is a billion that could have been a new state of the art factory ... or hospital ... or office complex ... or commercial airport ...

Soflasnapper
08-13-2011, 01:24 PM
We have HUGE UE because we have HUGE DEFICITS!

No, you've stated it backwards there.

Huge UE CAUSES huge deficits. By an obvious causal chain effect.

What is your theory that the causation is reversed? (Should be good for a laugh or two)

LWW
08-13-2011, 02:53 PM
Balderdash and poppycock.

The deficit began exploding in late 2007 with the start of the 2008 FY ... the UE rate exploded thereafter.

A compounding problem this time around was that the deficit explosion was more less in lockstep with a big jump in the minimum wage ... which is another example of gubmint meddling harming those it was designed to help.

eg8r
08-15-2011, 07:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Huge UE CAUSES huge deficits. By an obvious causal chain effect.
</div></div>That may be the result ongoing but it is not the root cause of the situation we are currently sitting it. We had huge debts while UE was very low and the reason is that our Government was growing at a faster pace than revenues coming in. Our high levels of UE are only a recent issue compared to our high deficit issue.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-15-2011, 10:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Balderdash and poppycock.

The deficit began exploding in late 2007 with the start of the 2008 FY ... the UE rate exploded thereafter.

A compounding problem this time around was that the deficit explosion was more less in lockstep with a big jump in the minimum wage ... which is another example of gubmint meddling harming those it was designed to help. </div></div>

These figures show that, when you say the deficit 'began exploding' in FY08, the deficit that year didn't reach as high a percentage of GDP as even two prior Bush years to that point.

FY..........GDP.....Deficit/GDP %

2003......11142.1.....3.39
2004......11867.8.....3.48
2005......12638.4.....2.52
2006......13398.9.....1.86
2007......14077.6.....1.14
2008......14441.4.....3.18

We can draw several conclusions from these numbers.

One is that the deficit levels in '03 and '04, while greater than the '08 deficit (as %s of gdp), did not lead to huge unemployment increases.

Another is, as I've said so often, FY '07, while under a Democratic majority Congress, did not see a large or even increased deficit.

The '08 deficit increased as an undeclared until later recession started, and still was under the FY '03 and '04 deficits as a share of the gdp (which were two RECOVERY years, under a total GOP majority controlled Congress and W as president).

I remember W complaining that the economic situation early in his first term (years two and three) was hampered by all the 'war talk' of the media, as he pretended he'd made no decision as to going to war and that the rumor-mongering was irresponsible, harmful to peoples' economic confidence, and ill-founded in reality. (He may well have been right that the looming war reality did somewhat seize up the economic choices people made, but of course, blatantly lying that there was no factual predicate for these reports of imminent war.)

From this government budget worksheet page. Check it out! Very handy tools. (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=2000_2016&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=G0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s)

LWW
08-15-2011, 04:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Balderdash and poppycock.

The deficit began exploding in late 2007 with the start of the 2008 FY ... the UE rate exploded thereafter.

A compounding problem this time around was that the deficit explosion was more less in lockstep with a big jump in the minimum wage ... which is another example of gubmint meddling harming those it was designed to help. </div></div>

These figures show that, when you say the deficit 'began exploding' in FY08, the deficit that year didn't reach as high a percentage of GDP as even two prior Bush years to that point. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">A completely ludicrous argument as you are comparing the debt as the wars were winding down with when the wars were at their peak ... and trumpeting a near tripling of the debt to GDP ratio as proof that the dems budget didn't blow up the deficit.</span></span>

FY..........GDP.....Deficit/GDP %

2003......11142.1.....3.39
2004......11867.8.....3.48
2005......12638.4.....2.52
2006......13398.9.....1.86
2007......14077.6.....1.14
2008......14441.4.....3.18

We can draw several conclusions from these numbers. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">Only if "we" are hyper-partisan to an insane extent ... this part of "we" isn't.</span></span>

One is that the deficit levels in '03 and '04, while greater than the '08 deficit (as %s of gdp), did not lead to huge unemployment increases. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">But it did ... UE rose almost 10%, from 5.4% to 5.8% ... and the democrooks wailed and gnashed their collective teeth about how horrible that was.</span></span>

Another is, as I've said so often, FY '07, while under a Democratic majority Congress, did not see a large or even increased deficit. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">Deceptive in the extreme. The democrooks took control of congress in 01/07 ... but their budget did not start until later.</span></span>

The '08 deficit increased as an undeclared until later recession started <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">Thanks you for making my point.</span></span>, and still was under the FY '03 and '04 deficits as a share of the gdp (which were two RECOVERY years, under a total GOP majority controlled Congress and W as president).

I remember W complaining that the economic situation early in his first term (years two and three) was hampered by all the 'war talk' of the media, as he pretended he'd made no decision as to going to war and that the rumor-mongering was irresponsible <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">Actually the wars had already began by then.</span></span>, harmful to peoples' economic confidence, and ill-founded in reality. (He may well have been right that the looming war reality did somewhat seize up the economic choices people made, but of course, blatantly lying that there was no factual predicate for these reports of imminent war.)

From this government budget worksheet page. Check it out! Very handy tools. (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=2000_2016&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=G0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s) </div></div>

Please post responsibly.