Budget Cuts ? UNACCEPTABLE ANSWER

Perhaps you can address the fact that those making $50K in the mid fifties would have to make at least $400K today to have the same purchasing power.
Perhaps you'd like to present data discussing the average effective tax rate during those time periods, taking into account deductions that were readily available plus the dreaded AMT that is now in place for so many in the middle class.
Perhaps you'd like to present data discussing the average total tax(FED, state, local, sales, SS, utility, gas, miscellaneous, etc.) the average citizen pays as a percent of income compared to those time periods.
Perhaps you'd like to discuss disposable income as a percentage of the gross during those time periods, as compared to now.

then, get back to me

 

Is it safe to assume then, that emigration exerts an upward pressure on wage rates; and, that an equilibrium may be reached sooner rather than later regarding wage rate parity in some developing economies where there is more emigration than immigration?

We could be subsidizing US labor to not provide labor input to the economy and instead pursue other opportunity costs than directly competing with foreign labor during times of labor surpluses in the US through unemployment compensation that bears true witness to our own laws.

 

Moderator warned us to stay ON TOPIC > Budget cuts vs. tax increases.

 

OFF TOPIC - topic is budget cuts vs. tax increases. See post 393 (moderator comment).

 

Oldest trick in the book.. Throw in a lot of complications and get the guy all wound up in them. Nope.
No need to discuss any of those things. Just close all loopholes, keep them closed, and restore normal taxation.

Got a reason why Johnny Depp, with a $100 Million/year gross income, needs to keep $65 Million/year for doing nothing very important to America ? And why he should pocket all that much, when people like coal miners, firefighters, and troops in Afghanistan who risk their lives (and sometimes lose them), and do really important things, receive a relative drop in Johnny Depp's bucket ?

then get back to me.

 

They could cut the military, subsidies, drug war, prison industrial complex, black budget, spying on the American people, the DHS buildup, bailouts, funding dictators, funding interventionism.

Get back to me when you are a liberal.

 

yeah, asking you to use your brain. Real tricky

 

Your post would be correct if tax increases were done in a vacuum. By definition, a tax increase decreases the amount of income that the person being effected has... Therefore, if that person were an investor or an employer, it would most certainly cause a reduction in investment and employment...

The reason that private investment is more efficient than government investment is because government investment has no competition, and therefore failed investments are not reduced in the same way that they are done in a free market. Example: How many times has a government program been a complete failure, and in response to the failure, spending on that program is increased?

 

And what about tax increases on the rich ?

 

I used it all that I needed to.

 

1. " if that person were an investor or an employer, it would most certainly cause a reduction in investment and employment...", HOWEVER, I'm not talking about investors or employers. I'm talking about the working rich with multi-million $ per year salaries (movie stars, pro athletes, CEOs). Guys like Johnny Depp don't employ anyone nor do they invest. You don't have to invest when you're already being paid $100 Million/year.

2. I'm also not talking about government "investment" either. I'm talking about taking the added money from tax increases on the rich and using it to HIRE government workers. This puts money into the hands of unemployed people who then go to the stores (AKA the economy) and pump up the economy with SALES$$. We also get the benefit of more government service, some of which reduces govt spending (ex. hiring ICE agents and border patrol officers, reducing illegal immigration, thereby reducing America's welfare, tax, and remitance losse$$$) We also get infrastructure fixed, reducing big losses due to occur when those catastrophic infrastructure problems occur (Wolf Creek Dam, California delta levees, US power grid, etc)

 

1. " if that person were an investor or an employer, it would most certainly cause a reduction in investment and employment...", HOWEVER, I'm not talking about investors or employers. I'm talking about the working rich with multi-million $ per year salaries (movie stars, pro athletes, CEOs). Guys like Johnny Depp don't employ anyone nor do they invest. You don't have to invest when you're already being paid $100 Million/year.

2. I'm also not talking about government "investment" either. I'm talking about taking the added money from tax increases on the rich and using it to HIRE government workers. This puts money into the hands of unemployed people who then go to the stores (AKA the economy) and pump up the economy with SALES$$. We also get the benefit of more government service, some of which reduces govt spending (ex. hiring ICE agents and border patrol officers, reducing illegal immigration, thereby reducing America's welfare, tax, and remitance losse$$$) We also get infrastructure fixed, reducing big losses due to occur when those catastrophic infrastructure problems occur (Wolf Creek Dam, California delta levees, US power grid, etc)

 

I'm generally opposed to taxation but the claim we're over-taxed is fundatmentally false. 46% of all American households don't pay any federal income taxes (excluding FICA taxes which are applied to earned income) and to say they are over-taxed simply can't be supported logically. The Clinton era tax rates did not impose an unacceptable level of taxation and the Bush era tax cuts were predicated upon the assumption that we could have lower tax rates while still paying down the deficits. That did not happen and the Bush era tax cuts should have been repealed under Bush the first day that the budget slipped into a deficit spending.

But yes, there can be cuts in expendatures and the first place those cuts should occur is where we're spending money not authorized by the US Constitution. Our government doesn't have a delegate role or responsibility to be the "World Cop" nor to defend other nations. The purpose of the United States Military is to defend the United States from an attack or invasion by another country. Not a single country on the planet wants to attack the United States today and all of the US Military in foreign countries should be withdrawn (excluding the Marine Corps protection of our embassies). The US military budget could be cut by up to 75% without sacrificing it's ability to defend the United States from foreign attacks.

We have agencies such as NASA that aren't authorized by the US Constitution. I love NASA but it's a "luxury" and not a "necessity" of government. With a $16 trillion debt we can't afford luxuries.

We have the federal Dept of Education but education is a delegated role and responsibility of the States and not the federal government. We're being double-taxed to provide the benefit of education and I oppose double taxation.

We have programs such as Social Security and Medicare that has collected trillions of dollars in taxation and made Americans dependent upon government when they retire. The future unfunded mandates to pay for benefits is well over $50 trillion depending upon how far out into the future we project the spending. My position is that this can be addressed by changing the program without the government violating the "promise" it has made to the people in benefits. Unlike Paul Ryan (and Congress) I would not propose screwing those that have already been paying into Social Security/Medicare for up to 35 years. Personally I'd propose offering the individual the ability to voluntarily invest their money in private diversfied and age-adjusted portfolios which, historically, would offer them 5-times the benefits at retirement over the existing 'welfare' Social Security/Medicare programs. Don't "cut" there benefits but instead give them the voluntary opportunity to have far greater benefits. It will cost tens of trillions of dollars to make a transition but in the end it is far less expensive than current projections.

Other "social" welfare programs can be sustained or improved by changing the program. As I noted we can feed hungry Americans for a fraction of the cost by utilizing a national food bank program as opposed to feeding them at retail prices at the grocery store. We can assume that some Americans wouldn't have a food bank near them and they could continue to purchase at the market but a food bank offers food for less than 25% of the cost of the market so why not use those for the vast majority of those in need of food.

So we can improve the protections for the People at less cost and we can eliminate unnecessary government spending while at the same time we can afford to pay more in taxes so long as those taxes are used to reduce the national debt. We have $16 trillion in debt and we would have to pay over a trillion per year more above and beyond balancing the budget to pay off this debt in 15 years. Even if we just address the "reductions" in the national debt that Bush promised we'd still have $13 trillion in additional taxes and if we looked at how long it took to accumumate that debt as the time period for paying it off we're still looking at the requirement to collect over one trillion per year above what is necessary to balance the budget.

Bottom like we're not underfunded by $1 trillion per year to eliminate the deficits but instead we're underfunded by over $2 trillion per year to eliminate the deficits and pay off prior defitics. That's more than we've even collecting in general revenues today.

 

There are very few of these individuals that have earned income over $1 million per year and they don't earn enough to make a difference. Most high income earners receive income from investments that can easily be moved "off-shore" where the income is not US income. Mitt Romney, for example, has "off shore"investments in the Cayman Islands and that income doesn't even show up on his US tax returns because of the US-UK tax treaty on capital gains. Higher tax rates simply results in more money being moved off shore which adversely effects the US economy and government revenues.

As has been noted in the proposals by the Obama adminstration to tax high income earners more it would result in only about $100 billion per year which is 1/10th of our annual national deficits. It wouldn't provide one dime of "additional" spending by our government and it would not provide for any additional government jobs.

 

It may only be "false" when you apply market based concepts without acknowledging externalities to our money based markets.

From one perspective, the wealthy are being under Taxed whenever we have a Wartime economy and they are not paying Wartime Tax rates; which, by default shifts that "tax" burden to the least wealthy through public policy decisions.

It is very unlikely that we would have a generation long War on Drugs, if the wealthiest had to pay wartime Tax rates for it.

 

Well, ain't that patriotic!

Here's an idea: Since the rich and republicans want us to return to the 50's of prejudice, misogyny and hatred, why not increase their taxes to the level of the 50's? While we're at it, let's cut the salary of all Congressmen to minimum wage, take away their lifetime retirement and medical care and give them a big party (at their expense) welcoming them to the 47%!

 

except that you can't comprehend the fact that the tax code is not inflation adjusted, and have not accounted for comparative effective tax rates, and total taxes paid as a percent of income between the two time periods.
Other than that, you've really excelled.

 

1. Did you think I was advocating raising taxes on the rich without closing loopholes ? Of course loophole closure is part of the program, and a continued active effort to keep on top of them.

2. I mentioned Johnny Depp and his big income only as an example. That doesn't mean I'm limiting my scenario to only the biggest income recipients. The great majority of tax revenue is from individual tax, not corporate. Bearing that in mind, we have the following scenario: (I don't know how many times I have to say this ):

The wealthiest 20% of the US households are set to receive about $6.5 Trillion in personal income this year, half of all national personal income. Their average tax burden is around 26%, or about $1.7 Trillion. This leaves them with $4.8 Trillion of disposable income each year.

The current budget deficit is around $1.2 Trillion, or about one fourth of the disposable income of the wealthiest. They could be taxed enough to eliminate the budget deficit and still receive 3/4 of their income.

If you want stats they are at census.gov and bea.gov

 

1. Did you think I was advocating raising taxes on the rich without closing loopholes ? Of course loophole closure is part of the program, and a continued active effort to keep on top of them.

2. I mentioned Johnny Depp and his big income only as an example. That doesn't mean I'm limiting my scenario to only the biggest income recipients. The great majority of tax revenue is from individual tax, not corporate. Bearing that in mind, we have the following scenario: (I don't know how many times I have to say this ):

The wealthiest 20% of the US households are set to receive about $6.5 Trillion in personal income this year, half of all national personal income. Their average tax burden is around 26%, or about $1.7 Trillion. This leaves them with $4.8 Trillion of disposable income each year.

The current budget deficit is around $1.2 Trillion, or about one fourth of the disposable income of the wealthiest. They could be taxed enough to eliminate the budget deficit and still receive 3/4 of their income.

If you want stats they are at census.gov and bea.gov

 

Who says tax rates are "Wartime" tax rates ? Tax rates are whatever the American people decide they should be, for whatever reason they decide (war or anything else).

 

Who says tax rates are "Wartime" tax rates ? Tax rates are whatever the American people decide they should be, for whatever reason they decide (war or anything else).

 

Other than that ? FALSE!. I don't care if older tax rates were effective, or marginal, or any other label you'd like to stick on them. I'm happy with the tax rates of the past to be the tax rates of the present. We are not bound by any standards regarding taxation. Did you think we were ? There is nothing we HAVE to do, except get the country back on track in every way (including financially). There is no need to preserve a tax code that does nothing but feed the greed of the wealthy.

And for your edification, I am old enough to remember the 1950s when the top bracket tax was 91-92%, and I was born and raised in New York City among hundreds of millionaires, many of whom I knew personally. And guess what ? They PAID those high rates despite everything you hear about "effective" tax rates. But like I said, it doesn't matter if they did or not. They need to pay then NOW, that's all.

What is a lot more meaningful than what they paid back then, is the amount of money they would have, if they paid those rates now. Take a guy who grosses $1 million/year. At the 80% rate, he'd still pocket $200,000/year. Not enough ? Tough. Learn to live with it Mr. (theoretical) rich man. The majority of Americans have been living with a lot less than that, and in many cases, doing work a lot tougher and more valuable to society that what you've been doing.

 

I'm with you.

 

That's obvious.
Walking around with your hand out, looking for someone else to fix your problems tends to do that to a person.
Free and brave has taken on a new meaning.

if older tax rates were effective, or marginal, or any other label you'd like to stick on them. I'm happy with the tax rates of the past to be the tax rates of the present. We are not bound by any standards regarding taxation. Did you think we were ? There is nothing we HAVE to do, except get the country back on track in every way (including financially). There is no need to preserve a tax code that does nothing but feed the greed of the wealthy.

your anecdotes are charming.

Such tough talk for a beggar.

 

Everyone's tax rates increase when a country is under "wartime" expendatures which did not occur when former President Bush decided to go to war. The Bush era tax cuts of 2001 should have been immediately repealed and additional tax cuts in 2003 should never have existed. In fact, all of our tax rates should have been raised to above Clinton era tax rates to pay for the two wars started under President Bush to cover not only the costs of war but to also meet the Bush promise of reducing the national debt.