Increase Ordinary Income Tax Rates or................

You said the tax increases were mostly on the rich, yet taxes increased on almost everyone, including 2 or 3 new tax brackets.

You cannot compare 1992 to 2000 and assume the increase in tax revenue stemmed solely from the 1993 tax rate changes??

The government surplus was created by raiding the SS fund in which ALL monies not used by SS went into the general fund.

So the 100 million can live in the USA, demand the best government, and not pay any income taxes?

I'm not a Rep or Dem dream voter because I have no use for either of them. I look at each issue separately with zero concern about politics. You on the other hand are hell-bent on following your political dogma...

 

If you want more wealth Irieman...what are your options for achieving this? According to all of your political rants here your number one option is to redistribute wealth because the wealthy have managed to control all the money. What are your other options to increase your wealth?

 

In other posts you say the wealthy don't spend and in this post you say the middle class is all tapped out and can't spend.

Who cares about 'proportionately'...this is political sheep talk! Everyone contributes however they can contribute, and how they contribute IS NOT a good or bad thing. 50 million people contributing $5000 each is identical to 5 million people contributing $50,000 each...who cares as long as the contributions/taxes/whatever are fair?

Obama and Dems won't mention it, but downsizing, living within our means, cutting back short or long term, are necessary options in order to be fiscally responsible! Of course Obama and Dems and you cry that people are going to suffer if they can't buy their cigarettes, or alcohol, or bling, or new cars, or the latest iPhone and flatscreen, or go often to the casino. I'm not poor and we have cut back, we watch how we spend our money, we balk at ridiculously priced items...this is what everyone should be doing. If you and your poor brethren want more wealth, then first look in the mirror and ask that person what can I do to create more income, or reduce my spending, in order to find Obama-euphoria? Have a conversation with that mirror and ponder why after all of these years government has not redistributed other people's wealth in order to make you happy and wealthy? Maybe it's time you did something to create your own wealth destiny...and even if people don't do anything...they have created their wealth destiny; just don't blame one's failures or dislikes on others who are perceived to be more successful...

 

Moreover, except for a small gasoline-tax boost and an increase for the best-off Social Security recipients, the tax increases in last years bill mostly didn’t touch the middle class but hit the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.

http://www.kellysite.net/taxes.html (quoting WSJ)

I never assumed that the increase in tax revenue stemmed solely from the 1993 tax rate changes. Tax rates being equal, revenues increase with rising incomes and population growth resulting from economic growth and inflation.

However, the 1993 tax increase did increase revenue growth over an above what would be correlated to economic growth, and this additional tax revenue is why we had a surplus budget.

False misperception based on conservative propaganda mythology.

It is true that surplus and deficit figures are usually quoted as a "total" figure, which includes the SS surplus we've had in recent years. For example, you'll hear conservatives claim that Bush lowered the deficit to "only" $161 billion in 2007, but that figure includes SS. Exclude SS, that the deficit that year jumps to $342 billion (and even that excludes the costs of the wars, which the bush administration kept off budget).

So in 2000 when you hear that Clinton had a $236 billion surplus, that figure does included SS. However, when you take out SS, there was *still* a surplus of $86 billion.

In otherwords, Clinton had a true surplus, not one just based on SS excess receipts and borrowing from the trust fund.

They do bear an effective 15% Fica tax (including the employer paid share). The incomes of the 100 million need to rise, so that they will start paying income taxes.

If it walks like a duck ...

 

It's not about me.

See post above re suggestions for the middle class.

What are your proposals to reverse the trend where almost all the growth in income and wealth in this country have been going to the top 10% and most to the top 1%?

 

You're not going to box me into your political corner! All spending trickles in every direction...period. What people do with their money, how they spend it, how they stash it, is their business and not yours or governments.

I suspect if 75% of my spending is with local businesses versus someone else spending 75% of their income at a Target or Wal-Mart will energize the economy in different ways. But it makes no difference because we require all types of spending...

 

Spending is key.

And the uber rich spend proportionately much less of their income than the middle classes.

 

You cannot bring back the middle-class when you forced manufacturing to leave the USA and you buy mostly imports. Your middle-class will dwindle because of these actions. And because your middle-class is unwilling to adjust to reality so they just stay the course right into foreclosures and bankruptcies and constantly being tapped out. If someone is not working, or cannot make ends meet, then that person, and no one else, needs to adjust! As long as those people hide behind the veil of unions and government and politics, they simply fall farther and farther behind.

The wealthy don't pay FICA taxes...excuse me??

There is a very valid reason to pay Buffet his SS...because he paid into the SS fund! If you want to deny him SS then give him a refund! That money is not yours and others just because he happens to have some wealth. It is HIS decision if he wishes to turn down SS...not yours, not governments.

Everything you have proposed is wealth redistribution! Anytime one person is not paying their fair share and someone else is paying their share...this is wealth redistribution.

How do you propose to 'start focusing on the middle classes'?

FICA is not a tax. FICA is a contribution in order to receive benefits at retirement age. No FICA contribution no SS...don't try to twist it any other way. We have SS because the average American is incapable of preparing for retirement, forcing government to create a social program, then government demanding that people pay for it.

How can government dictate to a union how much workers should be paid, or about their benefits, or which medical insurance they use, etc.? What is one reason government needs to be involved in unions?

So you believe that all of those middle-class people who are disgusted with their lives, angry about their wages, etc. blame this on not having higher education opportunities? I'm 100% for K-16 public education, but this does not solve YOUR problem! Many of the people you talk about fail or drop out of high school and see no need for higher education, and this is about 50% of our kids...no small number! If they can't make it through simple high school, how do you propose these same people will make it through an undergraduate degree?

What we have here is a People problem Iriemon! We have people who for whatever reasons don't like their situations and either refuse or don't understand how to adjust their lives to achieve something better than they have. We have lots of People who simply are not capable of much more than they have achieved, they have reached their potential, and they either create a life that works or are unhappy. Sadly, most of these people turn to lying politicians or government to solve all of their problems...

 

From 1993 to 2003 (in constant 2005 dollars);

Receipts....Outlays....Deficit/Surplus

[TABLE="width: 225"]
[TR]
[TD]1,511.5[/TD]
[TD]1,845.5[/TD]
[TD]-334.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,617.7[/TD]
[TD]1,878.9[/TD]
[TD]-261.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,691.4[/TD]
[TD]1,896.6[/TD]
[TD]-205.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,775.5[/TD]
[TD]1,906.8[/TD]
[TD]-131.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,889.9[/TD]
[TD]1,916.1[/TD]
[TD]-26.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,040.9[/TD]
[TD]1,958.8[/TD]
[TD]82.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,136.4[/TD]
[TD]1,989.5[/TD]
[TD]146.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,310.0[/TD]
[TD]2,040.6[/TD]
[TD]269.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,215.3[/TD]
[TD]2,072.7[/TD]
[TD]142.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,028.6[/TD]
[TD]2,201.3[/TD]
[TD]-172.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,901.1[/TD]
[TD]2,303.9[/TD]
[TD]-402.8
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

During this period you prescribe, receipts increased by 25.8%...outlays increased by 24.8%...and the deficit spending increased by 20.3%.

You be the judge if you believe these numbers 'are better than fine'??

During that period it was beneficial to invest in the US economy. Today I would say it is more tentative especially when we have the global economy available to us.

Yes I believe in the Laffer Curve. It represents common human behavior! The more you try to take from me the more I will cheat and avoid you...human behavior. From my perspective other than caring about the USA, if you want to raise taxes to 50% or 85% or whatever political BS number, I will pay my taxes but I will absolutely minimize my money which is subject to these taxes. This means I will search outside of the USA for friendlier places to invest. It seems more logical to me that the USA should be doing everything possible to invest in the USA...not away from the USA...

 

The data does not support your argument. The problem is not lack of income growth -- we've had it excepting the last couple years. The problem is the bulk of it has gone to the 1%ers thanks to "trickle down" policies.

Manufacturing is only a small subset of the economy today. Most of the economy is service oriented. But wages for service businesses have not kept up with manufacturing.

Read what I said: "the wealthy effectively don't pay". SS stops at $110k of income. A guy making $100k or less pays an effective 12.4% in SS. A guy making $10 million pays 0.124%. And the uber rich living off investment income pay -0- FICA because it isn't applied to investment income. I know, what a shocker.

Paying a tax gives you no right to benefits. That is entitlement mentality.

I disagree. For example, my proposal of lowering taxes on the poorer/middle classes and raising it on the wealthy is not wealth redistribution but a shift in who pays the tax burden.

Explained in my earlier post.

Of course it is a tax. You have to pay it whether you want to or not, and you may or may not get any benefits.

It can't, but the Govt can change the rules on how unions can be organized and operated, so that they can effectively establish in places like Wal-Mart.

Where did I say anything like that?

We have the same people we had 30 years ago. It's just that "trickle down" policies have funnelled the growth in income and wealth mostly to the people who make the top 1% in income.

It is no coincidence that ever since "trickle down" we've seen a massive shift in income inequality.

 

What about it is relevant to my post?

"Excellent"? You have very low standards.

I've read Steiner. He's a right wing computer programmer with no training in economics who writes a blog claiming there was no surplus. To prove it he will link you to a Treasury Department page that doesn't even have the word deficit or surplus in it. He'll erroneously tell you that a deficit or surplus is measured by whether the debt goes up or down, when in fact (as your post #60 shows) it is not based on debt but receipts and outlays:

surplus: The amount by which the federal government’s total revenues exceed its total outlays in a given period, typically a fiscal year. Compare with deficit.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/glossary.pdf

The sources you conservatives come up with as "excellent" sometimes just makes me shake my head. I mean, why would you rely on a blog of a computer programmer who isn't even an economist? Just because he says there was no surplus under Clinton and that fits with your ideology is all it takes for you to have blind faith belief in what he says?

 

It is about you since you are in this discussion.

You make it sound like the US economy just sends a fat check each week to the wealthy and a skinny check to the lower and middle classes? You make it sound like the wealthy are doing nothing, nothing different, from the lower and middle classes in order to receive those fatter checks? Why not go down the list to see what is different between these groups which is causing your perceived unequal rewards? Let's see...does a doctor earn more than a check-out clerk? What did the doctor do differently in life that the check-out clerk did not? Did the doctor graduate from public high school with high grades and avoid crime? Did the doctor choose higher education? Does a doctor obtain continuing education to grow their worth; does a check-out clerk do the same? What is the difference in how people turn out?

I'll say this 1000 times; we have a People problem here! Yes it's sad that many cannot achieve greater potential but is this the fault of the wealthy? What are the parent's role? What are the school's role? What is the government's role? What are the non-profit's role? Lastly, there will always be a (*)(*)(*)(*)-load of Americans who will be on the lower rungs of society; this is reality! If government feels a need to support these people, then government can create social programs for this purpose. BUT...social programs are not owned by the wealthy! Social programs and government are supposed to be funded by all citizens...this is what made America strong. We have a progressive tax system and it dings the wealthy just fine. If you can identify the root issues of these people in the lower rungs of society, then maybe you can create solutions. But when root issues are avoided and the entire dialogue is political BS about class-warfare, nothing will ever be resolved...

 

Don't try to personalize it. You know nothing about me. Our discussion is about national policy and the economy as a whole.

You're making it sound like I'm sayin the doctor should have the same after tax income os the check out clerk. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Truth is, however, for many of the wealthy, especially those in the stratosphere, much of their income is passive income from investment.

You suggest that since 1980, the rich folks have all just worked a *lot* harder and the middle classes have all just gotten lazy and so the uber rich deserve to get so much more of the wealth and income and the fact that we've slashed their taxes, raised taxes on the middle class, gutted unions and the minimum wage all have nothing to do with it.

Based on what do you make that claim?

The richest are paying much less in effective tax rates than they were 30 years ago.

 

Nothing has gone to the 1% except all the energy from the political BS that swirls around about the wealthy.

It is interesting that you fundamentally disagree with the novel idea that when someone is unhappy with their situation, their job, their income, etc. that it is THEY who make all the decisions in life...it is THEY who must adjust and create change...it is THEY who must solve their problems??

How do you rationalize people who cannot review their situations, cannot select better paths in life, cannot make better decisions, cannot adjust to adversity, and want others to solve all of their problems...how do you rationalize this behavior?

In the news today it said service type jobs typically are paying $15/hour.

What is a middle-class wage? $35K $55K $75K $100K How do you define middle-class? It's really all just political BS! The amount of money someone earns does not define happiness. Give $55K to some people and they will (*)(*)(*)(*) it away in a few months on all the wrong stuff. Give $25K to others and they will create a sustainable life. Bottom line on this lower class and middle class political BS is if people don't like where they are, then change it...stop being a failure, take steps to change either by earning more or reducing/prioritizing spending...but don't blame others and don't expect government to solve people's happiness problems.

Your politics has you all screwed up Iriemon. A person earning the SS cap pays the full amount of FICA withholding and this is more than enough to offset the dismal SS payouts at retirement. Removing the cap does nothing but redistribute wealth again by letting some pay the way of others.

Paying into FICA guarantees a payout...or would you like to provide some evidence against this?

If you are shifting who pays taxes to the wealthy then this is redistribution of wealth.

I know what the government tries to do with unions but this does not mean I agree. I don't believe government has any role between unions and employers...period...other than those laws which pertain to all businesses/people.

If you cannot see how much the lower and middle classes have advanced in society, how much they consume, the diversity of options they have today, then I suggest you are not paying attention...

 

Provide the data to dispute the article...

 

You mean other than proving his method of calculating the surplus is wrong and the webpage he uses to support his position says nothing about deficits or surpluses?

Here you go:

 

And what is wrong with income from investments?

If you are focused on the uber-rich then this is your first mistake.

I'll debate that people who earn $60K to $250K definitely worked a lot harder; spent more time obtaining an education or trade, applied themselves in their career, probably have continuing education, and therefore on average reap higher monetary rewards. And this is exactly how it is supposed to work! If you want more, then invest more! How much more simple can this be.

And don't forget to state that the richest are also paying the lion's share federal income taxes...

 

Cut spending first. Raising taxes before cutting spending is just more out of control manipulation by congress to pay off their lobbyist they have sold there soul too. I just read a piece on Harry Truman and how he refused to use tax dollars for his own vacations. Now that is a president I would vote for and I am a conservative.

 

In your graphic it says 'deficit (-) or Surplus??

 

I agree completely that paying another dime in taxes, by anyone, is stupid until the spending is under control...

 

Where did I ever say one word about someone being happy or not?

Where did I ever rational anyone reviewing their situation or not?

Middle class is the area between the richest and the poorest. It can be defined different ways, between 50-80% of the middle earners.

It's not like it's a new phrase or idea.

Don't understand what you are tring to say. If removing the cap is redistributing the wealth, then putting a cap on their in the first place and exempting the tax from investment income is redistributing wealth too. Redistributing wealth from the middle class to the 1%.

Sure. Explain to me how someone who dies at age 50 gets a payout from SS or medicare.

So by shifting the FICA burden to the middle classes and cutting income taxes for the wealthiest, Reagan and Bush were redistributing wealth.

I agree. That is what we need to undo.

It plays a huge role. And over the past 30 years laws and court rulings have made it tougher for unions to organize. So places like Wal-mart can get away with paying the lowest wages possible and make their owners even richer.

If you cannot see how most of the growth in income and wealth has gone to the top 10% and mostly to the top 1% and that the middle class' share of the pie has decreased, then you are simply ignoring fact because the truth contradicts your predisposed beliefs. See charts above.

 

If the Govt collected the same amount of taxes as a % of GDP over the past three years as it did in 2000, the Govt would have collected $750-800 billion more in revenues each year, and the deficits would have proportionately less.

What is stupid is doing nothing while the debt piles up.

 

Yes, the minus sign indicating there is a deficit, and lack of a minus sign indicating surplus (as in 2000).

The image was clipped from the Congressional Budget Office Historical Budget data website. You can view it yourself here: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42911