Reply With Quote
i hear ya. just when they were ready to trickle down........
So, we have our 4th straight year of a trillion dollar plus deficit and Obama is scratching his head. All the while, he's ready to allow the largest tax increases since World War II to just roll into effect and cripple an already paralyzed economy.
Obama in 2009: ‘You Don’t Raise Taxes in a Recession’
The U.S. Tax System: Who Really Pays?Todd had asked Obama a question from Elkhart, Indiana resident Scott Ferguson who wanted Obama to explain why raising taxes in a recession could be good for the economy. Obama answered that it could not be good for the economy, saying it was just good economics not to raise taxes in a recession.
“First of all, he’s [Ferguson] right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession,” Obama said.
If you think raising taxes on the wealthy is going to solve our economic woes, you're ed up in the head.Even if most policymakers and members of the public instinctively understand the wisdom of President Kennedy’s words, tax rates are set to go way up, not down, next year because of the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the beginning of 2013. The Obamacare law also raises tax rates on wealthy individuals by an additional 3.8 percentage points next year. President Obama and others in Congress argue that these higher tax rates are justified because of the growing consensus that the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes. Unless we do something to spread the burden more equitably, the argument goes, American society will become more unfair and the economy more unsustainable with each passing year.
At first glance, the tax rate issue seems inseparable from the tax fairness issue, since higher taxes are expected to shift society’s wealth from the private sector to the public sector, where, broadly speaking, it is redistributed to lower-wage earners and the needy. In reality, the people at the bottom of the scale have benefited directly and indirectly from every tax rate reduction dating back to Kennedy’s rate reductions in the early 1960s and through the tax cuts adopted early in the administration of George W. Bush. If those lower rates, along with the Alternative Minimum Tax fix, are allowed to expire, the poor will be burdened even more than the wealthy because the whole economic pie will shrink.
If tax cuts work to expand the economy, the income pie gets larger for everyone. For example, tax rate reductions on businesses may mean more money after-tax for hiring more workers, paying them more, or purchasing more plant and equipment and computers that make workers more productive and efficient. Tax rate reductions on investment expand investment and mean more funds available for new businesses to get off the ground and for existing businesses to expand. Lower estate taxes may mean that family-owned businesses don’t have to be sold at auction at the time of the owner’s death. Everyone benefits.
At stake in the current tax debate in Washington are not only marginal income-tax rates but the tax on capital gains and dividends. Federal taxes are already scheduled to rise by about $700 billion over the next ten years to finance the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In short, Americans face the largest ulative tax increase since the end of World War II, which could be a mighty blow to an economy already on the verge of double-dip recession.
The truth is that higher taxes starve the very sectors of the economy that create jobs for everyone. They can, for a little while, reduce the incomes of our top-earning citizens—until these people’s top-notch accountants are able to redirect their investments away from the most efficient, effective uses of their money and into sleepier investments such as government debt, instead of providing the capital that some high-tech company, for example, needs to develop its next tablet.
Below are a series of statements reflecting popular conceptions and misconceptions about the impact of tax rates on economic productivity and fairness. We’ll address these statements (and debunk attendant myths) one at a time.
i hear ya. just when they were ready to trickle down........
So what do you expect Gecko/Ryan to do about the economy?
Hint: look at Ryan's budget (increases the deficit $4T+), which Gecko says is the same as his own.
Until we get a tax rate of <10% for the highest earners, then America will never be prosperous!
[QUOTE} If you think raising taxes on the wealthy is going to solve our economic woes, you're ed up in the head.[/QUOTE]
This doesn't need a conditional clause:
Yoni is ed up in the head (and maybe elsewhere)
Why is this statement less true, today, than it was 40 years ago?
These ers that talk about historically low tax rates conveniently forget that when we had the high tax rates we had loads of deductions. We gave those up as a "tax simplification" in exchange for lower rates. Now the suckers want those high rates again without the deductions...as long as it doesn't affect THEM.
The tax rates were higher and not a drag on the economy in the late 90's...
The reality is that all these recent tax cuts are being subsidized with more debt, and they've nothing to show for them. There's no political will from either side to "starve the beast", which at this point is as much of a fairy tale as "trickle down" and "welfare queen"...
You can thank St Ronnie for the "tax simplification" con job too...
hasn't the gop had the house the last 2 years....and we have run deficits during these 2 yrs as well...
just sayin
Congress is . Both sides. Yoni will love to remind you how Reid won't reach across the aisle and basically give the GOP everything they want. But it's a two way street. Neither side is interested in working with the other.
it's clear there needs to be cooperation across the aisle.. so when there is none then both sides deserve the blame... some are reay to blame one side knowing full well it's not intellectually honest charge
Unless there's something to back this up, I would say this is a misrepresentation of why the rich's income tax burden is higher. I would guess the main reason the rich pay a higher share of income tax today because they have a higher share of the total income than they did in 1972.In 1972, when the highest tax rate on the rich was 70 percent and the top capital-gains tax rate was 35 percent, the richest 1 percent of Americans assumed 18 percent of the income-tax burden. Today, with a top income-tax rate of 35 percent and a capital-gains rate of 15 percent, their share is 39 percent, more than twice as much. This is true because, faced with high tax rates, the rich of 40 years ago put more of their income into tax shelters or foreign countries.
Because of the boom of the 1990s, which came after tax increases. A 4% increase in the top marginal tax rate is not going to tank the economy or fix the budget problem. It will help the budget problem though. Ultimately, we are also going to need massive defense cuts and en lement reform to get the budget under control, or their future growth will bury us. Asking the rich to pay what they paid in the go-go 90s is not asking to much though.
Federal spending is being subsidized by debt; the tax cuts resulted in greater federal revenue and, therefore, paid for themselves.
They did that comparison. The Bush tax cuts resulted in more revenue than did the Clinton tax hikes.
And they've passed several budgets over which the Senate (i.e. Harry Reid) refuses to deliberate.
We've run deficits because Obama just keeps writing checks without a budget plan.
The Republican Vice Presidential candidate worked with Democrat Ron Wyden on a plan to save the economy. Ryan has been hailed as just such a person, someone willing to reach across the aisle and work toward compromise -- BY THE LEFT -- until he was named the VP candidate, that is.
As some of you have pointed out;
IT'S NOT THE TAX POLICY
IT'S THE SPENDING!
This country has got to cut spending. Period. There isn't a tax scheme out there that will close the deficit or reduce the debt if we don't fix programs that -- looking out into the future -- are unfunded to the tune of 10's of trillions of dollars.
President Obama proposes to "reinvest" $716 billion dollars from Medicare (principally from Medicare Advantage) to fund his monstrous Health Care plan. And, to plug that hole in Medicare, he's proposing a 15-member death panel to ration health care services to current Medicare recipients. He has absolutely no plan for reigning in the exploding liabilities that will mount under Medicare going in to the future.
Presidential Candidate Romney proposes to leave current Medicare alone for those 55 and older, repeal Obamacare (eliminating the need to rob $716 billion) and find a private/public solution for returning Medicare to solvency. I hear it's not much different than what President Clinton was proposing in the 90's.
Romney/Ryan 2012!
The top tax rate in 1963 was 90%.
WRT the Bush tax cuts, how many jobs were created under the bush administration? Hint - in his 8 years in office fewer jobs were created than in the last 29 month under O.
But they did not. As a matter of fact, revenue fell and pretty sharply.
Receipts grow over time as a function of GDP growth, since it expands the tax base. That's why comparing year X dollar revenue with year Y dollar revenue, even if adjusted for inflation, means nothing if you don't know how much the tax base grew between year X and year Y.
For example, during the Clinton years, the year-to-year receipt growth was about $139 billion dollars (FY 2005 adjusted):
billion dollars (FY 2005 adjusted):
1997: $1,889.3
1998: $2,040.2
1999: $2,135.4
2000: $2,309.2
after the 1st round of tax cuts, revenue couldn't even catch up with the growth:
2001: $2,214.3
2002: $2,027.9
after the 2nd round, it killed receipts even further but growth started to catch up:
2003: $1,900.5
2004: $1,949.3
2005: $2,153.6
2006: $2,324.6
And so we arrive at basically the 'same' amount of money on receipts as in FY 2000.
For the tax cuts to pay "themselves" they would've needed to stimulate the economy in such a way where in 2006 you would've had the same receipt income that you had prior to the cuts, adjusted for the annual growth.
In other words, at $139 billion annual growth pre-cut, the revenue on 2006 should've been $2,309.2 + (6*$139) = $3,143.2 (FY 2005 dollars).
Which means by 2006, the tax cuts actually cost $818.6 billions (FY 2005 dollars).
It gets worse. Because after 2008 GDP fell rather sharply, receipts obviously tanked too.
It's a phony table because of what I explained above, plus it has a few other errors. Here's the source that was used:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...s/hist01z3.xls
And that I used to run the numbers above.
The revenue could have been higher during the Bush years if the Clinton era tax levels were in place. I notice that you conveniently use numbers that began in 2003 and end in 2007. Those years happen to coincide with the artificial housing bubble, which predictably collapsed on itself in 2008. Revenues collapsed in 2008, which created the trillion dollar deficits we have now. When Obama stepped into office he was already in a trillion dollar hole.They did that comparison. The Bush tax cuts resulted in more revenue than did the Clinton tax hikes.
There is simply no evidence that the tax cuts themselves led to greater revenue, and that more revenue could not have been obtained with a higher tax rate. You are trying to argue that a 4% difference in taxes on the very wealthy, who have taken on a disproportionate amount of the wealth in this country over the past 30+ years, will make a big difference economically. Unfortunately for you, both economists and a majority of Americans disagree.
Wyden himself said he worked on policy papers, not legislation. Apparently when it was actual time to put legislation together, the echo chamber went in full effect.
In 1963 my dad bought a 500 acre ranch and paid for it virtually 100% with tax deductions/credits.
WRT the Bush tax cuts, how many jobs were created under the bush administration? Hint - in his 8 years in office fewer jobs were created than in the last 29 month under O.
Sure as can't do that now.
Only intellectually dishonest people insist on comparing apples and oranges.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
