Reply With Quote
Wrong, wrong, wrong...
This will never get fixed until we have more tax payers.
Actually, I believe I've heard, the vast majority of jobs are provided by small businesses, many of whom handle their business's taxes with their personal tax return.
I don't know about socialist but, it just introduces another government control on business. Why not just simplify the tax code, eliminate corporate taxes, and collect taxes through consumption?
That'd be the most fair way to raise revenue.
Here's what I think.
Redistributionists like Obama will only be satisfied when everyone's discretionary income is the same. That's what he sees as fair.
And, there may be a 12-step program available for posters who even nod favorably in my direction.
Wrong, wrong, wrong...
This will never get fixed until we have more tax payers.
A plan too simple for those we elect. I don't believe there is a single person in the house or the senate who has been able to specifically point to what would be cut to get there.
And I wouldn't really call it a surplus, it would pretty much even. In my opinion we need to generate a $500B/year surplus.
Not really. scott already schooled you over this. We all had a laugh about it.
What you want to do is shift the burden, not increase revenues.
I think if you add the current economic climate, you would still have a deficit. This isn't 2004.
And when we lose more tax payers, what's next?
Raise the rates again?
Tax the rich out of existence?
Where does this end?
True, you generally remain more rational than the vast majority of us in here.You just described all of my posts, Yoni.
You mentioned the Laffer Curve in your post. Isn't there a school of thought that, during a time of economic contraction, lowering taxes, lifting regulatory restrictions, and encouraging private business growth result in an increase in revenue?
Isn't this the reason Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush sought tax cuts?
Didn't President Obama, himself, allow that raising taxes during a recession was a bad idea?
What's different now?
I could be wrong about the specific year but, it was during the past decade, if we cut our spending to 2004 (I think) levels, the budget would result in a surplus, just as you suggested.
That's completely regressive. Explain your reasoning on how you believe that's the most fair way to raise revenue considering the poor consume all they have where the wealthy consume a fraction of their wealth.
Would depend on how many are set up as sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-Corps or LLCs. My guess is the vast majority of them, and those who aren't need a new attorney.
However, what is casually ignored by some, the vast majority of these job creators aren't the one's who fall into upper tax brackets.
Didn't seem to be a problem in 1999 when we had a balanced budget.
That's what's next.
2004 Spending is roughly what 2010 receipts were. I think that's Yoni's point.
Well, our GDP hasn't been static for over 200 years either -- it's grown; and not because of government taxing and spending, either. Allow private interests to do what they do best, and I'm willing to bet (on them before government) the $500B/year surplus could be raised.
Politics. Obama would have had to raise taxes on the middle because of the republicans hardline tactics insisting all of the bush tax cuts would expire if the upper income levels did.
I wasn't speaking to you specifically. I think what you're saying is more or less reasonable - but I'd question which "loopholes" you have in mind. I don't think cap gains should be taxed at 15%. But would you consider the state property tax and mortgage interest deductions loopholes?
What I was speaking to was the fact that people say "fair share" without really explaining what that means. That's thinly veiled class warfare. And even those who do have an explanation tend to say the rich should pay more (i.e. a higher effective rate). My question then is: what is enough?
2010 receipts were $2.1T. The matching budget would be 2002 ($2T budget). The thing is, what was budgeted didn't necessarily end up equating the outlays. IE: The wars weren't originally budgeted.
The Laffer Curve is a good theory. The problem is that it's a theoretical curve without data points and there are no empirical guidelines to help us. The same school of thought says that raising taxes would lead to an increase in revenues. Unfortunately there is no definitive answer of where on the curve we are.
What's different about Kennedy and Reagan versus Bush and Obama is the starting points at which they chose to lower rates from. At the extremes of the Laffer Curve you have a point where lowering taxes will lower revenue and raising taxes will lower revenue. There are also points where vice versa is true. It's a dynamic curve, and the policy action of choice changes depending on the cir stance (where you are on the curve).
Given the observed empirical inelasticity of effective tax rates on the top end, I'd argue we're on the left hand side of the peak, which indicates higher tax rates would result in increase revenue. However, my opinion is there is an exogenous upper limit to how far to the right on the curve we could go, because we have international compe iveness to deal with as well.
Because we have the problem of people hoarding cash - not using it to consume.
And two other points:
(1) how is this another government control on business? the business would be free to come up with the type of job. The government wouldn't force them to be high or low paying, manufacturing or secretarial, low level or managerial. , I'd even be ok with not even creating jobs - but incentivizing businesses to invest in infrastructure or use the cash to extend low interest loans.
(2) Even if it is a government control on business - why is this specific idea bad?
Yes...
What is enough.
Post #88:
I simply belive in fairness. Your solution is class warfare.
At what percentage do you finally decide the rich pay enough?
Admit it It is based on jealousy that you believe rich people should pay a higher tax rate.
No, I'm talking about the massive (billions, trillions) blatant tax evasion (I don't know what else to call it) condoned in DC (both parties).
I also agree that cap gains should be taxed higher, or be made progressive, much like every other income tax. I have no problem creating an incentive for the small investor to invest. But on the other hand, I want to also discourage moving a load of capital there that could be better used propping up the economy.
We agree to some point.
We know that sustained revenue is zero at both ends, 0% and 100%.
Problem is knowewing where the peak is, and what side of it we are on.
However, we are at least near the peak, and that means the slope of change is near zero.
Yep...
You are talking class warfare.
1999 levels?
People consume. People are going to consume.
If you want to incentivize business to invest. Quit ing with them on everything from healthcare to environmental overcontrol to taxes. They'll invest.
I think the CEO of Home Depot has written an OpEd that pretty much addresses this point...
Home Depot Co-Founder: Obama Is Choking Recovery
Because it is yet another government control on business which will, at best, result in more bureaucracy to monitor it and, at worst, employ heavy-handed means to control business decisions.IBD: What's the single biggest impediment to job growth today?
Marcus: The U.S. government. Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we'd tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It's become stifling.
If you're a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70% of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.
What evidence leads you to this conclusion? Because there exists evidence to the contrary.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
