What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

the government ought to look, like a business would, at how best to maximize revenues. In theory, that's what would happen when you get tax rates to the very top of the curve.

I disagree. The gov't shouldn't be in the business of trying to maximize revenue. It should be in the business of maximizing freedom. It should be trying to do what it is required to with the least amount of impact (lowest possible taxes) to everyone.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I disagree. The gov't shouldn't be in the business of trying to maximize revenue. It should be in the business of maximizing freedom. It should be trying to do what it is required to with the least amount of impact (lowest possible taxes) to everyone.

I actually agree with this on an intellectual level, but from a "this is where we are right now" standpoint, the government needs money, stat.

Far too often we confuse revenue and spending. One of the things the woman I chatted with last week tried to come back to me with when I explained how the Bush tax cuts led to an increase in revenues was "yeah, but we went far into deficit!" That's because Bush and the GOP spent like drunken sailors. I'm not sure what Obama and the Dems are spending like, who spends way, way more than drunken sailors?

Revenues up, spending down, that's how you kill debt dead.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

'

Under Clinton revenues went up and taxes were higher than they were the previous administration (Bush I) and the latter administration (Bush II).

So, what side of the curve are we on?

We're on the side of the curve where Gov't spends way more than it should
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Revenues up, spending down, that's how you kill debt dead.

agreed at this point you need both. but its simply not feasible with the nature of he said/she said politics, finger pointing, name calling.. and everyone stalling and lobbying to stay in power or get themselves back into power.

even after the dems are purged from office, what is to stop them from being a *****y minority party that filibusters everything? it will be more partisan BS, empty election promises of reaching across the aisle, back room deals to different special interest groups. 4 years later, lather rinse repeat.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

We're on the side of the curve where Gov't spends way more than it should

All I've gotten out of the Pawlenty administrations tax freeze is a State that used to have the best winter road plowing system in the country to one of the worst. Across the board budget cuts for the win.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

All I've gotten out of the Pawlenty administrations tax freeze is a State that used to have the best winter road plowing system in the country to one of the worst. Across the board budget cuts for the win.

Maines is still good but the roads are the suck, of course we borrow all our money
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

That's government, Scooby-style!

Nope. I want stuff cut. Start with Social Security and Medicare.

And my cut isn't Pawlenty style either. Pawlenty style is "it's been growing at 10% a year we're going to cut you down to 5% a year". No, not that.

I want it gone. No more.

I'm sick and tired of people who speak out of both sides of their mouth. No new taxes, don't touch my Medicare. Shut up and vote for somebody who will really stop spending your money then since it's yours.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I think many of us have seen the gag 1040: It's much smaller than a real 1040 because it only has one entry--how much did you make last year? Then the instruction to "send it in."

While I'm neither an anti-government nor anti-tax moon bat, the form does capture a way of thinking prevelant on the left: the money you make doesn't belong to you, it belongs to us, to take as we see fit to use as we see fit. Send us the money, shut up and go away.

Often the left wants to use the tax codes as social policy. Take the much ballyhooed "luxury" tax of a few years ago--boats, cars and jewelry above a certain amount were to be taxed even more. Almost overnight thousands of skilled boat builders in the US were put out of work because the wealthy targets of the tax began buying their boats overseas. I guess you have to break some eggs, right?
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Nope. I want stuff cut. Start with Social Security and Medicare.

And my cut isn't Pawlenty style either. Pawlenty style is "it's been growing at 10% a year we're going to cut you down to 5% a year". No, not that.

I want it gone. No more.

I'm sick and tired of people who speak out of both sides of their mouth. No new taxes, don't touch my Medicare. Shut up and vote for somebody who will really stop spending your money then since it's yours.

I can't believe it, but I agree with you wholeheartedly. But, I would say that 5% growth is an improvement over 10% growth, though not far enough as you say.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Under Clinton revenues went up and taxes were higher than they were the previous administration (Bush I) and the latter administration (Bush II).

So, what side of the curve are we on?
In the '90s economy, we were clearly on the left side of the curve (raising rates = raising revenue); low unemployment and strong GDP growth made it easy to capture more $$$ by increasing taxes.

In the current economy, it's tougher to say where we are - due to the lack of consumer/business/investor confidence, raising rates might suppress economic activity enough to offset the gain in revenue that would normally happen.

As for the nonsense flying around about who benefits from people retaining more of their money, I will say this: most people don't invest their money in just one country (Japan, China, or whoever). A well-diversified portfolio will have somewhere on the order of 60-70% invested in the US markets (if not more).
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Krugman makes some strong arguments in defense of stimulus. This is whether it comes from middle income/working class tax cuts or govt. The point is that corporations and the wealthy don't need to spend...and largely aren't spending the adequate reserves they have. This only because we are in unique times.

I have yet to see an argument strong enough to refute this stance...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38922732
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage


Here's the meat (from the 2nd one) for those too lazy to click:

"But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years."

Don't worry, I know the answer: Clinton was somehow responsible for the 90's surpluses, but Bush was somehow not responsible for the increased tax revenue. All that's left for you is to explain why. Any takers?
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Don't worry, I know the answer: Clinton was somehow responsible for the 90's surpluses, but Bush was somehow not responsible for the increased tax revenue. All that's left for you is to explain why. Any takers?

Because economic growth slowed in the early years of Bush's presidency? Call it a holdover from Clinton - I won't debate the point.

This is the problem with analyzing time series data. If you just do a simple comparison, and choose a low point as your reference, then you can attribute increases in the outcome variable to virtually anything you like.

Personally, I think there's more meat in the third link, which at least has links to serious treatment of the subject. :)

Tax policy can change the size of the future economy in either of two ways: by affecting the underlying growth rate or by creating a one-time permanent shift in the level of economic activity (without affecting the underlying growth rate). In this article, both effects will be considered to imply an effect of taxes on long-term economic growth. The tax cuts' effects on long-term economic performance, however, is distinct from their ability to stimulate the economy in the short run. In the short run, in an economy operating with excess capacity, increases in aggregate demand can raise output and income even without increasing the capital stock. In the long run, however, economic growth reflects increases in the capacity to generate income through technological change, and the increased supply and better allocation of labor and capital. A subsequent article in this series will address the short-term, stimulative effect of the tax cuts.

The net effect of the tax cuts on growth is theoretically uncertain. The tax cuts certainly offer the potential to raise economic growth by improving incentives to work, save, and invest. But the tax cuts also create income effects that reduce the need to engage in productive economic activity, and they subsidize old capital, which provides windfall gains to asset holders that undermine incentives for new activity. Also, making the tax cuts permanent would raise the deficit over the medium term, in the absence of any offsetting revenue increases or spending cuts. The increase in the deficit will reduce national saving—and with it, the capital stock owned by Americans and future national income.

Several studies have quantified the effects noted above in different ways and used different models, yet all have come to the same conclusion: Making the tax cuts permanent is likely to reduce, not increase, national income in the long term unless the reduction in revenues is matched by an equal reduction in government consumption. And even in that case, a positive impact on longterm growth occurs only if the spending cuts occur contemporaneously, which has decidedly not occurred, or if models with implausible features (like short-term Ricardian equivalence) are employed.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage


Give me a break. You might want to read that first link you posted with quotes from McConnell:

McConnell's position is largely not supported by budget experts...

Here's the meat (from the 2nd one) for those too lazy to click:

"But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years."

Don't worry, I know the answer: Clinton was somehow responsible for the 90's surpluses, but Bush was somehow not responsible for the increased tax revenue. All that's left for you is to explain why. Any takers?

Ok, but what's the Delta? If that $785 billion is less than the amount the taxes would have taken in, then it's still a net loser. Tax receipts is not the same as net revenue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top