FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
Captain Fingerpoint strikes again, eh?
Captain Fingerpoint strikes again, eh?
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.
Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
Who gets blamed for all this is a pretty powerful motivator. Obama isn't facing an election again, and it'll take a really, really good partisan wave to knock the Dems out of the Senate. That leaves the House holding the bag. Given the record unpopularity of the Republican party, one has to wonder what they're thinking.
Who gets blamed for all this is a pretty powerful motivator. Obama isn't facing an election again, and it'll take a really, really good partisan wave to knock the Dems out of the Senate. That leaves the House holding the bag. Given the record unpopularity of the Republican party, one has to wonder what they're thinking.
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
Soon the peasants will revolt.
But the Congre$$ has not budgeted for a while and does a darn pee poor job of appropriating since Duke Harry assumed the Duchy of the Senate.
Soon the peasants will revolt.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
To be filed under Sherlock... Pelosi doesn't want the Böhner plan...
To be filed under Sherlock... Pelosi doesn't want the Böhner plan...
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
This is playing out as expected. The O wants 1.6T in tax hikes and I believe 1T in defense/war related savings. That's pretty easy to achieve. You will get 100B a year from not fighting wars all over the place and can get even more by canning that overpriced fighter jet that's hundreds of billions over budget. Regarding the 1.6T in taxes, upper income tax hikes (which the GOP is powerless to stop come Jan 1st) plus ending payroll tax cut and other loopholes can get you 800Bn, then get the other 800Bn from broadening the tax base as the GOP has brought to the table.
That's about 2.5T already, and we haven't even touched entitlements. Cost of living adjustments to program growth, tort reform, enhanced fraud crackdown, etc should at least get another 50Bn a year, plus find another 50Bn in domestic program cuts. That adds up to another 1T over 10 years, and we've yet to means test Medicare. Do that (as well they should) and you maybe find another 1T. That's how big this deal needs to be, and in it I'm saying of the 5T, 1.5T taxes, 1T military, 2.5T domestic programs and entitlements. Fair, balanced, and progressive.
This is playing out as expected. The O wants 1.6T in tax hikes and I believe 1T in defense/war related savings. That's pretty easy to achieve. You will get 100B a year from not fighting wars all over the place and can get even more by canning that overpriced fighter jet that's hundreds of billions over budget. Regarding the 1.6T in taxes, upper income tax hikes (which the GOP is powerless to stop come Jan 1st) plus ending payroll tax cut and other loopholes can get you 800Bn, then get the other 800Bn from broadening the tax base as the GOP has brought to the table.
That's about 2.5T already, and we haven't even touched entitlements. Cost of living adjustments to program growth, tort reform, enhanced fraud crackdown, etc should at least get another 50Bn a year, plus find another 50Bn in domestic program cuts. That adds up to another 1T over 10 years, and we've yet to means test Medicare. Do that (as well they should) and you maybe find another 1T. That's how big this deal needs to be, and in it I'm saying of the 5T, 1.5T taxes, 1T military, 2.5T domestic programs and entitlements. Fair, balanced, and progressive.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
So I took a look at the gas taxes as of October 2012. Guess who's the highest... http://www.syracusegasprices.com/USA_Tax_Map.aspx
I ****ing hate this state.
So I took a look at the gas taxes as of October 2012. Guess who's the highest... http://www.syracusegasprices.com/USA_Tax_Map.aspx
I ****ing hate this state.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
So you get 5T... still have 5T to go to balance the budget. Time to start cutting more.
So you get 5T... still have 5T to go to balance the budget. Time to start cutting more.
I'm with ya. I think they need to go bolder personally.
If you think of the deficit as 1T annually, you can maybe look at getting 300Bn of that back a year when the economy picks up. Great, but that leaving a couple trillion to go.
Although I suppose you need to start somewhere.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
Why not start by getting the books balanced? If you can do that, the country might have more faith in you fiscally. Personally I don't like the idea of balancing projected spending to projected revenue; I'd rather see it based upon actual revenue from the previous year. That way, you only spend what's in the bank account and no more. I would assume that's what any sensible American would do with their finances, yes? Granted, they'd also keep a slush fund of a couple months' pay, but you can't necessarily afford for that to be TOO high when you are paying off creditors.
Next, there's a federal bureau that many don't know about that could help out. Have you ever heard of the Bureau of the Public Debt? Their office is in Parkersburg WV, and if you read the 1040 instructions closely, you may have already heard of it. What I would recommend is that you start advertising this. After all, the administration is very good at guilt-tripping people; heck, how else did they get elected? Start with those millionaires and billionaires that claim they aren't paying their fair share. Advertise to them the option. Then, maybe a public service announcement; you might get some regular citizens that are willing to help pay it off. I bet you could make a good dent on the interest payments there.
Why not start by getting the books balanced? If you can do that, the country might have more faith in you fiscally. Personally I don't like the idea of balancing projected spending to projected revenue; I'd rather see it based upon actual revenue from the previous year. That way, you only spend what's in the bank account and no more. I would assume that's what any sensible American would do with their finances, yes? Granted, they'd also keep a slush fund of a couple months' pay, but you can't necessarily afford for that to be TOO high when you are paying off creditors.
Next, there's a federal bureau that many don't know about that could help out. Have you ever heard of the Bureau of the Public Debt? Their office is in Parkersburg WV, and if you read the 1040 instructions closely, you may have already heard of it. What I would recommend is that you start advertising this. After all, the administration is very good at guilt-tripping people; heck, how else did they get elected? Start with those millionaires and billionaires that claim they aren't paying their fair share. Advertise to them the option. Then, maybe a public service announcement; you might get some regular citizens that are willing to help pay it off. I bet you could make a good dent on the interest payments there.
My plan is go back to Clinton era tax rates, gradually as to minimize the shock value, which I believe gets us back about 60% of what we need. Military cutbacks and other non-entitlement gets another 20% and then entitlement reform gets the rest.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
There's an issue with assuming things will be the way they were when it comes to the Clinton era tax levels. The biggest issue is that during the Clinton era, there was also this little thing called the dot com boom. It was one of the most new and innovative things that completely changed our way of life (heck, if it weren't for the boom, you and I probably would not be having this conversation right now), and everyone wanted a piece of it. Sure, the highest tax level was 39.6%, but you could have put it at 99.6% and people would have still invested just as heavily. Once that bubble burst in 2001, goodbye surplus. Obviously 9/11 also had a bit to do with it as well, but it wasn't entirely because of tax breaks.
As I've mentioned before, I'm certainly OK with looking at tax levels, especially if we have eliminated our frivolous spending and don't have anywhere else to turn in order to cut a deficit. One thing that must be done first, though, *in a cheesy impersonation of Pat Robertson* you have to cut up the credit cards! *enough with the impersonation* We have unfortunately not only elected many Presidents that could not control their spending ways, but we have also elected Congresspersons that encourage this sort of frivolous spending (probably with the exception of when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, at least in recent memory). It's too late to do anything at this point, but if we want to make any real progress in this state, it's time to cut the fat.
There's an issue with assuming things will be the way they were when it comes to the Clinton era tax levels. The biggest issue is that during the Clinton era, there was also this little thing called the dot com boom. It was one of the most new and innovative things that completely changed our way of life (heck, if it weren't for the boom, you and I probably would not be having this conversation right now), and everyone wanted a piece of it. Sure, the highest tax level was 39.6%, but you could have put it at 99.6% and people would have still invested just as heavily. Once that bubble burst in 2001, goodbye surplus. Obviously 9/11 also had a bit to do with it as well, but it wasn't entirely because of tax breaks.
As I've mentioned before, I'm certainly OK with looking at tax levels, especially if we have eliminated our frivolous spending and don't have anywhere else to turn in order to cut a deficit. One thing that must be done first, though, *in a cheesy impersonation of Pat Robertson* you have to cut up the credit cards! *enough with the impersonation* We have unfortunately not only elected many Presidents that could not control their spending ways, but we have also elected Congresspersons that encourage this sort of frivolous spending (probably with the exception of when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, at least in recent memory). It's too late to do anything at this point, but if we want to make any real progress in this state, it's time to cut the fat.
unofan
Well-known member
Why should we instantly shock the economy like that if we don't need to? If your position is that we need to balance the books ASAP, you should be in favor of going over the fiscal cliff. Of course, since interest rates say we have time to play with, we could make the changes gradually rather than sending the economy into an immediate deep freeze.
Oh look, we're back to the ridiculous talking point that donations should be made in lieu of taxation, as though that's a proper way to run a government. Tell you what. You forego your social security and medicare benefits since you hate those programs so much, then you can tell Buffet to voluntarily pay higher taxes. Or maybe you should donate more, since you're the one so concerned with the debt being immediately cut.
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
Surprise, surprise,
According to an analysis of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' American Time Use Survey,
Note that teachers were not included from this statistical analysis. Also, the analysis was weighted to account for similar job responsibilities and related factors.
Surprise, surprise,
According to an analysis of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' American Time Use Survey,
Note that teachers were not included from this statistical analysis. Also, the analysis was weighted to account for similar job responsibilities and related factors.
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
A couple of doses of reality from Thomas Sowell on the Fiscal Cliff:
http://townhall.com/columnists/thom...s_there_are_a_few_facts_that_are_worth_noting
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/12/05/creators_oped
A couple of doses of reality from Thomas Sowell on the Fiscal Cliff:
http://townhall.com/columnists/thom...s_there_are_a_few_facts_that_are_worth_noting
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/12/05/creators_oped
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
thanks very much for posting these, Bill. (You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Bill again)
I found the following, from pt 2, quite revealing:
so how soon until we hear complaints about Thomas Sowell being a racist for criticizing our first black President? ooops, never mind..... (PS to those who don't already know: click on one of Bill's links and look at Sowell's picture.
)
thanks very much for posting these, Bill. (You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Bill again)
I found the following, from pt 2, quite revealing:
so how soon until we hear complaints about Thomas Sowell being a racist for criticizing our first black President? ooops, never mind..... (PS to those who don't already know: click on one of Bill's links and look at Sowell's picture.
)FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
I believe the term in this case is "Uncle Tom".
so how soon until we hear complaints about Thomas Sowell being a racist for criticizing our first black President? ooops, never mind..... (PS to those who don't already know: click on one of Bill's links and look at Sowell's picture.
I believe the term in this case is "Uncle Tom".
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
When the Neanderthals were faced with extinction, one wonders if their response to their fate was to keep doing the same thing over and over again in the hopes that it might one day work out for them.
Why do I bring this up? Because it reminds me of conservative tax arguments. See, as the economy tends to grow year over year, so too do tax collections. In fact, simple inflation should grow tax revenues year over year. So, chalking up a tax cut to revenue growth is the mark of a simpleton, a partisan, or a combination of the two. Its also dinosaur logic firmly rejected by the American voter, or we'd be welcoming President Romney to DC next year.
When the Neanderthals were faced with extinction, one wonders if their response to their fate was to keep doing the same thing over and over again in the hopes that it might one day work out for them.
Why do I bring this up? Because it reminds me of conservative tax arguments. See, as the economy tends to grow year over year, so too do tax collections. In fact, simple inflation should grow tax revenues year over year. So, chalking up a tax cut to revenue growth is the mark of a simpleton, a partisan, or a combination of the two. Its also dinosaur logic firmly rejected by the American voter, or we'd be welcoming President Romney to DC next year.
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
People will pay taxes if they think the system is not rigged. IMO, the system is rigged. So, he're part of the text of the letter I'm writing to my elected Representatives (all deep, deep Blue).
1) Eliminate all tax filing except for single.
2) There is a standard deduction of $40,000 - $50,000 (depending on the cost of living in your state) that is adjusted every 5 years for inflation. No other deductions
3) Count all income from all sources, including currently tax free or off shored, or otherwise currently hidden from taxation.
4) Allow a 10 year phase in to count the previously taxed income. In year 1, 90% is excluded from taxation. The exclusion is lowered by 10% every year until it gets to 0% (80, 70, etc.)
5) Tax brackets -- taxable income up to $100,000 -- 15% 100,001 - 200,000 - 20% 200,001 - 300,000 - 22.5%, 300,001 and over 25%
Corporates -- use Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Allow a 5 year phase in to eliminate the differences in your books between tax code accounting and GAAP.
Taxable Income -- 15% of all taxable income over $500,000
I think it would get more income than what we get now.
Except if you make tax rates too high, or the tax code full of "goodies", then revenue can actually go down because more people will take advantage of the goodies, or move to the underground economy to avoid the tax man.
People will pay taxes if they think the system is not rigged. IMO, the system is rigged. So, he're part of the text of the letter I'm writing to my elected Representatives (all deep, deep Blue).
1) Eliminate all tax filing except for single.
2) There is a standard deduction of $40,000 - $50,000 (depending on the cost of living in your state) that is adjusted every 5 years for inflation. No other deductions
3) Count all income from all sources, including currently tax free or off shored, or otherwise currently hidden from taxation.
4) Allow a 10 year phase in to count the previously taxed income. In year 1, 90% is excluded from taxation. The exclusion is lowered by 10% every year until it gets to 0% (80, 70, etc.)
5) Tax brackets -- taxable income up to $100,000 -- 15% 100,001 - 200,000 - 20% 200,001 - 300,000 - 22.5%, 300,001 and over 25%
Corporates -- use Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Allow a 5 year phase in to eliminate the differences in your books between tax code accounting and GAAP.
Taxable Income -- 15% of all taxable income over $500,000
I think it would get more income than what we get now.
Last edited:
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
That sure as heck wouldn't fly with my representatives, soon to all be blue (da-ba-dee-da-ba-da). They'd probably change 2 to $250,000, and 5 to 100%.
That sure as heck wouldn't fly with my representatives, soon to all be blue (da-ba-dee-da-ba-da). They'd probably change 2 to $250,000, and 5 to 100%.
- Status