| Author | Message | ||
     Ft_bstrd |
What would be interesting would be to see an overlay of economic growth from 1960 to 2004 as it relates to tax rates on the top percentages. PS. It's not a coincidence. | ||
| Aesquire |
It's a fact that Kennedy cut taxes, helped the economy, and, took in more money than before. Same deal happened with Regan. Bush the younger too. All of them inherited a bad economy, helped out with lower taxes, then collected MORE money for the govt. to spend. None of them had the luck or timing to have the economy recover their first year, as I recall. You will note that Regan actually had a higher average tax burden even though he had the most radical cut for the uber rich. The chart shows it, the moderately rich paid a lot more. What the media never tells you, is that government has very little power to help the economy. It can screw it up, fairly easily, all sorts of ways. Even foolish stuff, like, for example, the class envy anti-Vegas propaganda campaign of Obama's has cost thousands of jobs and really hurt the entire state. It get's down to how much of YOUR money the govt. does not take. Taxes. Less taxes, better life. There is a time lag. ( some think 7 years.... that means Clinton got the benefit of Regan's tax cut and GWB got the screw job of Clinton's hike. ) Since GWB didn't have a big cut his last 4 years, Obama has nothing to look forward to as Clinton did. What we need is a tax policy that takes advantage of the laffer curve. It may not work but it's a better idea than taxation determined by bribes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve The only way I see to do that is to lower taxes each 1 or 2 year period, until revenues drop, then hold it at the lowest tax level with the highest revenue. Try selling that to group who think taxes are a way to induce behavior change. | ||
| M2me |
If the tax rate stays the same but your income doubles, then the tax rate is unchanged, but your tax burden has doubled. Are you suggesting that in order for Joe and Jim to have the same tax burden they must pay the same amount of money in taxes? Should Jim only have to pay $12,500? That would be sweet a deal for Jim. He would end up with a lot more after tax income (a lower tax burden). Or should Joe have to pay $50,000 because that's what Jim pays? A 100% tax rate sounds like a higher burden than 25% to me. Jim pays four times as much money in taxes as Jim but they have the exact same tax burden, 25% of their income. What if we bring in Bill. Bill pays $75,000 in taxes each year. Is his tax burden higher than Joe and Jim? The correct answer is there is no way to tell from the information I've given you. To answer accurately you would have to know how much Bill makes in a year. | ||
| Sifo |
One more thing that any honest person will take into account when looking at the economy over the years is that 9-11-01 was not just an attack on American soil, but also a very effective attack on our economy. Considering we were just beginning to recover from the Clinton recession when we were suddenly plunged into a war economy things ran rather smoothly. 9-11 shut down the entire airline industry for a period of time along with 100% of the business associated with airline travel. It took over 2 years for the airlines to get back to pre-9-11 travel numbers. This I know for a fact because my wife was THE person in the US that compiled the data every time a journalist or government agent wanted flight data. Interesting times when the CIA wants detailed historical flight data between Kennedy airport and a specific airport in northern Africa and they refuse to offer any explanation what so ever what they needed the data for, just that they need the data TODAY! There was definitely stuff going on that never made the news. | ||
| Aesquire |
Sifo your chart posted, March 05, 2010 - 07:26 pm: is not easy to read as a bar graph. It's misleading that way and doesn't show how much more percent the higher earners pay. Should be graphed 2d, imho. Picky of me, the graph isn't "wrong" it's just requires visualization to properly see the relationships. I used to do SPC for a living, making the charts tell the tale properly is important. As my Father often says, "figures don't lie but liers figure like crazy." Your chart of March 05, 2010 - 09:21 pm: has to be read with M2me's chart of March 06, 2010 - 02:43 pm: to get a more complete story. M2me's chart is a rate chart, and shows an across the board tax cut between 2000 and 2004. Not a cut for the rich. ( that would be under Regan ) Your bar graph of March 05, 2010 - 09:21 pm: is not a rate chart, but an amount chart, and that may be what M2me's problem is, the 2 are apples and oranges. You get no percentage readout in your chart except rate of change per year. You pay X percent in taxes, your "tax burden" changes with the income. M2me's math is not screwed up! He's reading it wrong. The "tax burden" in the bar graph is an average of all households. Ok? | ||
| M2me |
Sifo your chart posted, March 05, 2010 - 07:26 pm: is not easy to read as a bar graph. It's misleading that way and doesn't show how much more percent the higher earners pay. What it does show is that a flat tax could never work. The top 25% earn nearly 70% of all income. A flat tax would have to set the tax rate so high that the bottom 75% would be driven into poverty. Or, to avoid that outcome, we would have set the rate so low that we would never be able to raise enough revenue to run the country. A flat tax won't work because income distribution is not flat. If we want to raise revenue to run this country we have no choice but to go where the money is: at the top percentages. Conservatives call this "soaking the rich" or "punishing the rich" or "punishing success". Liberals call it reality. What else are we going to do? Get the money from the bottom 75%? We could tax them at a 100% rate and all we'll get is peanuts. The bottom 75% simply doesn't have enough freaking money to run this country! Sorry, but that's just reality. | ||
| M2me |
Your bar graph of March 05, 2010 - 09:21 pm: is not a rate chart, but an amount chart, and that may be what M2me's problem is, the 2 are apples and oranges. That's part of my problem but another part is that we want the amount to go up. That means people are making more money, the economy is expanding. If the amount goes down, that means the economy is contracting. That's bad. I don't want the dollar amount I pay in taxes to do down. If it goes down that means I'm making less money. I want to make more money, not less. If I make $50,000 one year and pay $12,500 in taxes and then in another year make $200,000 and pay $40,000 in taxes, that's a good thing for me, even though my tax burden would be higher! Conservatives say I have no incentive to work hard to raise my after tax income from $38,500 to $160,000. Conservatives say I would need a tax cut to be motivated. Why? Isn't my motivation success? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Considering the 2nd Plank of Communism is "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax", the perpetuation of the current system is not workable nor desirable. A flat tax does work when the Federal Government is fulfilling it's responsibilities under Article 1, Section 8. The problem is that the Federal Government is so far beyond it's prescribed role, that a heavy, confiscatory progressive tax rate is the only way to pay for it. Income isn't a zero sum game. The "rich" don't have it because they "stole it from the poor". The problem is in creating a zero liability voter. The bottom 50% of the population pay less than 3% of the total taxes and yet consume the greatest percentage per capita of the governmental entitlement benefits. Who receives the largest percentage of social security benefits as a percentage of pre-retirement income and taxes collected the bottom 50% or the top 50%? Who receives the largest percentage of Medicare benefits as a percentage of income and taxes collected, the bottom 50% or the top 50%? Who is slated to receive the largest percentage of universal healthcare benefits as a percentage of income and taxes collected, the bottom 50% or the top 50%? The bottom 50% receive the benefits and the top 50% get to pay for it. This results in an electorate most likely to promise free benefits to the bottom 50% paid for by the top 50%. We got to see this in 2008. "if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime." "So I get all this free stuff and those rich people get to pay for it? SIGN ME UP!" It's not sustainable. We don't have equality under the law. Those who have "need" are placed in a higher position under the law than those who are forced to "provide". The needs of the recipient class outweigh the needs of the provider class. There is no way one could make the argument of equal protection under the law under this system. Now, if you'd like to make the argument that below a certain point the recipient class relinquishes their rights to participate as part of th electorate below a certain threshold tax payment as a percentage of income, I'm all ears. At least that way, the recipient class isn't voting themselves benefits out of the public coffers. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Conservatives say I would need a tax cut to be motivated. Why? Isn't my motivation success? Because Conservatives understand how wealth is created and how economics works. Strangely enough, it's the same understanding the framers of the Constitution had. There is no "success" without the ability to control the use and result of one's own capital. How would YOU measure success? | ||
| Court |
Hey . . . while you guys are sorting out how to get out of this funk . . I'll toss a couple in for you to mull over. Today it was announced that the AVERAGE ANNUAL SALARY of a Federal worker (with benefits) is $108,000 per year. I wonder how many folks on BadWeB are dragging down $108K . . .that's $30K+ more than the private sector AND it's a new phenomenon in the last year . . Federal salaries and the number of jobs have skyrocketed as the government becomes a baby sitter. The other one . . .and I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry . . . I came home yesterday to find that all the autographed Buell books I'd sent out in the last 2 weeks were on my door step with a note from HOMELAND SECURITY. It now seems that packages over 13oz must be presented in person at a United States Post Office. We are idiots. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Socialist's view of the American society:  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Today it was announced that the AVERAGE ANNUAL SALARY of a Federal worker (with benefits) is $108,000 per year. I wonder how many folks on BadWeB are dragging down $108K . . .that's $30K+ more than the private sector AND it's a new phenomenon in the last year . . Federal salaries and the number of jobs have skyrocketed as the government becomes a baby sitter. The goal is to destroy the bourgeoisie in order to create two classes, the proletariat and the political ruling class. Instead of increasing one's station through innovation, hard work, and self determination, those most likely to increase their personal wealth are those most willing to do the bidding of the body politic. We have seen this before folks. Anyone find it odd that the SEIU and AFL-CIO were excluded from the provisions of the Obamacare bill? | ||
| Aesquire |
So, M2me's total misunderstanding of economics.....or perhaps his misinterpretation of a bar graph, leads him to believe that ...flat tax could never work. I think, M2me you base your economic theory on the idea that wealth is fixed. If I have something, you cannot. If the total economy is 6 trillion dollars, your having $50 keeps me from having it? I'm not sorry to say, that is wrong. That is the propaganda version of reality sold to you by progressive power seekers & thieves. ...part is that we want the amount to go up. You are making assumptions not based on reality. Where on that bar graph does it show the amount earned? The wealth created? It ONLY shows the AVERAGE amount paid in taxes. Why SHOULD THAT # go up? I only think that that # should go up IF we earn more. If we don't earn more, we're getting screwed. Conservatives say I have no incentive to work hard to raise my after tax income from $38,500 to $160,000. Bullcrap. NO one is going to tell you that. In your example you have a better tax RATE at the higher income. ( not the way things work, at all, at all. ) You show a 25% tax rate earning $50k and 20% if you earn $200k. I'd say that was pretty good incentive to work harder & smarter & earn more!!!! But it's bullcrap & you either know it or really don't get it. Get back to me when you figure it out. The disincentive is when I get taxed 25% @ 50k and 40% @ 200k. Sure, I make more money, but I keep less and less as progressive taxes punish my success. See Laffer curve. I don't agree with all the assumptions, but the basic shape & principal is sound. ( I also don't like Laffer's views on immigrant cheap semi-slave labor.... but his views are widely held by many Congressmen in both parties. ) | ||
| M2me |
You show a 25% tax rate earning $50k and 20% if you earn $200k. I'd say that was pretty good incentive to work harder & smarter & earn more!!!! But it's bullcrap & you either know it or really don't get it. Get back to me when you figure it out. Of course I know it's bullcrap. I was just going along with the assumption that tax burden is a measure of how many dollars you pay in taxes. Under that assumption a 20% rate at $200,000 is a higher burden than 25% at $50,000. Bullcrap! But let's look at your 25% vs 40% example. Are you saying that I have no incentive to raise my after tax income from $38,500 to $120,000? I say that's bullcrap too. It's also bullcrap because we are not factoring in tax brackets. We are assuming the higher rate applies to the entire $200,000. The trouble with the Laffer curve is that we are now on the wrong side of the curve. The Laffer curve does not say that lowering taxes always raises revenue as some people seem to think. The Laffer curve says lowering taxes will raise revenues to a certain point. After that, lowering taxes lowers revenues. Look at the Bush tax cuts for a perfect example. The Bush tax cuts were heavily weighted to the top brackets. Look at the chart I posted earlier. Look at the steep downward slope for the top earners. We have been moving toward a flat tax for the past thirty years. Flattening the tax rate without flattening the income distribution has failed. It's lead to ballooning deficits and a ballooning national debt. We've got to tax higher earners at a higher rate because that's where most of the money is. The trickle down theory has been proven a dismal failure. Here is another chart. Notice the downward trend of the national debt from about 1945 to 1980, after we were sold the trickle down theory.  | ||
| Sifo |
Notice the downward trend of the national debt from about 1945 to 1980  The only thing that even made that "downward trend" possible was the most irresponsible deficit spending this country has ever seen... Until now! You should also examine who controlled congress during your "red" years. Congress controls the budget, the President sets Policy. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
M2me, In a progressive tax, the bottom 50% pay the least. Increasing the wages of the lower 50% of the tax payers does NOTHING to increase tax revenues. The Bush tax cuts were heavily weighted to the top brackets. Actually the tax rates cut taxes for the bottom 60% and actually pushed the tax burden more to the highest 40%.  Your Budget Deficit graph is incomplete. The problem isn't that we aren't collecting enough taxes, regardless of which percentile of wage earner we are talking about. The problem is that the Federal Government has become too large. Here is a graph showing the growth of the Federal Government as a percent of GDP:  This chart shows tax receipts vs. Federal Budget.  Both are trending upward. The problem is that the Federal expenditures are growing faster than tax receipts. Trickle down, as first recommended by KENNEDY, works, but you don't see any benefit from it when the Federal Government is has limitless growth. This was the fear of the Framers of the Constitution, that the Federal Government, without limits, would destroy private control and growth of capital. This is why Article 1, Section 8 is so important and why nearly ALL of the programs proposed by the Obama Administration are dangerous and destructive. Under Obama's new societal design the lower and middle class will have far LESS opportunity to break out of their economic class and move upward. What you are advocating will DOOM low income folks to permanent wards of the state. | ||
| Sifo |
The trouble with the Laffer curve is that we are now on the wrong side of the curve. The real problem with the Laffer curve is using the Laffer curve in the first place. The Laffer curve is all about how to squeeze the maximum amount of money from the people. That it Tyranny. What the government should be focused on is taking the least amount possible from the people, leaving them with the highest amount of what they have earned possible. For some reason socialists don't like people to keep their earned money though. | ||
| Sifo |
What you are advocating will DOOM low income folks to permanent wards of the state. Which makes them very loyal to the political party that pushes for more socialism. It is the downward spiral that eventually destroys democracies. | ||
| Court |
>>>>Anyone find it odd that the SEIU and AFL-CIO were excluded from the provisions of the Obamacare bill? It did seem odd that some "insiders" were exempt from many of the costs and burdens. Essentially, those poor folks making $25-60K a year would be supporting a lot of the $120K union members, teachers and public employees. It's the reason I maintain my union health benefits.  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Does make one wonder how long the union exclusion was built into the plan considering the SEIU purple shirts were sent out to beat down town hall attendees voicing opposition to the healthcare plan. August 7, 2009 Dear Mr. Hennessy: I am Kenneth Gladney’s attorney. Kenneth was attacked on the evening of August 6, 2009 at Rep. Russ Carnahan’s town hall meeting in South St. Louis County. I was at the town hall meeting as well and witnessed the events leading up to the attack of Kenneth. Kenneth was approached by an SEIU representative as Kenneth was handing out “Don’t Tread on Me” flags to other conservatives. The SEIU representative demanded to know why a black man was handing out these flags. The SEIU member used a racial slur against Kenneth, then punched him in the face. Kenneth fell to the ground. Another SEIU member yelled racial epithets at Kenneth as he kicked him in the head and back. Kenneth was also brutally attacked by one other male SEIU member and an unidentified woman. The three men were clearly SEIU members, as they were wearing T-shirts with the SEIU logo. Kenneth was beaten badly. One assailant fled on foot; three others were arrested. Kenneth was admitted to St. John’s Mercy Medical Center emergency room, where he was treated for his numerous injuries. Kenneth was merely expressing his freedom of speech by handing out the flags. In fact, he merely asked people as they exited the town hall meeting whether they would like a flag. He in no way provoked any argument or altercation, as evidenced by the fact that three assailants were arrested. We hope that Kenneth fully recovers from his injuries; however, he is in great pain at this time. We will be pursuing legal action at our discretion. This was a truly senseless hate crime carried out by racist union thugs. Regretfully, Representative Carnahan’s statements blaming Kenneth for being a disruptive force are wholly untrue and slanderous. We would like to think that an elected official in Representative Carnahan’s position would gather accurate information before carelessly rushing to judgment. Kenneth supports conservative ideals, although he subscribes to no particular political party. We are calling on the SEIU, Representative Carnahan, and President Obama to condemn the racist actions of these union thugs. In the days to come, we will be investigating whether these thugs are working at the behest of Representative Carnahan and how strong their alliances to various organizations–such as ACORN–may be. We hope the St. Louis Tea Party and tea party organizations around the country will protest Representative Carnahan’s offices and also protest SEIU offices in every major city across the U.S. These Democratic strong-arm tactics must end now. Regards, Attorney David B. Brown Or maybe Randy Arthur also assaulted by SEIU members:    All hail the Chicago Thugocracy! | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Greece is what happens when the SEIU thugs, who will be the last to have their benefits stripped from them, find out that socialism isn't all it's cracked up to be. At some point in time, there is no more blood in the turnip. What that happens, the promises stop being fulfilled and the proletariat, who up to this point has been reaping the rewards of support of the body politic, finally discovers that they are no better than everyone else. That they too are at the back of the line. | ||
| Sifo |
Anyone find it odd that the SEIU and AFL-CIO were excluded from the provisions of the Obamacare bill? For the life of me I don't understand how this can be held up under our Constitution. Aren't we all supposed to be treated equally under the law? I swear the Democrats, left, liberals, progressives, or whatever they want to call themselves this week have absolutely zero respect for what the Constitution actually says. (Message edited by SIFO on March 07, 2010) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
absolutely zero respect for what the Constitution actually says DING, DING, DING, DING, DING!!!!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!! When you try to stack the Supreme Court with people with EQUAL disdain for the Constitution EVERYTHING is Constitutional! Don't you get it? | ||
| Aesquire |
 http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1765.cfm http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006842 Not everyone agrees we are on the good side of the laffer curve. I did find articles disputing that cutting taxes was a good idea. M2me makes the contention that basic greed will impel him to work harder, earn more money, even though he gets taxed at a higher rate. Yep. Thank the economic deamons that that is usually true. If I had used a more extreme example he might not feel the same way.... but my example was more realistic than his apparently deliberate deception of a lower rate on a higher income. ( which I guess was to make some point???? with lies? I must miss his meaning? ) Under that assumption a 20% rate at $200,000 is a higher burden than 25% at $50,000. Bullcrap! Really, dude, where in heck do you get that? the chart shows a year by year amount paid by taxpayers average. period. ( ok, it also shows a percentage change from year to year, but that has ziparoonie to do with tax rate percentages....) You are arguing with shadows. The shadows come from you. No one is saying that. | ||
| Sifo |
Again though the job of the government isn't to get the most tax revenue it possibly can from the people. The governments job is to take the minimum it needs to do what needs to be done. We are way beyond what needs to be done and well into redistribution of assets. | ||
| Aesquire |
Sifo, I disagree...sorta... The Laffer curve is all about how to squeeze the maximum amount of money from the people. That it Tyranny. No, that's good sense. If I ( the greedy &*^%** in D.C.) tax you too much, I get less revenue and can do & buy less. simple. If I tax you nothing I get nothing, and that won't work. If I tax you 100% I also get nothing and that won't work. ( that's tryanny! you slave! ) So, I need money to build roads, defend the nation and run the parks. I gotta tax you. ( if I should use your money for jars of urine with religious symbols in them is a different argument ) The highest revenue with the lowest taxes is optimum from MY point of view, eh? What the government should be focused on is taking the least amount possible from the people, leaving them with the highest amount of what they have earned possible. Sounds good..... not likely, but good. If the bozo's didn't spend more than they take in... but they do. It gets down to this. IF you are on one side of the curve, ( which is not as pretty as the picture above... ) lowering taxes increases revenue ( the high tax side ), and on the other side ( the low tax side ) lowering taxes cuts revenue. You get the same revenue in taxes if they are a bit too high, or too low. The only way to determine which side of the curve you are on is to change tax rates, wait, and see. It is NOT always true that cutting taxes will increase revenue. ( though it is usually true that cutting taxes reduces revenue by less than the tax cut... see laffer article above.) Optimum would be to cut taxes across the board ( more on that in a second ) until revenues start to drop, then hold there, to get the most efficient ratio of taxes to revenues with the lowest tax burden per person. Cutting taxes below that takes govt. spending less, and we know that's just crazy talk. You cut taxes across the board, even though it is not the most efficient, to be "fair". Since the richer you are the more a tax cut will help you, & the more you will make & then pay more $$ ( but less %) the biggest tax cuts should go to the richest.... But that just torques everyone else off, so even though a tax cut for a middle poor guy doesn't raise the revenue nearly as much, it's still a good thing, all in all. Naked Capitalism...especially the uber-greedy Harvard MBA types, is short sighted and does need a bit of moral control to keep it from being the evil that the socialist claim it is... see "chart" from March 07, 2010 - 10:04 am: For some reason socialists don't like people to keep their earned money though. Ok, that part you have dead right. If you are not a slave to the state, you are evil.... If you got your own money, you aren't a good slave....maybe slave is too strong a word..... what is a good word for one dependent on his master, and in submission to his will??? Anyway, that's what the progressives want. All in an idealistic and self enlightened pseudo anarchistic happy paradise kinda way, to be sure. It's a great thing if you are one of the elite..... In the "chart" of March 07, 2010 - 10:04 am: the socialists believe they will occupy the top tiers... | ||
| Aesquire |
Sifo, in principal I agree... in detail, we got a lot of debt to pay off because of the massive redistribution. To make the economy work, govt. must spend less. To keep the creditors happy, we need more money...and a way to keep govt. from spending it. Maybe a voluntary designated % to pay the debt on your 1040? | ||
| Sifo |
what is a good word for one dependent on his master, and in submission to his will??? Subject. As for the Laffer curve, I understand and agree with everything you are saying about it. Here's where I disagree with using the Laffer curve in the first place though. Regardless of where you are on the Laffer curve, if you lower taxes the people are left with more of their money, and if you raise taxes the people are left with less of their money. The key point is that it is the peoples money in the first place. Government taking anymore than necessary is tyranny and was discussed quite a bit in the writings of our founders. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I think you guys are looking at the equation wrong. There are 17 enumerated powers of the United States. The Government should be collecting taxes at whatever rate pays for the benefits provided under these 17 powers and leaving the rest to the people. If the government doesn't raise enough in a particular year, they raise taxes slightly to cover the shortfall. If the revenues exceed what was budgeted, the excess is refunded at the end of the year. Laffer doesn't matter as long as we are ONLY collecting to cover the budget and the budget only contains those things provided under Article 1, Section 8. The Federal Government would be a small fraction were it only funding the enumerated responsibilities.  That's $3.55T | ||
| Sifo |
The Government should be collecting taxes at whatever rate pays for the benefits provided under these 17 powers and leaving the rest to the people. If the government doesn't raise enough in a particular year, they raise taxes slightly to cover the shortfall. If the revenues exceed what was budgeted, the excess is refunded at the end of the year. Laffer doesn't matter as long as we are ONLY collecting to cover the budget and the budget only contains those things provided under Article 1, Section 8. Exactly! |
