Bogus charges of "tax breaks" for the wealthy!

[LaMidRighter]

Do you have a source that shows the income tax rate is 37-41%? I don't believe it is that high.

A person making $200k doesn't pay anywhere near $100K in taxes. More like half that.

I was going on old rates, sorry, but currently it's around 35% Federal income tax. for over 326,450$Yr. http://www.fairmark.com/begin/bracket.htm
This is naturally before state, FICA, local, and "fees". Also, may who make that hold professional licenses that require renewal, re-investment, and insurances, a couple of which are taxable(some subject to deduction).

I don't like to pay taxes. I don't know anybody who does. On the other hand, the alternative path we have been following since Bush was elected -- borrow the difference -- creates a growing burden on the economy, is ultimately unsustainable, and simply passes the buck -- the cost of our government -- to the next generation, and is therefore immoral, IMO.

I think the president and both sides need to cut out the frivilous spending, there is no question about that. I just think that taxes should be a little more fair, instead of a progressive tax we should have a national sales tax, the wealthy would still pay more because they could buy more, but, they can spend freely because the tax man cometh no more in April and they can enjoy the things that their wealth accumulates, all the while paying their taxes. Spending and investment would probably go through the roof under that idea, meaning progressively more revenue to the fed/state/and local.

The tax rate we had in '93-00 didn't seem to quell incentive. Economic growth during that 8 year period was higher than any time since the 60s. And it generated enough revenue to balance the budget and have a surplus, based on spending levels at that time. With 2 new wars and 2 new major spending programs, taxes should have been raised, not slashed.

Economic policy has a way of showing delayed results, I think earlier policies didn't show the increased effects till just about 2000, but this is debateable.

True statement. The surplus is worthless because the Govt has stolen everything from it to finance the deficits.


This is a national scandal. But you seldom hear about it in the liberal media.

It makes me sick, and even with that "boost" from the national pension, we still find a way to accumulate more debt.

Empirically and historically, it did. The Govt ran huge deficits after the Reagan tax cuts. Clinton and the Dems raised the top rate to 39% in 1993, which was a major reason the budget balanced and went into surplus in 2000.

Tax revenues plummeted and the deficits skyrocked after the Bush tax cuts.

Yes and no. Deficit spending is good for a short-term market, regardless of taxation, but is unsustainable, the idea is to get spending down eventually while the market is hot, tax breaks however will take out the extra investment capitol, thus making a deficit, high tax market environment more likely to cause a recession, this happened during the Ford and Carter administrations, and later in the Clinton adm. Currently, however, the tax base has grown because of the market rebound and even though tax rates are lower, incomes are growing, thus more taxes paid. Last I heard the tax revenue increased.

Politically, spending cuts or freezes will never work when people perceive that the rich keep their tax cuts. But if you combine them both as a package, and sell it as necessary to balance the budget, it could fly, I (optimistically) believe.

The problem then, would be class warfare. People always hate the owner or corporation because they feel that these entities are getting wealthy off of the sweat of others, but forget that they are making their living from said employers(I used to think that way), high taxes are a way to tell the poor they are sticking it to the rich, when in fact they are cutting their own throats. The only logical thing then would be for the two parties to stop the bickering, tell people what they need to hear, and get the monster back in the cage, when the budget is manageable, taxes are now a non-issue, and people can once again enjoy more of their money(in all classes).

There was an actual surplus in 2000. A real one, not counting the SS surplus. See CBO.gov showing the budget surplus; and look at the decrease in total public debt in CY2000.

I'll check that out.

Privatizing SS won't solve the funding problem. We already have private accounts.

In a way, you're right. Just privatizing SS would only stop the bleeding, considering the gains would be syphoned off into the general fund, the only way privatizing would work would be to lock in the SS/medicare trustfund first, then the gains can rebuild what decades of corruption has depleted. The reason I like the privatized account system though is that it gives the same lower class the ability to own stocks, annuities, and mutual funds that the middle class and upper class enjoy, simply by using the contribution from their paycheck, with a three class contribution to the market, the economy should boom like we have never seen before, and everyone wins, it is very risky however, but doing nothing is certain death for SS.

 

[Iriemon]

I think the president and both sides need to cut out the frivilous spending, there is no question about that. I just think that taxes should be a little more fair, instead of a progressive tax we should have a national sales tax, the wealthy would still pay more because they could buy more, but, they can spend freely because the tax man cometh no more in April and they can enjoy the things that their wealth accumulates, all the while paying their taxes. Spending and investment would probably go through the roof under that idea, meaning progressively more revenue to the fed/state/and local.

I disagree with some of your conclusions about a sales tax, but there are threads where these issues have been debated already.

Economic policy has a way of showing delayed results, I think earlier policies didn't show the increased effects till just about 2000, but this is debateable.

I would think if the argued effect is that the higher taxes disincentivized people to work, you would see the effects fairly rapidly. People don't think, "this is just not worth it" and then keep working hard (productivity increased dramatically in the 90s) for 8 more years and then stop working.

It makes me sick, and even with that "boost" from the national pension, we still find a way to accumulate more debt.

Me too. By far my biggest disappointment with the Bush admin.

Yes and no. Deficit spending is good for a short-term market, regardless of taxation, but is unsustainable, the idea is to get spending down eventually while the market is hot, tax breaks however will take out the extra investment capitol, thus making a deficit, high tax market environment more likely to cause a recession, this happened during the Ford and Carter administrations, and later in the Clinton adm. Currently, however, the tax base has grown because of the market rebound and even though tax rates are lower, incomes are growing, thus more taxes paid. Last I heard the tax revenue increased.

Revenues did increase sharply in 2005, and that is certainly good news. However, in inflation adjusted terms, tax revenues for 2005 are still below what they were in 2000. And much less than they would have been had revenues kept up with inflation adjusted GDP.

I have no inherent problem with tax cuts; I have a problem with tax cuts when they are not matched with spending cuts with the result that the tax "cuts" are really tax deferrments being fobbed off on the next generation,.

The problem then, would be class warfare. People always hate the owner or corporation because they feel that these entities are getting wealthy off of the sweat of others, but forget that they are making their living from said employers(I used to think that way), high taxes are a way to tell the poor they are sticking it to the rich, when in fact they are cutting their own throats. The only logical thing then would be for the two parties to stop the bickering, tell people what they need to hear, and get the monster back in the cage, when the budget is manageable, taxes are now a non-issue, and people can once again enjoy more of their money(in all classes).

What will cause class warfare is if folks think the poor is expected to carry the brunt of the pain thru spending cuts (and remember, their taxes (SS) were never cut) and that the rich keep their tax cuts. That will cause class warfare. The only way to make it fly, IMO, is to spread the pain -- everyone suffers a bit. I don't think the wealthy were really suffering in the 90s, and returning taxes as they were then causes some pain, but that is a reasonable trade off for cutting back spending.

I'll check that out.

Govt budgets:
http://cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

Government debt:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~www/opdpen.cgi
Enter Jan 1 2000 and Dec 31 2000 to get increase in debt for CY2000.

In a way, you're right. Just privatizing SS would only stop the bleeding, considering the gains would be syphoned off into the general fund, the only way privatizing would work would be to lock in the SS/medicare trustfund first, then the gains can rebuild what decades of corruption has depleted. The reason I like the privatized account system though is that it gives the same lower class the ability to own stocks, annuities, and mutual funds that the middle class and upper class enjoy, simply by using the contribution from their paycheck, with a three class contribution to the market, the economy should boom like we have never seen before, and everyone wins, it is very risky however, but doing nothing is certain death for SS.

We look at SS a little differently. We already have private accounts - 401ks IRA, and the rest of the alphabet soup of tax deferred plans. SS should be a welfare system of last resort -- a minimum subsistance welfare payment for folks too old to work who were too stupid, lazy, or unlucky to have savings for retirement. At certain levels of income, SS benefits should be phased out.

That system would be a lot less expensive (and thus rates could be lowered) than the dole-for-all system we have now that pays Govt subsidies to the likes of Warren Buffet, which is completely inane, IMO, and we just can't afford it.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I disagree with some of your conclusions about a sales tax, but there are threads where these issues have been debated already

. Fair enough, my conclusions are simply based on the nature of consumption, but they are subject to market factors.

I would think if the argued effect is that the higher taxes disincentivized people to work, you would see the effects fairly rapidly. People don't think, "this is just not worth it" and then keep working hard (productivity increased dramatically in the 90s) for 8 more years and then stop working.

Work may not be the proper term, produce may be a better word, when people produce more and their returns level out, eventually they will begin to scale back production, or find outside sources not subject to the progressive tax. This means less hiring within our own borders, and the poor or middle class get screwed anyway.

I have no inherent problem with tax cuts; I have a problem with tax cuts when they are not matched with spending cuts with the result that the tax "cuts" are really tax deferrments being fobbed off on the next generation,.

I pretty much agree.

What will cause class warfare is if folks think the poor is expected to carry the brunt of the pain thru spending cuts (and remember, their taxes (SS) were never cut) and that the rich keep their tax cuts. That will cause class warfare. The only way to make it fly, IMO, is to spread the pain -- everyone suffers a bit. I don't think the wealthy were really suffering in the 90s, and returning taxes as they were then causes some pain, but that is a reasonable trade off for cutting back spending.

Key word being think. I feel that people have caused a perception that poor and middle class people are carrying the brunt and that they aren't cared about because they have something to gain by redistributing money, this has caused alot of the entitlement mentality in this country that requires the kind of taxation I believe we all suffer from. I did some basics on this and feel that if people were given more of their tax money back, they could at least use said money to improve their situation, instead, they pay taxes that take out huge chunks of their gross pay and requires a bail-out from government coffers, this to me creates a cycle of dependence and furthers the class divide perception.

We look at SS a little differently. We already have private accounts - 401ks IRA, and the rest of the alphabet soup of tax deferred plans. SS should be a welfare system of last resort -- a minimum subsistance welfare payment for folks too old to work who were too stupid, lazy, or unlucky to have savings for retirement. At certain levels of income, SS benefits should be phased out.

I feel the same way about SS being a last resort system, and that may buy some time, but if we could make the privatization thing work, we could potentially improve the situations of those impovershed workers upon retirement, and, well, I quess the lazy schmucks would get a pass.

That system would be a lot less expensive (and thus rates could be lowered) than the dole-for-all system we have now that pays Govt subsidies to the likes of Warren Buffet, which is completely inane, IMO, and we just can't afford it.

It all depends on how many people are too lazy to invest in their own retirement, I have a bad feeling that most people would rely on SS and live it up in the present using current income.

 

[Stinger]

Wrong. Social security tax receipts have exceed outlays by about $150 billion a year for the past 5 years. You can see it here, http://cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0 table 1, under Deficit or Surplus:Social Security

That does not mean the taxes are too high, like any other "insurance" or "pension" the current liabilities are only part of the equation, its the future liabilites that are unfunded. I bet you though the money you are paying in would be paid back to you.

And in any event, the fact that there have been insufficient revenues certainly didn't stop the Administration from cutting the income and cap gains/dividend taxes for the wealthy. So why not do the same for the tax the working poor pay?

They did. In fact the income and capital gains taxes of the poor were totally eliminated. Now if you are going to say that SS should only be funded by the wealthy then lets stop the pretense and admit it is a wel-fare program and that such a government program destines most people to go on welfare once they stop working. The premise of SS is that EVERYONE pays in to get the same benefit based on how much they paid in, if you want to change it so that only the wealthy pay in then let's scrap the whole thing and expand welfare.

That is true, except that because of the Republican deficits, the Govt has been using the SS tax surplus as general revenues

Where did you get the idea that this practice is a REPUBLICAN practice? It's been going on for a LONG time.

instead of saving it up to pay future SS obligations like they were supposed to.

And what are they suppose to do with the money, how is it suppose to be saved?

The pertinent point here is that the Bush Admin and Republicans slashed taxes the wealthy pay, but didn't cut the tax that the working poor pay, despite the fact they have been generating surpluses.

You are flat out wrong. The Bush adminsitration cut taxes across the board removing millions from paying income taxes at all. They didn't do anything with SS taxes for anyone rich or poor. And as a result of cutting income and investment taxes revenues are booming.

Back to the previous point. If the Govt was actually saving the surplus SS taxes in a fund to pay for future SS benefits, you might have a point.

They are saved in treasury bonds, what would you have them save them in? Every proposal to do something different has been met with total objection by the Democrats.

But because of the deficits, the surplus SS taxes have been stolen for use as general revenues.

Then get on the band wagon for private accounts so they can't steal it.

So SS taxes they are just like any other tax.

Nope, they are as different from other taxes as income taxes are different from excise taxes are different from import taxes are different from capital gains taxes are different from ad velorem taxes are different from regulatory taxes.

Except that they have never been cut by this Administration. Cutting SS taxes would hardly help the rich at all.

So if you cut SS taxes on anyone how do you propose to pay the outstanding liabilities SS has? The current surplus don't.

 

[Iriemon]

That does not mean the taxes are too high, like any other "insurance" or "pension" the current liabilities are only part of the equation, its the future liabilites that are unfunded. I bet you though the money you are paying in would be paid back to you.

I seem to recall that being a reason for cutting income taxes in 2001 -- remember the "surplus belongs to the people" type of arguments Repulbicans were making? They didn't seem to raise the point you are making regaring the $5.7 trillion in debt the Govt owed at that time. When it comes to cutting the tax the working poor and middle class pay, we can't do it because of "future liabilities," but when it comes to cutting the rich man's taxes, trillions of current debt is no obstacle!

They did. In fact the income and capital gains taxes of the poor were totally eliminated. Now if you are going to say that SS should only be funded by the wealthy then lets stop the pretense and admit it is a wel-fare program and that such a government program destines most people to go on welfare once they stop working. The premise of SS is that EVERYONE pays in to get the same benefit based on how much they paid in, if you want to change it so that only the wealthy pay in then let's scrap the whole thing and expand welfare.

That would be wonderful, but millions of working poor only pay SS tax and for millions more, the income tax they paid was a small portion of their federal tax liability.

I agree that SS should be treated as a welfare of the elderly program. It makes no sense to pay Warren Buffet the dole, and we can't afford to pay welfare to rich guys.

In fact, $150 billion of SS taxes each are not distributed to the elderly, or saved for future SS benefit payments, but used for general Govt revenues, just like every other tax.

Where did you get the idea that this practice is a REPUBLICAN practice? It's been going on for a LONG time.

The Republicans clearly have been the engineers of the periods of huge deficits we have had over the past 25 years. I agree that the SS funds have been stolen during both parties' administrations, so in that sense the Dems have been doing it to. But without the Republican deficits, they wouldn't need to steal SS surplus revenues.

And what are they suppose to do with the money, how is it suppose to be saved?

In a trust fund. How about investing it in equity markets? That is safe enough for individuals, the Republicans argue when it comes to private accounts. So it ought to be safe enough for the our SS fund.

You are flat out wrong. The Bush adminsitration cut taxes across the board removing millions from paying income taxes at all. They didn't do anything with SS taxes for anyone rich or poor. And as a result of cutting income and investment taxes revenues are booming.

The rich don't effectively pay SS taxes as a percentage of their income because it stops after $90k.

Millions pay SS tax but not federal tax. They got no tax cut.

Income is booming for the rich. It is stagnat for the middle and lower classes. Perhaps tax revenues are booming. Maybe next year inflation adjusted revenues will finally get back up to where they were in 2000.

They are saved in treasury bonds, what would you have them save them in? Every proposal to do something different has been met with total objection by the Democrats.

The argument that by issuing its own IOUs the Govt is "saving" the SS surplus is meaningless. The Govt owes that money anyway, it will have to pay SS taxes anyway, so taking out actual assets and replacing them with an IOU to itself is effectively stealing the money.

It would be like you having $200k in a bank account for your retirement in 5 years, and withdrawing the cash and then buying a boat, and replacing the $200K with an IOU to yourself. Technically you still have a $200k asset, but since it is offset by a $200k liability it is meaningless. The Govt is doing the same thing with our SS trust fund. It's really outrageous.

Then get on the band wagon for private accounts so they can't steal it.

I have private accounts. Thanks. I'd rather they just didn't steal the SS fund.

Nope, they are as different from other taxes as income taxes are different from excise taxes are different from import taxes are different from capital gains taxes are different from ad velorem taxes are different from regulatory taxes.

True. The very wealthy don't effectively pay SS tax. Which is why it wasn't cut by this Administration when it cut just about every other type of tax in the world.

So if you cut SS taxes on anyone how do you propose to pay the outstanding liabilities SS has? The current surplus don't.

Same way you would propose to pay the outstanding liabilities (Govt debt) being generating by the obscene deficits this Admin is running every year.

IMO, none of the taxes should have been cut until the debt was paid off or spending was cut.

 

[Stinger]

I seem to recall that being a reason for cutting income taxes in 2001 -- remember the "surplus belongs to the people" type of arguments Repulbicans were making?

Are you talking SS deductions or Income Tax? You seem to confuse the two. You do know they are two entirely different things.

When it comes to cutting the tax the working poor and middle class pay, we can't do it because of "future liabilities," but when it comes to cutting the rich man's taxes, trillions of current debt is no obstacle!

They were cut, dramtically. It was Clinton who promised to and never did, once again you are confused as to what you are talkinga about.

I agree that SS should be treated as a welfare of the elderly program. It makes no sense to pay Warren Buffet the dole, and we can't afford to pay welfare to rich guys.

Then let's just get rid of the whole thing it's not needed.

In fact, $150 billion of SS taxes each are not distributed to the elderly, or saved for future SS benefit payments, but used for general Govt revenues, just like every other tax.

And what do you want done with that money?

The Republicans clearly have been the engineers of the periods of huge deficits we have had over the past 25 years. I agree that the SS funds have been stolen during both parties' administrations, so in that sense the Dems have been doing it to. But without the Republican deficits, they wouldn't need to steal SS surplus revenues.

ROFL where do you get that idea? Both parties have spent the money because that is the way the program is designed from the get-go. It's a government charde which you apparently have fallen for. BOTH SIDES do it and support it. BUT the only side that wants to change it is the Republican side, THEY want YOU to control YOUR money. Why do you oppose them when you complain about what is going on?

In a trust fund. How about investing it in equity markets? That is safe enough for individuals, the Republicans argue when it comes to private accounts. So it ought to be safe enough for the our SS fund.

Two problems. That's is the RISKY scheme. Remeber how the Democrats call investing it in the stockmarket the RISKY scheme and that we will all lose our money if it is put there? So the Dems won't go along with it. Second we don't need the government controlling the stock market. Now it you want to put it in privatized accounts you might have more support.

The rich don't effectively pay SS taxes as a percentage of their income because it stops after $90k.

Yes they pay a percentage of their income in SS taxes and they get no more in return than anyone else. THAT is fair. Now it is the left that always cries about the "contract" SS is and how we are entitled to what was promised. Why does that only apply to poor people? The rich have just as much right to get thier fair share of SS as anyone else.

Millions pay SS tax but not federal tax. They got no tax cut.

They got their federal taxes cut period. NO ONE got a SS decrease. If you want to cut SS contributions then cut it for everyone and be fair about it.

Income is booming for the rich.

Income is booming for many including rich and poor. For some it is not rich and poor. Many people who were poor last year are rich this year, many people who were rich last year are poor this year.

It is stagnat for the middle and lower classes. Perhaps tax revenues are booming. Maybe next year inflation adjusted revenues will finally get back up to where they were in 2000.

They probably will this year if they haven't already.

The argument that by issuing its own IOUs the Govt is "saving" the SS surplus is meaningless.

Yep.

The Govt owes that money anyway, it will have to pay SS taxes anyway, so taking out actual assets and replacing them with an IOU to itself is effectively stealing the money.

That's one way of putting it.

It would be like you having $200k in a bank account for your retirement in 5 years, and withdrawing the cash and then buying a boat, and replacing the $200K with an IOU to yourself. Technically you still have a $200k asset, but since it is offset by a $200k liability it is meaningless.

No you still have $200K in wealth, it is merely in another form. Now if you took that money and gave it to someone else and they spent it on non-tangabiles then your point would be made better.

The Govt is doing the same thing with our SS trust fund. It's really outrageous.

then support Republican reforms.

I have private accounts.

Not with your social security contributions.

Thanks. I'd rather they just didn't steal the SS fund.

Then support Republican reforms.

True. The very wealthy don't effectively pay SS tax.

No they effectively pay it just as everyone else does and get no more in return for it. If you don't like that then junk the entire system and roll everyone in the wel-fare system and get rid of the SS administration and use that money to help pay for the entire system.

Which is why it wasn't cut by this Administration when it cut just about every other type of tax in the world. [/quote]

Which is absurd it was nothing of the sort. NO ONE would have voted to cut SS contributions in light of the fact it is going bankrupt and can't pay for it's future liabilities as it is.

Same way you would propose to pay the outstanding liabilities (Govt debt) being generating by the obscene deficits this Admin is running every year.

Did you know that the deficits in real terms and as a percentage if revenues, the true measure, are not that high and lower than they have been in previous years. Granted I'd like to see a LOT of spending cuts but to try and frame your arguement as if the deficits are higher than they have ever been is a smoke screen.

So do you support the Repbulican proposals to cut spending or is all this just empty rhetoric?

IMO, none of the taxes should have been cut until the debt was paid off or spending was cut.

Which is very shallow thinking. What if the cuts actually increased revenues, would it be wise to adjust tax rates if in fact they increase the revenues flowing in?

 

[Iriemon]

Are you talking SS deductions or Income Tax? You seem to confuse the two. You do know they are two entirely different things.

More in theory than in practice. Both are taxes based upon income. Both are used to pay government obligations.

They were cut, dramtically. It was Clinton who promised to and never did, once again you are confused as to what you are talkinga about.

When SS taxes were cut? Cite please.

Then let's just get rid of the whole thing it's not needed.

SS is very much needed by millions. On the other hand, millions are paid SS that do not need it.

And what do you want done with that money?

It was supposed to be building up in a trust fund to help pay for the boomer's retirement benefits.

ROFL where do you get that idea? Both parties have spent the money because that is the way the program is designed from the get-go. It's a government charde which you apparently have fallen for. BOTH SIDES do it and support it. BUT the only side that wants to change it is the Republican side, THEY want YOU to control YOUR money. Why do you oppose them when you complain about what is going on?

If there were no deficits, the SS surpluses would not have bo be applied to general revenues in exchange for IOUs. It is only because of the Republican deficits this has happened. But I agree both parties have let it happen in terms of the law that allows SS surplus to be applied to general revenues.

Two problems. That's is the RISKY scheme. Remeber how the Democrats call investing it in the stockmarket the RISKY scheme and that we will all lose our money if it is put there? So the Dems won't go along with it. Second we don't need the government controlling the stock market. Now it you want to put it in privatized accounts you might have more support.

So investing funds in the stock market is too RISKY for SS funds, but just dandy for personal retirement accounts. Got it.

Yes they pay a percentage of their income in SS taxes and they get no more in return than anyone else. THAT is fair. Now it is the left that always cries about the "contract" SS is and how we are entitled to what was promised. Why does that only apply to poor people? The rich have just as much right to get thier fair share of SS as anyone else.

Your argument for entitlements sounds like something a old 60s liberal would make. Except when it benefits the rich conservatives are all for their entitlements. Paying taxes does not give you entitlements.

They got their federal taxes cut period. NO ONE got a SS decrease. If you want to cut SS contributions then cut it for everyone and be fair about it.

Exactly. Those poorer workers that pay only SS taxes effectively got no tax cut. Cutting the SS taxes instead of the income taxes would have helped working families a lot. But then it wouldn't benefit the rich. Thus it was not even considered.

Income is booming for many including rich and poor. For some it is not rich and poor. Many people who were poor last year are rich this year, many people who were rich last year are poor this year.

Sure there are variations. In general it is the rich who have benefitted both from growing real incomes and tax cuts. The middle class and poor have bene stagnant.

No you still have $200K in wealth, it is merely in another form. Now if you took that money and gave it to someone else and they spent it on non-tangabiles then your point would be made better.

An IOU to yourself is only wealth in an accounting sense. Just like the Govt's IOUs in *our* SS trust fund.

Then support Republican reforms.

I'm not aware the Republicans are supporting reforms that would require the SS surplus payments to actually be invested in the SS trust. I doubt they would do it, because then they couldn't fiddle with the books to make their deficits look better.

Which is absurd it was nothing of the sort. NO ONE would have voted to cut SS contributions in light of the fact it is going bankrupt and can't pay for it's future liabilities as it is.

Didn't slow them down from cutting income taxes, I noticed.

Did you know that the deficits in real terms and as a percentage if revenues, the true measure, are not that high and lower than they have been in previous years. Granted I'd like to see a LOT of spending cuts but to try and frame your arguement as if the deficits are higher than they have ever been is a smoke screen.

I think you mean deficits in terms of GDP. The real deficits over the last two years (2003-2004), in relation to Revenues and in real (inflation adjusted) terms, were at all time highs, at least since 1962. In relation to GDP, there were a few years during the Reagan/Bush1 term where they were slightly higher. Not that that was any great accomplishment to brag about.

I'll post the figures if you want.

So do you support the Repbulican proposals to cut spending or is all this just empty rhetoric?

The first priority is a fiscally responsible budget. It is immoral to fob the cost of our government onto the next generation. They will have to deal with the boomers' retirement and health care; and giving them a debt burdened government is unconscionable, IMO. I would prefer a 25% cut across the board rather than continuously running deficits.

That would not be my personal preference for balancing the budget however. 25% cuts in spending would be draconian. I would combine a tax structure like we had in the 90s, when the economy did just fine, coupled with 5-10% cuts across the board. That should do it; if not, a spending freeze until we are back in surplus.

Which is very shallow thinking. What if the cuts actually increased revenues, would it be wise to adjust tax rates if in fact they increase the revenues flowing in?

Shallow thinking vs. voodoo economics? Cutting tax rates from 91% or 70% may provide incentives that offset the revenues from lower tax rates. It doesn't do the same when you cut the rate from 39%. The extra incentive is marginal and the revenues are just lower. That has been the case for the last 5 years -- revenues have fallen by hundreds of billions of dollars. Even with the Reagan cuts -- in real terms revenues were flat for several years.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Exxon $9.9 Billion in quarterly Profits : $10.7 Billion tax break

Here's another great example of corporate welfare:

ExxonMobil reports record-breaking profits and STILL gets tax breaks!
In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, the Bush administration and Congress are struggling to pay for the needed but costly rebuilding efforts along America's Gulf Coast.

Meanwhile, ExxonMobil recently announced a record breaking $9.9 billion in quarterly profits, on top it’s $25 billion in 2005 profits. Despite that success, Congress recently gave the oil and gas industry, including ExxonMobil, $10.7 billion in tax breaks. It simply does not make sense for taxpayers to subsidize an incredibly profitable multi-billion dollar industry while Congress slashes programs for the most needy.

http://ucsaction.org/campaign/11_05_exxonmobil_profits