New Deficit Report

[Stinger]

What control Reagan did have, he used it and spent the country into giant debt. That's undeniable.

Denied, prove it.

All the tax cuts he allowed forth were then reversed by Bush sr

And slowed growth and caused a recession.

and then Clinton

And cause the recovery he inherited to slow down.

You're trying to justify tax cuts for the rich?

Your going to justify reversing course?

A rich person pays less percentile tax than does a middle income person.

No they don't. Unless you want to add in SS which is a different ball game, but even so the EITC takes care of that.

Why shouldn't the rich pay their fair share of taxes?

What percentage of their income should they pay in taxes? What percentage of the governments spending should the top 10% pay for?

What you need are incentives and programs to put people to work.

The roaring economy that was a result in part to the lower tax rates Bush2 was able to pass have done that quite nicely.

I am begging for employees.

 

[dixon76710]

How about we get the economy steaming by not providing tax cuts for the very rich and developing strong social programs that get people employed

More taves and more social programs, the usual Democratic prescription for economic success.

 

[jfuh]

He cut discretionary social spending. How is that spending the country into debt? How could he have changed non-discretionary spending without modifying the necessary statutes?

He spent the budget like there was no tomorrow. These social programs which have existed since FDR with little to no changes and on his watch it goes from the greatest creditor in the world to the #1 debtor. You're saying he did not spend into oblivion while cutting revenue? Who are you kidding?

I am not simply talking about percentages, I am talking about how much people pay in an overall sense. Moreover, the middle class is more likely to pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes because of the SS cutoff. Every dollar made over $90,000 in one's income is not taxed by social security. That makes it more likely that rich people can make well over 90,000 will have a "smaller" tax burden. http://www.askquestions.org/articles/taxes/taxes.pdf. The ninnies who made this chart (on page 4) make it perfectly clear. If you remove the green section then the top 400 pays a similar percentage. They simply don't pay social security taxes on most of their income because the 90,000 cutoff (which makes sense because they are unlikely to need SS for their retirement). Yes I am justifying a tax cut. That doesn't mean I am against moves to implement things like consumption taxes which would benefit everyone. If we the American people don't like paying so much of our income towards social programs then we should cut social spending rather than forcing someone else to pay for it.

Unto your claim about how much people pay in taxes.
For Tax Year 2004

Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%
$328,049
36.89

Top 5%
$137,056
57.13

Top 10%
$99,112
68.19

Top 25%
$60,041
84.86

Top 50%
$30,122
96.70

Bottom 50%
<$30,122
3.30

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What

Note that the top 25% pays for the overwhelming majority of all income taxes (and likely most other revenue forms). How is that their fair share? Is it fair that a minority pays for programs enforced upon them by the majority?

Here you are attempting to make a contrast of total net payments vs the relative amount to each person's income in an attempt to justify tax cuts for the rich? Wherin the only comparable tax would be that of a percentile of their income.
You make more money, the percentile is the same, of course you are then to pay more actual value, but the effect to you individually is still less than that of someone who makes far less.
Suppose I make 100,000 per year. Say 35% is paid in tax. ok that still leaves me with 65,000 of actual income. Divided by 12 that's 5000/ month plenty.
Now another person who makes 10,000 per year, again 35% tax, that leave them with 6,500 per year of actual income. Divided by 12 that's roughly 500 month to live off of. And here you are saying that because the rich guy is paying more in taxes that they should get a larger tax break so that they can have more income per month vs the poor guy who's already struggling with 500.
Clearly you are blind.

The 30's did not exhibit "trickle-down economics." They exhibited how damaging government can be to the free market. During that time there was an increase of tariffs after the Federal Reserve allowed for the money supply to fall by a third. If you let the money supply in any economy fall by 1/3 there is of course going to be a depression. The Great Depression would have been a recession followed by a recovery if it were not for the incompetence of the Federal Reserve (this is supported by Milton Friedman who won the Nobel Prize for his work on the Great Depression and the role of the monetary contraction at the time). If anything the 30's presents an excellent case of why less government is better.
Your critique on the negative income tax is limited at best. It is a new program so therefore we shouldn't try it. Weren't all of the programs that now act as "Welfare" programs at one time new? Could your "its new and untested" argument hold water if we were in the 60's? Of course now. Furthermore, the programs we have in place are not working. They are both inefficient and ineffective.

Now we have revisionist history and half truths, a complete distortion of the facts.

 

[jfuh]

More taves and more social programs, the usual Democratic prescription for economic success.

:lol: Someone's got reading comprehension issues.

 

[SFLRN]

He spent the budget like there was no tomorrow. These social programs which have existed since FDR with little to no changes and on his watch it goes from the greatest creditor in the world to the #1 debtor. You're saying he did not spend into oblivion while cutting revenue? Who are you kidding?.

I never said that Reagan had no personal responsibility. However, it should be noted that he did cut real discretionary spending. I was also noting that he was not the only one responsible for the deficits.

Here you are attempting to make a contrast of total net payments vs the relative amount to each person's income in an attempt to justify tax cuts for the rich? Wherin the only comparable tax would be that of a percentile of their income.
You make more money, the percentile is the same, of course you are then to pay more actual value, but the effect to you individually is still less than that of someone who makes far less.
Suppose I make 100,000 per year. Say 35% is paid in tax. ok that still leaves me with 65,000 of actual income. Divided by 12 that's 5000/ month plenty.
Now another person who makes 10,000 per year, again 35% tax, that leave them with 6,500 per year of actual income. Divided by 12 that's roughly 500 month to live off of. And here you are saying that because the rich guy is paying more in taxes that they should get a larger tax break so that they can have more income per month vs the poor guy who's already struggling with 500.
Clearly you are blind..

I addressed that issue in my post. If you would have loaded the chart you would see a comparison in tax burden between the rich and the middle class. You would also see that it is social security that causes a difference in the tax burden of each group. The reason for this is that every dollar you make over 90,000 is no longer taxed by social security. The very rich would then pay a significantly less amount of their income towards this tax because of the cutoff (in general the cutoff is good because people of this income level don't need social security down the road). In short, your assertion that the middle class is more heavily taxed in "relative terms" is not true once you remove social security taxes (that the rich don't pay a lot of in "relative" terms) that have a 90,000 cutoff.

Now we have revisionist history and half truths, a complete distortion of the facts.

So Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman distorted the facts and won a Nobel Prize for it? How is it distorting the facts? The money supply did fall by 1/3. How would that not affect the economy? At the time people began to demand liquid assets from their banks (they wanted to pull out money from their savings). The problem was that more people demanded liquid assets and the bank could simply not meet their demands (they often lend out the savings money). It was at this point that the Federal Reserve was to act as a "lender of the last resort," and provide the last-second funds for the banks. It failed to do so and the money supply then fell by 1/3 (people also failed to get their savings back). There were other factors as well. However, the severity of the Depression (rather than it being a recession) was in large part due to the monetary contraction.
"With the passage of time, both the Friedman-Schwartz and Kindleberger views seem correct. Inept monetary policy explains the depression's severity, as Friedman and Schwartz argue. But because the gold standard caused many governments to make similar errors, the effects were worldwide, as Kindleberger contends. "

Great Depression, by Robert J. Samuelson: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics: Library of Economics and Liberty
Moreover, I did not distort the facts on the negative income tax either. It is supported by 79% of economists who claim that it will increase the welfare of its recipients. Not to mention the fact that it would be much cheaper than our current system.

 

[jfuh]

I never said that Reagan had no personal responsibility. However, it should be noted that he did cut real discretionary spending. I was also noting that he was not the only one responsible for the deficits.

Then what are you even arguing?

I addressed that issue in my post. If you would have loaded the chart you would see a comparison in tax burden between the rich and the middle class. You would also see that it is social security that causes a difference in the tax burden of each group. The reason for this is that every dollar you make over 90,000 is no longer taxed by social security. The very rich would then pay a significantly less amount of their income towards this tax because of the cutoff (in general the cutoff is good because people of this income level don't need social security down the road). In short, your assertion that the middle class is more heavily taxed in "relative terms" is not true once you remove social security taxes (that the rich don't pay a lot of in "relative" terms) that have a 90,000 cutoff.

That being which is a flaw with the tax cut for the rich the system needs to address.
What you have done is attempt to make the claim that tax cuts for the rich are beneficial - to society? No, but to the individual yes.

So Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman distorted the facts and won a Nobel Prize for it? How is it distorting the facts? The money supply did fall by 1/3. How would that not affect the economy? At the time people began to demand liquid assets from their banks (they wanted to pull out money from their savings). The problem was that more people demanded liquid assets and the bank could simply not meet their demands (they often lend out the savings money). It was at this point that the Federal Reserve was to act as a "lender of the last resort," and provide the last-second funds for the banks. It failed to do so and the money supply then fell by 1/3 (people also failed to get their savings back). There were other factors as well. However, the severity of the Depression (rather than it being a recession) was in large part due to the monetary contraction.
"With the passage of time, both the Friedman-Schwartz and Kindleberger views seem correct. Inept monetary policy explains the depression's severity, as Friedman and Schwartz argue. But because the gold standard caused many governments to make similar errors, the effects were worldwide, as Kindleberger contends. "

Great Depression, by Robert J. Samuelson: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics: Library of Economics and Liberty
Moreover, I did not distort the facts on the negative income tax either. It is supported by 79% of economists who claim that it will increase the welfare of its recipients. Not to mention the fact that it would be much cheaper than our current system.

I have yet to see the source for your 79% support for a negative tax. What I see most economists in agreement for is that they are all in support of an across the board flat tax.
A negative flat tax system would be cheaper?
Tell me, what is the income of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and May. Bloomberg? I'll tell you $1. Under your proposed system they would both get money back because of their "low" income.
In fact it would be to the benefit of someone in the poor to work as little as possible so as to receive more money for less work. While someone in the middle class is completely fracked as they would be paying more than what they get back. ie someone that makes 30,000 is seriously screwed - that's a large populous of this country.
So as I've said, your plan simply won't work. And the attempt to use what a nobel laurette said doesn't mean you are right.
Sure the man is brilliant in various aspects but in light of what you've argued here it's completely unsubstantiated.

 

[SFLRN]

Then what are you even arguing?

That Reagan does not bear sole responsibility for those deficits. It was a hybrid of the explosion in non-discretionary spending (which is determined by statute) from programs LBJ created and a fault of Congress.

That being which is a flaw with the tax cut for the rich the system needs to address.

Its not a flaw. You need the $90,000 cutoff. We can't possibly hope to provide SS benefits to the rich beyond that point of income. Therefore, it is better, for the government and the economy that they invest that money privately. This throws out your argument about the "unfairness" of the tax system in "relative" income terms.

What you have done is attempt to make the claim that tax cuts for the rich are beneficial - to society? No, but to the individual yes.

I haven't attempted, I have proven. It is economics 101. Taxes create dead-weight loss. Lowering those taxes lowers dead-weight loss. Lower tax rates will benefit the economy. Its spending that needs to be cut. Besides having nearly every school of theoretical economics on my side I have already presented controlled studies that show lower taxes to have a positive benefits. Your statement is factually incorrect.

I have yet to see the source for your 79% support for a negative tax. What I see most economists in agreement for is that they are all in support of an across the board flat tax.

It was implemented into Greggory Mankiw's Microeconomics 101. I can provide a link in a later post if it is required.

A negative flat tax system would be cheaper?
Tell me, what is the income of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and May. Bloomberg? I'll tell you $1. Under your proposed system they would both get money back because of their "low" income.

Anecdotal evidence at best. They have other forms of wealth that help them sustain a healthy life style that are factored into eligibility for such programs.

In fact it would be to the benefit of someone in the poor to work as little as possible so as to receive more money for less work. While someone in the middle class is completely fracked as they would be paying more than what they get back. ie someone that makes 30,000 is seriously screwed - that's a large populous of this country.
So as I've said, your plan simply won't work. And the attempt to use what a nobel laurette said doesn't mean you are right.

You just gave the argument against all welfare programs. People are less likely to help themselves if government provides a handout. Thats true with Medicaid, TANF, anything along those lines. If we cutoff welfare entirely there would be a huge incentive to work. However, many people would feel that to be somewhat immoral. Therefore, we have to accept that any welfare system is likely to encourage some degree of laziness. Here is how the tax works. If the poverty rate for your family size is 18,000 and the NIT rate is 50% and you make 9,000 then you would receive 4,500 dollars in supplemental income. So even if you do decide to work and make an income you will still be better off in economic terms than if you just take the supplement (you would keep near 90% of the income gained from working vs. the 50% transfer you lose). For example, if you get a job that makes 2,000 and add that to your 9,000 you will then have 11,000. You would only receive 3,500 in a transfer payment. That is still a $1,000 benefit for working. There is still incentive to work under these programs and you can even add in a work requirement like other welfare programs do. The system is so much more efficient that in 1957 when Milton Friedman wrote Capitalism and Freedom he calculated that implementing a NIT and using the amount of spending on "social welfare" at the time the poorest American's incomes would be higher than median income. That's right, a NIT would be so much more efficient we could spend the same amount of money and allow for the poor to have an above average income . It would instead be likely that we would be able to cut spending and increase the transfers for the poor (or keep it constant).

 

[rathi]

To anybody who claims that we don't need to raise taxes to cut the deficit:

Please look at the spending chart for this years federal budget and cut 250 billion worth of stuff. Report what you cut back here and how much each thing cost.

 

[SFLRN]

To anybody who claims that we don't need to raise taxes to cut the deficit:

Please look at the spending chart for this years federal budget and cut 250 billion worth of stuff. Report what you cut back here and how much each thing cost.

Phasing out the Department of Education (and giving states more power) 70 billion
The Phasing out of Corporate Welfare: 94 Billion (Cato podcast this could be an inflated number).
Phasing out farm subsidies 13 billion (this number could also be larger)
Cutting the defense budget (especially after we leave Iraq) 200 billion
Forcing other nations to develop their own security forces.
Abolishing the new Medicare Prescription Drug Act
Switching all federal "Welfare programs" to a Negative Income tax would allow us to cut taxes quite nicely as well.
These are just a few of the proposals (including reformation of SS) that are needed to help downsize Washington.

 

[rathi]

Budget

Check out that link. It has the numbers for our budget and lets you play around with the numbers to try and balance it.

Phasing out the Department of Education (and giving states more power) 70 billion

Poor and disabled kids don't get educations then?

Cutting the defense budget (especially after we leave Iraq) 200 billion

What do you want to cut? Leaving Iraq will help, but even assuming you get rid of corrupt procurement, reaching 200 billion will be extremely difficult.

Switching all federal "Welfare programs" to a Negative Income tax would allow us to cut taxes quite nicely as well.

A negative income tax means that you pay people money. That won't help the deficit at all.

 

[rathi]

Department of Agriculture -14% -12.3
...Farm Service Agency -91% -12.3
Department of Defense -9% -60.6
...Operation and Maintenance -15% -36.4
...Procurement -9% -10.3
...Research, Development, Test, Evaluation -20% -13.9
Department of Health and Human Services -4% -30.4
...Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services -3% -30.4
Department of Justice -19% -4.5

Assuming we get rid of farm subsidies, leave Iraq, curtail corrupt defense spending, stop drug company price gouging, decriminalize drug use, I can cut the deficit down to 131.6 billion. I'll still looking for a comprehensive list of which programs fall under corporate welfare, so there is probably a bit more to cut. Even assuming I can find 50 billion more, that leaves me 80 billion left.
However, I picked stuff that could be removed without negatively impacting the public. That last bit either has to come from taxes or from cutting valuable programs.

 

[SFLRN]

Budget

Check out that link. It has the numbers for our budget and lets you play around with the numbers to try and balance it. .

[
Poor and disabled kids don't get educations then?
.

No, we remove an agent that has hurt the education many poor children receive (the federal government). Student achievement has not increased significantly since the 1960's. Real per-pupil expenditures have doubled. Throwing money and federal regulations at the problem is a failed strategy. That money should be returned to taxpayers. That does not mean states can't continue voucher programs that are in place for disabled and poor children.

[
What do you want to cut? Leaving Iraq will help, but even assuming you get rid of corrupt procurement, reaching 200 billion will be extremely difficult.
.

Cut needless foreign bases and deployments. There are many deployments that are located in countries that have the ability to supply their own security forces. Cutting a number of frivolous research programs would do that as well. Ending star wars. I can go into specifics on what programs might need to be cut if you want that level of detail.

[
A negative income tax means that you pay people money. That won't help the deficit at all.

I think you missed the point. Converting welfare spending into a negative income tax would not involve spending more money. It would involve giving transfer payments to the poor at a set rate relative to their current income. It is much more efficient because it does not require the same administrative costs as other "welfare programs do." At the same time 79% of economists believe such a program would increase the welfare of its recipients (Macroeconomics 101, Greg Mankiw). The efficiency of an NIT would save a significant amount of money.

[
However, I picked stuff that could be removed without negatively impacting the public. That last bit either has to come from taxes or from cutting valuable programs.

It would not negatively impact the public on the whole. I don’t mean to be rude but that is too simplistic of a view on government spending and the economy. It is easy to see the benefits of more spending. If you give 1,000 dollars to one group the benefit seems clear. It isn't as easy to see the negative effects of the deficits or taxes that allowed for the people to receive that benefit. That being said, cutting most non-essential spending from the federal level may seem to have a general negative impact because the "victims" are clear and present. What is harder to see is how the economy benefits when there is less government crowding out private activity. The studies I mentioned earlier did show that less government (to a point) is good for the economy in general, however. The public would be much better served if they could keep their tax money and use it for their own purposes rather than having government decide what the best use of that money is.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

So you agree that if we can manage to offset our spending while maintaining the lower tax rates, it's a good thing?

It would be a great thing. However, the problem is that growth in tax revenue from income taxes has been absolutely flat since the tax cuts. The deficits are dropping primarily because of growth in payroll tax revenue.

 

[Stinger]

It would be a great thing. However, the problem is that growth in tax revenue from income taxes has been absolutely flat since the tax cuts. The deficits are dropping primarily because of growth in payroll tax revenue.

Wrong, the smallest increases have been SS taxes.

The left just can't stand it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Wrong, the smallest increases have been SS taxes.

The left just can't stand it.

I am going to paraphrase Iriemon here.

As of the end of FY06, the total debt of the US was:

09/29/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23

As of the end of last May:

05/31/2007 8,828,992,459,660.72

Also, look at the yearly income tax revenues excluding Payroll Taxes:

Year - Income tax revenues.

2000 1004.5
2001 994.3
2002 858.3
2003 793.7
2004 809.0
2005 927.2
2006 1,049.0

Even with inflation, we are hardly better today than we were prior to the tax cuts. Now how is it those tax cuts are generating more revenue?

 

[Stinger]

I am going to paraphrase Iriemon here.

Iriemon is not an authoritative source. And besides you are trying to confuse the issue by now trying to shift it to the national debt and other nonsense.

You made a statement of fact, I refutted it with data. If you are asserting the Treasury Department data is false then back it up with authoritative numbers.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Iriemon is not an authoritative source. And besides you are trying to confuse the issue by now trying to shift it to the national debt and other nonsense.

You made a statement of fact, I refutted it with data. If you are asserting the Treasury Department data is false then back it up with authoritative numbers.

In billions of dollars.

Individual Income Tax Revenue for 2006: 1044

Individual Income Tax Revenue for 2000: 1004

Payroll Tax Revenue for 2006: 869
Payroll Tax Revenue for 2000: 694

Sources: www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8116&type=1+federal+income+tax+revenues&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=30&gl=us
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/overview/source.cfm

Now if tax cuts always generate more revenue, then why adjusted for inflation are we bringing in less today than we were prior to the tax cuts? Moreover, the population and workforce has also grown since then.

The additional revenue has largely came from payroll taxes and corporate income taxes.

 

[RightinNYC]

Budget

Check out that link. It has the numbers for our budget and lets you play around with the numbers to try and balance it.

Medicare and Medicaid Services - 869,000,000,000
Department of Defense - 639,000,000,000

Interest on Treasury Debt - 260,000,000,000

Give me a red pen and I bet I could make enough cuts in the first two that we could start cutting the third within a few years.

 

[jfuh]

That Reagan does not bear sole responsibility for those deficits. It was a hybrid of the explosion in non-discretionary spending (which is determined by statute) from programs LBJ created and a fault of Congress.

Not even close. LBJ's programs are not what created the debt. Reagan's tax cuts that Bush I and Clinton then later raised to offset the deficit are what caused us to become the greatest debtor.

Its not a flaw. You need the $90,000 cutoff. We can't possibly hope to provide SS benefits to the rich beyond that point of income. Therefore, it is better, for the government and the economy that they invest that money privately. This throws out your argument about the "unfairness" of the tax system in "relative" income terms.

No, it doesn't do that at all, contrarily it shows that you can only compare in relative terms - it's note worthy now that you're not even addressing the post I made.

I haven't attempted, I have proven. It is economics 101. Taxes create dead-weight loss. Lowering those taxes lowers dead-weight loss. Lower tax rates will benefit the economy. Its spending that needs to be cut. Besides having nearly every school of theoretical economics on my side I have already presented controlled studies that show lower taxes to have a positive benefits. Your statement is factually incorrect.

What school of economics? You have yet to provide a single source to support your position. You still have yet to show how tax cuts for the rich benefits anyone.

It was implemented into Greggory Mankiw's Microeconomics 101. I can provide a link in a later post if it is required.

Implemented? The 79% in support of your negative income tax is now implemented? give me a break

Anecdotal evidence at best. They have other forms of wealth that help them sustain a healthy life style that are factored into eligibility for such programs.

Not according to what you have provided thus far.

You just gave the argument against all welfare programs. People are less likely to help themselves if government provides a handout. Thats true with Medicaid, TANF, anything along those lines.

Who gets medicaid? Who gets medicare? How do those programs work. Instead of attempting to, as you are here - lumping them into one category and excising them with one word welfare - you need to examine how each program works independently. And if you have been following along and actually reading, you will see that I actually am a supporter of reforming welfare programs.

If we cutoff welfare entirely there would be a huge incentive to work. However, many people would feel that to be somewhat immoral. Therefore, we have to accept that any welfare system is likely to encourage some degree of laziness. Here is how the tax works. If the poverty rate for your family size is 18,000 and the NIT rate is 50% and you make 9,000 then you would receive 4,500 dollars in supplemental income. So even if you do decide to work and make an income you will still be better off in economic terms than if you just take the supplement (you would keep near 90% of the income gained from working vs. the 50% transfer you lose). For example, if you get a job that makes 2,000 and add that to your 9,000 you will then have 11,000. You would only receive 3,500 in a transfer payment. That is still a $1,000 benefit for working. There is still incentive to work under these programs and you can even add in a work requirement like other welfare programs do. The system is so much more efficient that in 1957 when Milton Friedman wrote Capitalism and Freedom he calculated that implementing a NIT and using the amount of spending on "social welfare" at the time the poorest American's incomes would be higher than median income. That's right, a NIT would be so much more efficient we could spend the same amount of money and allow for the poor to have an above average income . It would instead be likely that we would be able to cut spending and increase the transfers for the poor (or keep it constant).

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[jfuh]

Medicare and Medicaid Services - 869,000,000,000
Department of Defense - 639,000,000,000

Interest on Treasury Debt - 260,000,000,000

Give me a red pen and I bet I could make enough cuts in the first two that we could start cutting the third within a few years.

A red pen and line item veto of every single bullshit pork barrel spending spree I bet you within a 3 or 4 years that national debt may just as well be gone.

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon is not an authoritative source. ....

I contest that baseless remark! : )

 

[SFLRN]

Not even close. LBJ's programs are not what created the debt. Reagan's tax cuts that Bush I and Clinton then later raised to offset the deficit are what caused us to become the greatest debtor.

Deficits are caused by two things. 1. Lower than predicted revenue and 2. Overspending.

No, it doesn't do that at all, contrarily it shows that you can only compare in relative terms - it's note worthy now that you're not even addressing the post I made.

I am addressing the post. You were speaking about relative tax burden. I was countering that by saying that if you don’t include social security taxes in the equation (because of the cutoff) then the “relative” tax rate is roughly the same. Therefore, your claim that the rich need to pay more to pay their “fair share” is factually incorrect.

What school of economics? You have yet to provide a single source to support your position. You still have yet to show how tax cuts for the rich benefits anyone.

Keynesian, New Classical Macroeconomics and Monetarism and I can almost guarantee all the others as well. deadweight loss: Definition and Much More from Answers.com
Tax cuts for the rich benefit everyone by putting money into private hands rather than in the hands of bureaucrats. Individuals tend to spend and invest their own money more carefully than government officials. Also, by default government spends money to maximize political ends, individuals spend money to maximize their economic ends (if they are investing, they maximize utility if they are not investing). When you remove X trillion amount of dollars from the hands of taxpayers that creates an inefficiency in the market. An inefficiency in the market means that resources are not being fully utilized. When that happens wealth is not growing as fast as it possibly could. The reason tax cuts for the rich benefit us just the same argument as why free markets over communism benefits us; a market system that allows individual choice and freedom with one’s money is a far more efficient system than a system run by a government official.

Implemented? The 79% in support of your negative income tax is now implemented? give me a break.

Excuse my language, I meant to say that the survey is in the book.

Not according to what you have provided thus far.

Every welfare program, will have some individuals who will find a way to cheat the system. That’s inevitable in any government program. The problem is you try to point out a problem with the NIT by using two examples of two famous people. That is not a large enough sample to suggest the NIT would fall victim to massive fraud. If you wish we could spend the next few posts researching legal statutes to ensure that all of the one dollar millionaires don’t start receiving welfare benefits.

Who gets medicaid? Who gets medicare? How do those programs work. Instead of attempting to, as you are here - lumping them into one category and excising them with one word welfare - you need to examine how each program works independently. And if you have been following along and actually reading, you will see that I actually am a supporter of reforming welfare programs.

I always remember Medicaid as a form of aid and Medicare with an E for elderly, if it helps. Each program works somewhat similarly; they both attempt to provide medical ensure to the elderly and those who are below a certain income level. But to get to your point of how each operates individually is not the point. They are relatively similar. The point is that the intention behind these programs is to increase the “welfare” of certain groups of people in society by transferring money from one citizen to another. LBJ created Medicaid as part of his “War on Poverty.” However, both of these programs are rather expensive (as we all know). They have a number of regulations and can are often tempered with by governmental authorities. The problem with this is that that both the taxpayers and the poor don’t receive the advertised benefits. An NIT requires less regulation because it involves a simple transfer of money. You don’t need to worry about the TANF and the Medicaid regulations. It keeps bureaucrats from tampering with the aid and keeps bureaucrats misusing taxpayer money. By creating an NIT the poor would have flexibility to spend their money the necessities without having to depend (as much) on the approval of government regulators.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I can cite the exact page number where that is said. I could also calculate how much better off the poor would be (in monetary terms) under a pure NIT than under TANF, Medicaid and other programs. What is incorrect about what I have said?

 

[jfuh]

Deficits are caused by two things. 1. Lower than predicted revenue and 2. Overspending. [/QUOTE} Both what Regan did, lowered revenue -tax cuts for the rich - and seriously overspending on star wars and various other military expenditures.

I am addressing the post. You were speaking about relative tax burden. I was countering that by saying that if you don’t include social security taxes in the equation (because of the cutoff) then the “relative” tax rate is roughly the same. Therefore, your claim that the rich need to pay more to pay their “fair share” is factually incorrect.

If

Keynesian, New Classical Macroeconomics and Monetarism and I can almost guarantee all the others as well. deadweight loss: Definition and Much More from Answers.com
Tax cuts for the rich benefit everyone by putting money into private hands rather than in the hands of bureaucrats. Individuals tend to spend and invest their own money more carefully than government officials. Also, by default government spends money to maximize political ends, individuals spend money to maximize their economic ends (if they are investing, they maximize utility if they are not investing). When you remove X trillion amount of dollars from the hands of taxpayers that creates an inefficiency in the market. An inefficiency in the market means that resources are not being fully utilized. When that happens wealth is not growing as fast as it possibly could. The reason tax cuts for the rich benefit us just the same argument as why free markets over communism benefits us; a market system that allows individual choice and freedom with one’s money is a far more efficient system than a system run by a government official.

I'm not asking for an encyclopedic definition, I'm asking for you to support your supposition with actual literature or proven examples. Tax cuts for the rich is a diservice to everyone, because the non-rich are then paying a heavier burden. While the Rich get to upgrade from a Benz S class to a Benz S class AMG.
Meanwhile revenue is decreasing as well as social programs that do work don't get proper allocation of resources to them and the elitist rich get to buy another vacation home. OH yeah, really fair.

Excuse my language, I meant to say that the survey is in the book.

Waiting for the link to your 79% support of all schools of economists and scholars.

Every welfare program, will have some individuals who will find a way to cheat the system. That’s inevitable in any government program. The problem is you try to point out a problem with the NIT by using two examples of two famous people. That is not a large enough sample to suggest the NIT would fall victim to massive fraud. If you wish we could spend the next few posts researching legal statutes to ensure that all of the one dollar millionaires don’t start receiving welfare benefits.

Let's see, all that's needed by your system is for everyone that makes under 40K to make a dollar and your system will be bankrupt practically overnight.

I always remember Medicaid as a form of aid and Medicare with an E for elderly, if it helps. Each program works somewhat similarly; they both attempt to provide medical ensure to the elderly and those who are below a certain income level. But to get to your point of how each operates individually is not the point. They are relatively similar. The point is that the intention behind these programs is to increase the “welfare” of certain groups of people in society by transferring money from one citizen to another. LBJ created Medicaid as part of his “War on Poverty.” However, both of these programs are rather expensive (as we all know). They have a number of regulations and can are often tempered with by governmental authorities. The problem with this is that that both the taxpayers and the poor don’t receive the advertised benefits.

Still better than any other similar health insurance out there.

An NIT requires less regulation because it involves a simple transfer of money. You don’t need to worry about the TANF and the Medicaid regulations. It keeps bureaucrats from tampering with the aid and keeps bureaucrats misusing taxpayer money. By creating an NIT the poor would have flexibility to spend their money the necessities without having to depend (as much) on the approval of government regulators.

Un huh.

I can cite the exact page number where that is said. I could also calculate how much better off the poor would be (in monetary terms) under a pure NIT than under TANF, Medicaid and other programs. What is incorrect about what I have said?

I could cite a page number too. I'm waiting on your actual text not some page number. a link would be nice.

 

[SFLRN]

Both what Regan did, lowered revenue -tax cuts for the rich - and seriously overspending on star wars and various other military expenditures.

"In summary, even in the absence of tax cuts or any military buildup, we would still have had exploding deficits because of inflation-swollen entitlements, inflation boosted interest rates, and post-inflation effect on tax revenues. "
The Debt and the Deficit. I can find the original source of the article if this does not suffice. I do not want to suggest that Reagan should not be blamed at all.

I'm not asking for an encyclopedic definition, I'm asking for you to support your supposition with actual literature or proven examples.

That is actual literature. I am telling you now that you couldn't find a single reputable economist who says higher taxes are better for the economy.
I will repost some of the literature I mentioned earlier. (Page 7)
"““This tax induced distortion in economic behavior results in a net efficiency loss to the whole economy, commonly referred to as the ‘excess burden of taxation,’ even if the government engages in exactly the same activities—and with the same degree of efficiency—as the private sector with the tax revenue so raised.”
The Journal of Monetary Economics found: “[T]here is substantial crowding out of private spending by government spending.…[P]ermanent changes in government spending lead to a negative wealth effect.”
"A National Bureau of Economic Research paper stated: “[A] 10 percent balanced budget increase in government spending and taxation is predicted to reduce output growth by 1.4 percentage points per annum, a number comparable in magnitude to results from the one-sector theoretical models in King and Robello.”“

Tax cuts for the rich is a diservice to everyone, because the non-rich are then paying a heavier burden. While the Rich get to upgrade from a Benz S class to a Benz S class AMG.
Meanwhile revenue is decreasing as well as social programs that do work don't get proper allocation of resources to them and the elitist rich get to buy another vacation home. OH yeah, really fair.

If the rich aren’t buying the nice car, then doesn’t that mean that some business that hires people is losing money? Doesn’t that mean that those rich people can’t pay the yacht maker who hires all those middle/low income people? Your analysis of our economy far too shallow. Just because the rich people spend their money doesn’t mean it is a bad thing. Our economy benefits from the rich, the poor, and the middle class spending and investing their money.
The proper allocation of resources is almost never achieved by government spending more (unless you are a "Naive Keynesian, which I can critique as well). Government is inherently inefficient economically. If you give more money to private consumers they are more likely to spend the money to maximize their economic gains. This is what leads to economic growth. Markets seek efficiency; politicians seek to maximize their political strength.

Waiting for the link to your 79% support of all schools of economists and scholars..

If we are planning on demanding sources, I want a (reliable) source that says higher taxes are good for the economy vs cutting taxes and cutting spending.

Let's see, all that's needed by your system is for everyone that makes under 40K to make a dollar and your system will be bankrupt practically overnight..

The poverty level isn't under 40k. With the NIT there is still the incentive to work. You can choose to make $1 and right now you can choose to do that and receive welfare payments. How many people currently do that now just to be eligible for food stamps? The reason is simple, people are better off earning an income (for the most part) than receiving welfare benefits. A negative income tax does not provide income up to the point of poverty. It provides it at a rate that is not 100%. Your point is non-unique. Every governmental program can be and has been manipulated. However, that doesn't mean it wouldn't provide a net benefit in efficiency.

I could cite a page number too. I'm waiting on your actual text not some page number. a link would be nice.

Okay, you must then understand that I want sources on your part that:
1. Suggest higher taxation of any group is more desirable economically.
2. Prove there would be more manipulation under welfare programs more so with an NIT than with our current batch of programs.
3. Find a source that our current welfare programs would be more efficient than a NIT. I will post the sources you demand in my next post.

 

[Iriemon]

"In summary, even in the absence of tax cuts or any military buildup, we would still have had exploding deficits because of inflation-swollen entitlements, inflation boosted interest rates, and post-inflation effect on tax revenues. "
The Debt and the Deficit. I can find the original source of the article if this does not suffice. I do not want to suggest that Reagan should not be blamed at all.

Deficits exploded from 74 billion in 1980 (after a decade of high inflation) to over $200 billon in 1983 (a time when inflation was falling rapidly). The national debt more than doubled during Reagans term.

To suggest that the Reagan deficits were mostly because of entitlements if pure bullshit.


That is actual literature. I am telling you now that you couldn't find a single reputable economist who says higher taxes are better for the economy. [/qutoe]

Meanwhile, studies by economists at the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional Budget Office, the Brookings Institution, and elsewhere have found that if tax cuts are not paid for with spending reductions, they are likely to have modest negative effects on the economy over time, because of the negative effects of the increased deficits.

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm

If we are planning on demanding sources, I want a (reliable) source that says higher taxes are good for the economy vs cutting taxes and cutting spending.

How about a source that says that borrowing $1/2 a trillion a year is not good for the economy?