Tax and Spend and Spend and Spend some more

[craig]

Biden is considering a major federal tax increase for the first time in nearly 30 years, report says

President Joe Biden is preparing to include a federal tax increase in his next big economic package, according to a Bloomberg report on Monday.

People familiar with the matter told the outlet that the Biden administration is working on a follow-up spending bill to the recently-enacted $1.9 trillion coronavirus stimulus. The initiative is expected to have a bigger price-tag, and may raise the corporate tax rate and the income tax rate for high-earning individuals to offset the spending, Bloomberg reported.

The move would represent the first major federal tax hike in nearly 30 years, per Bloomberg. The last significant tax increases were implemented in 1993 under the Clinton administration.

Sources with knowledge of the private discussions told Bloomberg that current ideas involve raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, bumping up the income tax rate for individuals who earn more than $400,000 per year, increasing the capital-gains tax rate for individuals who earn at least $1 million per year, expanding the estate tax, and "paring back" tax preferences for pass-through businesses, which are not subject to corporate taxes, such as limited liability companies. https://www.businessinsider.com/bid...l-tax-increase-almost-3-decades-report-2021-3

The tax hikes are not nearly as alarming as the "next big economic package." WHY do we need another "big economic package??" Thanks!!

Biden should also repeal the middle class tax cut sunset that Trump installed in his tax bill.

 

[switt]

Elections have consequences.

Don't tax but spend and spend some more.

 

[Tbird19482]

I get the feeling that no one on this forum really wants to do more than argue Left vs Right.
My posts #246 and #248 should have answered your first question, and the answer to your second question would be that there would no longer be any Federal transfer of money to/from States.

Did you miss "Ilhan Omar, Alexandra Ocasio Cortez and Maxine Waters are claiming that a 0.1% tax of that type would produce close to $1 trillion in revenue to the Treasury, with Elizabeth Warren appearing to agree, and if they're correct, a greater tax less than 1% would be able to cover the entire Federal spending budget."

I don't think the states would go by your plan, they are not going to collect taxes for the Fed.without getting paid for it and I am sure one state will want more then another
unless they settled on paying the states on a per person collection fee
and as for the .1% tax. We would have to get rid of ALL deductions and everybody would pay taxes on everything they earned that would include companies also. every co.and NO deductions for any thing.
what they take in , EX Ford Motor takes in 5 Billion dollars they would pay on every cent of that NO deductions
and I think it would have to be higher , maybe 1 or 2%
as I said before I think we need to redo the tax laws and have a Balanced Budget amend, with teeth in it what we take in is all we can spend and there would be 2 exceptions , the first one would be if we went into a war like WWII and the other one would to help us get out of a deep recession / depression
and a 1% sales tax just to pay off the debt and when it was paid off the tax would be suspended and could NOT be put back on unless we had a war or depression where we had to run a debt
Have a nice night

 

[Individual]

I don't think the states would go by your plan, they are not going to collect taxes for the Fed.without getting paid for it and I am sure one state will want more then another
unless they settled on paying the states on a per person collection fee
and as for the .1% tax. We would have to get rid of ALL deductions and everybody would pay taxes on everything they earned that would include companies also. every co.and NO deductions for any thing.
what they take in , EX Ford Motor takes in 5 Billion dollars they would pay on every cent of that NO deductions
and I think it would have to be higher , maybe 1 or 2%
as I said before I think we need to redo the tax laws and have a Balanced Budget amend, with teeth in it what we take in is all we can spend and there would be 2 exceptions , the first one would be if we went into a war like WWII and the other one would to help us get out of a deep recession / depression
and a 1% sales tax just to pay off the debt and when it was paid off the tax would be suspended and could NOT be put back on unless we had a war or depression where we had to run a debt
Have a nice night

I'm unable to make much sense from what you've posted, though I do basically agree on what you said about a Balanced Budget, which what I'm proposing would accomplish without need of an amendment to our constitution for that purpose.

 

[Individual]

I don't think the states would go by your plan, they are not going to collect taxes for the Fed.without getting paid for it and I am sure one state will want more then another
unless they settled on paying the states on a per person collection fee
and as for the .1% tax. We would have to get rid of ALL deductions and everybody would pay taxes on everything they earned that would include companies also. every co.and NO deductions for any thing.
what they take in , EX Ford Motor takes in 5 Billion dollars they would pay on every cent of that NO deductions
and I think it would have to be higher , maybe 1 or 2%
as I said before I think we need to redo the tax laws and have a Balanced Budget amend, with teeth in it what we take in is all we can spend and there would be 2 exceptions , the first one would be if we went into a war like WWII and the other one would to help us get out of a deep recession / depression
and a 1% sales tax just to pay off the debt and when it was paid off the tax would be suspended and could NOT be put back on unless we had a war or depression where we had to run a debt
Have a nice night

I think the States would welcome the plan as it would in most every, if NOT every, instance reduce the money flowing from States to the Federal government.

 

[notquiteright]

one off, one off, could, might , may....

Not even close to 'most'. SOME economists think the stimulus might be too big.... ✌

 

[Logophile]

Not even close to 'most'. SOME economists think the stimulus might be too big.... ✌

It's already too expensive, but the upcoming seems outrageous. Thanks!!

 

[notquiteright]

It's already too expensive, but the upcoming seems outrageous. Thanks!!

I wish I could say I'm surprise that after a change of control of the federal government suddenly the fiscal conservatives pop back up. They seemed to have no problem upsetting the budget with tax cut after tax cut. When BushII was in office the GOP approved massive spending on wars without a method to pay for them, tax cuts with no counterbalance and then a bailout with again no method to pay for it. tRump had the GOP in lock step with his massive payouts (with checks bearing his name).

Now it's too expensive and outrageous... ✌

 

[Logophile]

I wish I could say I'm surprise that after a change of control of the federal government suddenly the fiscal conservatives pop back up. They seemed to have no problem upsetting the budget with tax cut after tax cut. When BushII was in office the GOP approved massive spending on wars without a method to pay for them, tax cuts with no counterbalance and then a bailout with again no method to pay for it. tRump had the GOP in lock step with his massive payouts (with checks bearing his name).

Now it's too expensive and outrageous... ✌

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have been fiscally responsible in recent decades. Biden is just following suit. Thanks!!

 

[MTAtech]

I wish I could say I'm surprise that after a change of control of the federal government suddenly the fiscal conservatives pop back up. They seemed to have no problem upsetting the budget with tax cut after tax cut. When BushII was in office the GOP approved massive spending on wars without a method to pay for them, tax cuts with no counterbalance and then a bailout with again no method to pay for it. tRump had the GOP in lock step with his massive payouts (with checks bearing his name).

Now it's too expensive and outrageous... ✌

Everyone, including Republicans, agree that infrastructure is a need. Yet, they object to raising taxes or borrowing to pay for the spending, which means they don’t think infrastructure is necessary.

 

[MTAtech]

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have been fiscally responsible in recent decades. Biden is just following suit. Thanks!!

How do you define fiscally responsible? The ACA included taxes to pay for it.

The Republican 2017 tax cuts cut revenue and there was no corresponding decrease in spending.

It seems only the Republicans are fiscally irresponsible. They’re fiscal and deficit hawks when Democrats are in office. Then, when they are in charge, they don’t care about deficits.

 

[Tbird19482]

I think the States would welcome the plan as it would in most every, if NOT every, instance reduce the money flowing from States to the Federal government.

IF it did I would be all for it and I think the states would too
states like NY who have been paying more into the Fed. and getting less back for years and years would love to have more of their money back
but I don't think states like KY who get something like 65% of their total state budget back from the Fed. will like it at all
they would have to raise their state taxes to cover what they get back from the fed,
Have a nice day

 

[notquiteright]

Everyone, including Republicans, agree that infrastructure is a need. Yet, they object to raising taxes or borrowing to pay for the spending, which means they don’t think infrastructure is necessary.

They weren't so worried when BushII or tRump were in office...

So with massive red ink, objections to raising revenue and a bane on doing what they were doing for 2 Republican administrations just how serious are the Republicans on upgrading infrastructure???? ✌

 

[Logophile]

They weren't so worried when BushII or tRump were in office...

So with massive red ink, objections to raising revenue and a bane on doing what they were doing for 2 Republican administrations just how serious are the Republicans on upgrading infrastructure???? ✌

I don't understand what difference it makes whether the Republicans added to the deficit or not. They certainly did. It didn't make it right, anymore than it makes it right NOW when we had to spend so much to see ourselves through the pandemic. We did. Now's the time to address putting a plan in place to pay back that deficit, not spend more. Thanks!!

 

[j brown's body]

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have been fiscally responsible in recent decades. Biden is just following suit. Thanks!!

Democrats are doing okay:

"In the short term, according to the report, traditional infrastructure spending has a “multiplier” effect of 1.5. In other words, every dollar invested in infrastructure corresponds with $1.50 increase in the gross domestic product. Overall, Moody’s projects, the plan would translates to a 3.8 percent increase in GDP by 2024, compared with just a 2.2 percent increase if the plan fails to become law. Unemployment is also projected to decrease to 3.5 percent by the end of 2024. (Rather than adding 11.4 million jobs under current trajectories, Moody’s predicts the plan would result in 13.5 million jobs added.) Over the next decade, the plan would result in 18.9 million jobs added, compared to 16.3 million without it."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/04/selling-jobs-plan-what-we-will-get-2t/

 

[Individual]

IF it did I would be all for it and I think the states would too
states like NY who have been paying more into the Fed. and getting less back for years and years would love to have more of their money back
but I don't think states like KY who get something like 65% of their total state budget back from the Fed. will like it at all
they would have to raise their state taxes to cover what they get back from the fed,
Have a nice day

My primary goal is to totally eliminate Federal government redistribution of tax revenues.
Money needed to be spent by State governments should not leave the State to the Federal government only to be returned by the Federal government to the State it came from, plus money from other States and money borrowed by the Federal government in the form of debt owed by the tax payers in each State.

 

[Individual]

I don't understand what difference it makes whether the Republicans added to the deficit or not. They certainly did. It didn't make it right, anymore than it makes it right NOW when we had to spend so much to see ourselves through the pandemic. We did. Now's the time to address putting a plan in place to pay back that deficit, not spend more. Thanks!!

We need to eliminate, or at least reduce deficits. Once deficits occur they become debt, and we haven't paid back any of that since Eisenhower was President.
IMO, the solution to eliminating Federal deficit spending would be to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, returning the Senate to being representatives of the State governments, with the House being representatives of the people, requiring the Federal government to tax individuals INDIRECTLY, but equally as originally proscribed in our Constitution, which would return the Senate to being a check on the House spending demands relative to the State governments ability to tax their citizens to provide their fair share of the Federal budget without having to borrow.

 

[Individual]

Democrats are doing okay:

"In the short term, according to the report, traditional infrastructure spending has a “multiplier” effect of 1.5. In other words, every dollar invested in infrastructure corresponds with $1.50 increase in the gross domestic product. Overall, Moody’s projects, the plan would translates to a 3.8 percent increase in GDP by 2024, compared with just a 2.2 percent increase if the plan fails to become law. Unemployment is also projected to decrease to 3.5 percent by the end of 2024. (Rather than adding 11.4 million jobs under current trajectories, Moody’s predicts the plan would result in 13.5 million jobs added.) Over the next decade, the plan would result in 18.9 million jobs added, compared to 16.3 million without it."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/04/selling-jobs-plan-what-we-will-get-2t/

Can't access the link.

 

[Logophile]

We need to eliminate, or at least reduce deficits. Once deficits occur they become debt, and we haven't paid back any of that since Eisenhower was President.
IMO, the solution to eliminating Federal deficit spending would be to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, returning the Senate to being representatives of the State governments, with the House being representatives of the people, requiring the Federal government to tax individuals INDIRECTLY, but equally as originally proscribed in our Constitution, which would return the Senate to being a check on the House spending demands relative to the State governments ability to tax their citizens to provide their fair share of the Federal budget without having to borrow.

I have followed your posts and think you are making sense in the repeal. I prefer a federal sales tax in as much as it seems more doable. Your plan requires repeals which are hard to come by, given the fed strangle hold on power. Thanks!!

 

[Individual]

I have followed your posts and think you are making sense in the repeal. I prefer a federal sales tax in as much as it seems more doable. Your plan requires repeals which are hard to come by, given the fed strangle hold on power. Thanks!!

What I'm proposing would IMO, have little, if any, effect on how the Fed operates, though it's something open for discussion, as is everything else about how we might improve our tax system for the benefit rather than the detriment of future generations.

 

[rickc]

We need to eliminate, or at least reduce deficits. Once deficits occur they become debt, and we haven't paid back any of that since Eisenhower was President.
IMO, the solution to eliminating Federal deficit spending would be to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, returning the Senate to being representatives of the State governments, with the House being representatives of the people, requiring the Federal government to tax individuals INDIRECTLY, but equally as originally proscribed in our Constitution, which would return the Senate to being a check on the House spending demands relative to the State governments ability to tax their citizens to provide their fair share of the Federal budget without having to borrow.

So reset our tax code back to pre-Reagan rates when all this tax cuts for the rich and borrow the money to pay for it.

 

[Individual]

So reset our tax code back to pre-Reagan rates when all this tax cuts for the rich and borrow the money to pay for it.

View attachment 67326722

View attachment 67326723

Actually, I'm looking for something closer to being a long term solution than what you're suggesting, but thank you anyway.

 

[jonny5]

I wish I could say I'm surprise that after a change of control of the federal government suddenly the fiscal conservatives pop back up. They seemed to have no problem upsetting the budget with tax cut after tax cut. When BushII was in office the GOP approved massive spending on wars without a method to pay for them, tax cuts with no counterbalance and then a bailout with again no method to pay for it. tRump had the GOP in lock step with his massive payouts (with checks bearing his name).

Now it's too expensive and outrageous... ✌

So it was bad when they did it or ok?

 

[Tbird19482]

My primary goal is to totally eliminate Federal government redistribution of tax revenues.
Money needed to be spent by State governments should not leave the State to the Federal government only to be returned by the Federal government to the State it came from, plus money from other States and money borrowed by the Federal government in the form of debt owed by the tax payers in each State.

I agree it should never leave the state BUT it will never fly because as soon as some of the poorer red states figure out they won't be getting money back from the fed. money that came from blue states and they would have to raise their state taxes to cover what they have now or cut their state benefits
and they are not going to go for that as long as they can get the Blue states to keep funding their state budget they will
Have a nice day

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

They can raise taxes and it won't do any good unless they cut spending
it is time to have a Balanced Budget Amend. and have it have some real teeth in it.
We could not spend more then we take in , Only in two cases could we and it would have to be bad.
One , in case of a war like WWII , where we would need to build military equip. fast and we didn't have the money and the other would be in case of a really deep recession or Depression where we would need to spend our way out of it.
Then I think we should have a Temporary national sales tax of 1% ( YES I know our past record of so called " Temp " taxes where they never go away isn't very good )
and have it so when the National debt is paid off the would HAVE to be suspended by law and could not be used again unless we ran a debt because of a war or great recession / depression
as I said these things would have to have some teeth in them and the law should be very strict so we HAVE to suspend the sales tax and it would have to be Temporary and there should be NO!!!! getting around it
Have a nice evening

I'm a fiscal hawk and I agree with what you say here. The only time deficit spending should be utilized is during war time or a national emergency that threatens our nation. Unfortunately. the country has been decimated economically due to Trump's malfeasance in handling the pandemic. And all the aggregate economic damage that incurred as a direct result.

I think Biden's stimulus bill is wayyy too much for our country to absorb unless their is major belt tightening...in particulate the bloated military.

Would also like to see a huge wealth tax implemented on the mega wealthy, who collectively profited dearly during the pandemic. Remember, all deficit spending ends up in the hands of the monetary elite. Always has and always will.