To pay america's debt everybody sacrifice well not everybody?

[Catawba]

The incessant bickering for I don't know how many pages of this thread was about the richest millionth of Americans whose effective tax rate is lower because of low capital gains taxes. So I inferred you want that raised. Do you?

Yes, and the loopholes that allow them to avoid taxes by placing money in offshore accounts should be eliminated as well. The middle class can no longer afford to continue shouldering their tax burden.

 

[oldreliable67]

"The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts."
- Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695.
Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the same source:

Federal revenues include revenue from different taxes that were cut, stayed the same, or were raised. For example, the Social Security FICA tax rate stayed the same while the maximum income subject to the tax was increased each year, resulting in a tax increase for those earning more than the previous limit.[56] Social Security tax revenues increased each and every year. Including increasing tax revenues from taxes that stayed the same or were increased hides the magnitude of the revenue decrease in taxes that were cut. Income tax rates were cut and income tax revenues were lower than the FY2000 level each and every fiscal year from 2001–2005, a cumulative revenue decrease of $640 billion (measured in nominal dollars). But, by 2006 revenues exceeded the 2000 level. Likewise Corporate income tax rates were cut and revenues were lower than the FY2000 level each and every fiscal year from 2001-2004. But, by 2005 the inflation adjusted take exceeded that of 2000 by over 20%, and by 2006 nearly 50% higher.

[emphasis added]

"University of Michigan economist Joel Slemrod is adamant on one of the key economic issues of our day: 'Tax cuts don't pay for themselves! Period!'

Hardly any economist would disagree. This is true for Republicans as well as Democrats. It is also true regardless of whether they describe themselves as NeoClassical, New Classical, Rational Expectations, Monetarist, Keynesian, Austrian or New Institutional economists. "
Economists agree:* Tax cuts don't create revenue

From the same source:

This does not mean these scholars advocate high taxes or big government. They simply reject the gimmicky idea that cutting tax rates will raise revenues.

It is hard to find a more articulate critic of government playing a large role in the economy or a stronger advocate of lower taxes than V.V. Chari, one of the most respected contemporary "neoclassical" economists. Chari has served as a Federal Reserve economist and headed the econ department at the University of Minnesota. But as he noted on a Minnesota Public Radio show last year, smaller government and lower taxes require actual cuts in government spending.

Here is my point: it is clear in the minds of many that tax cuts in and of themselves do not, in the short run (i.e., first order effects), increase tax revenues. I agree with this view in the general sense. However, as you can see from your own citations that there are those who disagree, especially when measuring over the longer term. Of course it's not unanimous; nothing is ever unanimous with economists.

As you saw from my previous post, analysis of IRS data over the interval 1955-2008 generally, though weakly IMO, supported the supply-side proposition. More specifically, that analysis supports the proposition that spending growth is the primary culprit for our current deficit situation rather than tax cuts. (Note: you might have been better served by more examation data over varying starting and ending dates, as indicated by one of your cites. Just my opinion.)

Furthermore, in another post, I cited a study of numerous previous fiscal consolidations, their causes and their cures. The far and away dominant successful strategy was to cut spending by a lot and raise taxes by modest targeted amounts. The successful strategies did not employ 'soak the rich' tax increase. You can refer to the cite for specifics, or if you wish, I'll post them-just let me know.

To summarize, my reading and study strongly suggests to me that spending is the dominant problem, while tax rates play a stronger but lesser role. The single most important tax rate is the overall effective tax rate, not the highest marginal rate. If true, that means that for federal income taxes, the structure of brackets and the allowed deductions become all-important. State and local taxes, FICA, and all the other components that are part of one's total taxable bite must be considered as well.

Out of time...more later.

 

[oldreliable67]

Yes, and the loopholes that allow them to avoid taxes by placing money in offshore accounts should be eliminated as well. The middle class can no longer afford to continue shouldering their tax burden.

A quick note then gotta go> note the above sentence about 'their tax burden.' Confusing, at least to me. Just exactly to whom is 'their' referring?

 

[Catawba]

From the same source:


[emphasis added]




From the same source:



Here is my point: it is clear in the minds of many that tax cuts in and of themselves do not, in the short run (i.e., first order effects), increase tax revenues. I agree with this view in the general sense. However, as you can see from your own citations that there are those who disagree, especially when measuring over the longer term. Of course it's not unanimous; nothing is ever unanimous with economists.

As you saw from my previous post, analysis of IRS data over the interval 1955-2008 generally, though weakly IMO, supported the supply-side proposition. More specifically, that analysis supports the proposition that spending growth is the primary culprit for our current deficit situation rather than tax cuts. (Note: you might have been better served by more examation data over varying starting and ending dates, as indicated by one of your cites. Just my opinion.)

Furthermore, in another post, I cited a study of numerous previous fiscal consolidations, their causes and their cures. The far and away dominant successful strategy was to cut spending by a lot and raise taxes by modest targeted amounts. The successful strategies did not employ 'soak the rich' tax increase. You can refer to the cite for specifics, or if you wish, I'll post them-just let me know.

To summarize, my reading and study strongly suggests to me that spending is the dominant problem, while tax rates play a stronger but lesser role. The single most important tax rate is the overall effective tax rate, not the highest marginal rate. If true, that means that for federal income taxes, the structure of brackets and the allowed deductions become all-important. State and local taxes, FICA, and all the other components that are part of one's total taxable bite must be considered as well.

Out of time...more later.

I have always maintained that spending is a big part of the problem. Since both spending excessively and cuts to our revenue created our deficit spending, it will take both spending cuts and tax increases to correct our deficit spending. And the great majority of economists say agree the way to increase revenues is to increase taxes.

 

[Catawba]

A quick note then gotta go> note the above sentence about 'their tax burden.' Confusing, at least to me. Just exactly to whom is 'their' referring?

The middle class (22%) pay a higher percentage of income in federal taxes than the uber rich (16.6%).

 

[TurtleDude]

The middle class (22%) pay a higher percentage of income in federal taxes than the uber rich (16.6%).

so 400 people should dictate tax policy on several million? that is both stupid and deserves a who cares

those top 400 pay millions upon millions in taxes while many in the middle class pay no federal income tax

here is something from the left leaning Brookings institute

it shows that in 1979 the effective rate on the top one percent was 21.8 while the bottom quintile had an effective income tax rate of ZERO

in 2007 the top one percent dropped to 19% (that includes the massive incomes that the uber wealthy make) but the bottom quintile had dropped to an effective rate of NEGATIVE 6.8% the second lowest quintile (21-40) many solid middle class people there went from 4.1% down to NEGATIVE .4%

the third quintile (41-60) went from 7.5% to 4.4%

in other words, the middle class and lower classes had far more tax cuts in terms of percentages than the rich

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

your 22% claim about federal income taxes appears to be incorrect Catawba the middle three quintiles paid in 2007, NEGATIVE .4%, 3.3% and 6.2% the highest quintile paid 14.4%

 

[TurtleDude]

I have always maintained that spending is a big part of the problem. Since both spending excessively and cuts to our revenue created our deficit spending, it will take both spending cuts and tax increases to correct our deficit spending. And the great majority of economists say agree the way to increase revenues is to increase taxes.

but what those economists ignore is the secondary impact of only increasing taxes on the rich and how that leads the rest of the nation to continue demanding more spending

right now the bottom 80% of Americans pay an extremely low effective rate yet they clearly use a majority of the resources paid for by income taxes

 

[Neomalthusian]

Here's something I can just stare at for a while. I'll withhold any of my own opinions for now, but suffice it to say the liberal response whenever I post it tends to insist upon honing in on what happened between 1998 and 2002 as though these numbers are reducible to who the President is, and tend not to look at the last couple of years, let alone the odd looking projections into the next 5 or so years. I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts, since this is a thread about national debt.

 

[haymarket]

from Turtle dude

Those top 400 pay millions upon millions in taxes while many in the middle class pay no federal income tax

And we have a Republican administration to thank for that. Obviously this is a political party trying to buy the votes of the non taxpayers to empower them by creating a dependent class as Turtle and others have claimed. They only got the party wrong as its the Republicans who are the blame for those 47%.

 

[TurtleDude]

from Turtle dude




And we have a Republican administration to thank for that. Obviously this is a political party trying to buy the votes of the non taxpayers to empower them by creating a dependent class as Turtle and others have claimed. They only got the party wrong as its the Republicans who are the blame for those 47%.

that is really stupid. the uber wealthy tend to vote dem-they want more power and the dems tend to concentrate power and centralize it making it easier for the uber wealthy to control it.

YOu just make crap up that has no basis in fact. Its your party that needs loads of dependent sloths beholden to the government

 

[haymarket]

check out reality Turtle

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/99662-brief-history-bush-tax-cuts.html

Does the name GEORGE BUSH REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT mean anything to you?

In case you do not recognize the technique I am employing here, it is called using historical evidence to supports ones position. You should try it sometime.

 

[TurtleDude]

I guess you don't pay attention

dropping people off the income tax rolls was a huge mistake

but it was you dems who pushed the income redistributionist welfare state onto us

BTW Did you ever answer those questions about why you think the capital gains tax should go way up

(other than being mad over the uber wealthy not paying as much as you think they should)?

 

[haymarket]

from Turtle

dropping people off the income tax rolls was a huge mistake

made by a REPUBLICAN administration

but it was you dems who pushed the income redistributionist welfare state onto us

So no Republicans voted for those programs that you hate so much? Yet again, you show how little you know about history as it occurred. All the programs you hate had bi-partisan support going back to Social Security.

 

[TurtleDude]

from Turtle



made by a REPUBLICAN administration



So no Republicans voted for those programs that you hate so much? Yet again, you show how little you know about history as it occurred. All the programs you hate had bi-partisan support going back to Social Security.

I don't work for any party and thus I bash any party when it does stupid stuff. and that was stupid of bush but it was the only way the dems were gonna not block the more needed tax cuts on the overtaxed part of the population

its like sunsetting the tax cuts-that was to get the dems to vote for it

 

[haymarket]

You certainly do work for a party. All your posts and trying to convince people the conservative way is the best only benefits the GOP.

Why is it when I or someone else pins you in a corner you attempt to get out by invoking subtleties and realities of a situation but at other times you rail against Dems and progressives like everything is chiseled in stone and the Dems are all evil and Republicans played no role at all in anything except good things? This blatant bouncing back and forth on your part evidences a willingness top play fast and loose with the facts and you attempt to make it up as you go along.

 

[Catawba]

so 400 people should dictate tax policy on several million?

In addition to spending cuts, everyone has to begin pulling their weight again if we are ever to pay down our debt.

those top 400 pay millions upon millions in taxes while many in the middle class pay no federal income tax

The only ones in the middle class that pays no Federal income tax is too poor to pay them. If you wish too be to poor to pay no federal income taxes, knock yourself out!

 

[Catawba]

but what those economists ignore is the secondary impact of only increasing taxes on the rich and how that leads the rest of the nation to continue demanding more spending

They don't consider that or other ideological flights of fance because they have studied the US economy through history and are aware that did not happen when tax rates were much higher than they are today.

 

[Missed AB]

In addition to spending cuts, everyone has to begin pulling their weight again if we are ever to pay down our debt. The only ones in the middle class that pays no Federal income tax is too poor to pay them. If you wish too be to poor to pay no federal income taxes, knock yourself out!

According to the biased MSNBC Half of Americans pay no federal income tax - Business - Eye on the Economy - Personal finance - msnbc.com

The biased huffington post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/income-tax-47-of-american_n_529059.html

I hear NPR is "liberal"... Who Pays Taxes? Not As Many As You Think : NPR

According to the more center CNN 47% of households owe no tax - and their ranks are growing - Sep. 30, 2009

That is not true. The only reason one is too poor to pay federal income tax is because they are living outside their means. If someone is earning 50K/year and can't pay 1 dollar in federal income tax, that is disgusting.

I am so tired of hearing people saying they want the "rich" to pay more. Then they say what they really mean is the "super rich". Those 13,000 people paid more taxes than the lower 57% of Americans which was something like 60 million people, and their total income was dwarfed by the 60 million.

 

[TurtleDude]

In addition to spending cuts, everyone has to begin pulling their weight again if we are ever to pay down our debt.




The only ones in the middle class that pays no Federal income tax is too poor to pay them. If you wish too be to poor to pay no federal income taxes, knock yourself out!

It takes a special kind of ignorance of reality to claim that billionaires aren't paying their fair share when each one pays more income taxes than 65 or more million of others

You whine that they pay 16.6% but that is much higher than the average american. Most of those people are NOT TO POOR to pay income tax. They just don't want to

 

[TurtleDude]

They don't consider that or other ideological flights of fance because they have studied the US economy through history and are aware that did not happen when tax rates were much higher than they are today.

yeah and their solutions have left us WHERE?

economics-where the real world is an "Exception" to their rules

 

[haymarket]

from Turtle

Most of those people are NOT TO POOR to pay income tax.

What does that statement mean. They are "not to poor". What is that they are NOT TO POOR? This statement makes no sense at all.

 

[TurtleDude]

from Turtle



What does that statement mean. They are "not to poor". What is that they are NOT TO POOR? This statement makes no sense at all.

its pretty easy to understand if one is not blinded by screw the rich class envy


most of those who do not pay any federal income tax are able to pay some federal income tax

most people in that group have cell phones, tv sets and other non essential items. they can pay some taxes

and as i noted if they cannot pay anything, they should not be imposing costs on others by demanding more stuff from others.

of course you oppose that because those people tend to vote dem to keep the public teat full of milk

 

[haymarket]

its pretty easy to understand if one is not blinded by screw the rich class envy


most of those who do not pay any federal income tax are able to pay some federal income tax

most people in that group have cell phones, tv sets and other non essential items. they can pay some taxes

and as i noted if they cannot pay anything, they should not be imposing costs on others by demanding more stuff from others.

of course you oppose that because those people tend to vote dem to keep the public teat full of milk

OH!!!!!! You meant to say that they are NOT TOO POOR to pay income tax while instead you said NOT TO POOR. You did not know the difference in common usage of the two letter word TO with the three letter word TOO.

What was the name of that supposed Ivy League Institution you spent time in again? Did they teach you basic English there? Did you fail to learn the difference between TO and TOO. Or are those TWO words that you still find confusing?

 

[TurtleDude]

OH!!!!!! You meant to say that they are NOT TOO POOR to pay income tax while instead you said NOT TO POOR. You did not know the difference in common usage of the two letter word TO with the three letter word TOO.

What was the name of that supposed Ivy League Institution you spent time in again? Did they teach you basic English there? Did you fail to learn the difference between TO and TOO. Or are those TWO words that you still find confusing?

what mindless blather

 

[haymarket]

what mindless blather

But failure to use English properly is somehow not? Amazing. We live in an age where one in obvious error accuses the one who corrects the error of being mindless!!! The inmates have indeed taken over the asylum.