Why Isn't Congress Moving Legislation During the Lame Duck Session to Fix the Debt Limit Issue

[iguanaman]

Hmm… if federal income tax law is changed so that it takes $4 of CEO bonus funding to net $1 in CEO bonus pay then how would that help convince corporations to reduce (rather than increase) their CEO bonus funding?

LOL You think people like paying 75% to the Govt.? They didn't last time rates were that high.

CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,322% since 1978 CEOs were paid 351 times as much as a typical worker in 2020​

https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2021/

CEO Pay Continues to Rise as Typical Workers Are Paid Less​

https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/

 

[iguanaman]

Yeah no.
Your premise is just as flawed as the far rights trickle down theory.

Taxing income over 1 million isn't going to make me pay my employees more..or give better benefits...in fact it's going to cause the opposite.

So you are going to give 75% of your pay to the Govt.? LOL You must be kidding. The punitive postwar top tax rates were the reason for the amazing growth of our middle class after WWII. Employers shared their increased profits with their workers instead of paying those high rates to the govt. Just look at all boats rising together and then....Reagan came along and the middle class dream was over. They basically have not had a raise since Reagan slashed that top rate. All the increased profits are going to the top 5%.

 

[jaeger19]

So you are going to give 75% of your pay to the Govt.? LOL You must be kidding. The punitive postwar top tax rates were the reason for the amazing growth of our middle class after WWII. Employers shared their increased profits with their workers instead of paying those high rates to the govt. Just look at all boats rising together and then....Reagan came along and the middle class dream was over. They basically have not had a raise since Reagan slashed that top rate.

Well... I simply won't expand my business if the reward for the risk is to small.
Why make over 1 million and bust hump if it's not worth it?
And certainly not give it to workers.
What happens the next year if I make less?
Then I have to cut wages because my tax liability dropped.
Pretty bad idea
( we have been over this a lot. Your premise doesn't hold water).
Post war wages went up because of unionization. And because of worker shortage as women left the workforce.
As unionization decreased and more women re entered the workforce the increase in worker supply combined with decreased worker organization led to stagnant wages.

Wages are not based on income taxes. They can't be.

 

[iguanaman]

Well... I simply won't expand my business if the reward for the risk is to small.
Why make over 1 million and bust hump if it's not worth it?
And certainly not give it to workers.
What happens the next year if I make less?
Then I have to cut wages because my tax liability dropped.
Pretty bad idea
( we have been over this a lot. Your premise doesn't hold water).
Post war wages went up because of unionization. And because of worker shortage as women left the workforce.
As unionization decreased and more women re entered the workforce the increase in worker supply combined with decreased worker organization led to stagnant wages.

Wages are not based on income taxes. They can't be.

Businesses put money back into their companies as well as their workers and our economy had GDP growth that we can only dream about. Greed can be regulated and punitive top tax rates are one way to do it. You cannot deny that graph or the fact that wages have not kept pace with profits since we abandoned those rates. No one needs more that a million a year in income either. Have you ever even wondered what they were thinking when they put top rates at 95%? Do you think they thought people would pay those rates?

 

[jaeger19]

Businesses put money back into their companies as well as their workers and our economy had GDP growth that we can only dream about. Greed can be regulated and punitive top tax rates are one way to do it. You cannot deny that graph or the fact that wages have not kept pace with profits since we abandoned those rates. No one needs more that a million a year in income either. Have you ever even wondered what they were thinking when they put top rates at 95%? Do you think they thought people would pay those rates?

Sure...and you put that money back into the company with the expectation.." OF A GREATER RETURN".
It's called an investment.
I put in 200000 into my company with the expectation that the investment will gain me more than 200000. Otherwise it's a loss.
I don't deny wages had stagnated..( they aren't now)..
I deny your premise that it's because of income taxes.
Yes..I have thought why they put in MARGINAL rates of 95%.
It was great propoganda for the poor and middle class rubes..that didn't realize that the rich made way more than a million but because of tax loopholes..their taxable income was below the threshold ..
Meanwhile the poor and middle class...that didn't have the loopholes and deductions...paid way more in income taxes than they do now. But I am sure in part they were okay with it because they thought the rich were paying 95%.. hah.

And people still bite on it today. Today's taxes are actually more progressive.

 

[iguanaman]

Sure...and you put that money back into the company with the expectation.." OF A GREATER RETURN".
It's called an investment.
I put in 200000 into my company with the expectation that the investment will gain me more than 200000. Otherwise it's a loss.
I don't deny wages had stagnated..( they aren't now)..
I deny your premise that it's because of income taxes.
Yes..I have thought why they put in MARGINAL rates of 95%.
It was great propoganda for the poor and middle class rubes..that didn't realize that the rich made way more than a million but because of tax loopholes..their taxable income was below the threshold ..
Meanwhile the poor and middle class...that didn't have the loopholes and deductions...paid way more in income taxes than they do now. But I am sure in part they were okay with it because they thought the rich were paying 95%.. hah.

And people still bite on it today. Today's taxes are actually more progressive.

So the massive increases in CEO to employee salary ratios that has occured since executives could keep most of what they took out of profits is just a coincidence and would have happened even if we had kept the punitive top rates? I don't think you can prove that.

 

[jonny5]

Tax cuts can very much add to the debt.
If you were to decide to take a 10% pay cut while you were already living above your means.. you debt would certainly increase.
We most certainly have both a revenue problem AND a spending problem.
Take a look at your graph.

"while you were already living above your means" is the key part. Thats spending, thats caused debt. A pay cut does not cause debt. Spending above you pay does. We do not have a revenue problem. Looking at my graph proves that. Revenue is about the same as always, during which time weve have balanced budgets. Same revenue, less spending.

 

[jonny5]

If you want to control spending, then you do that at the time of spending (passing legislation). You don't spend the money and refuse to pay the bill later, which is exactly analogous to not raising the debt limit when needed.

I agree, but since they dont do that, much like a credit card has a limit, we need a debt limit to cut off the govt. If they dont pay they bill, then the electricity gets cut off.

 

[jonny5]

Deficits are simply outlays minus revenues. Increasing outlays or reducing revenues will both add to the debt. $1 of tax cuts increases the deficit by $1, no different than $1 of social spending.


It looks like they just drew some random lines and projected them out 30 years. They aren't even pointed in the same direction that the lines were moving when the projection began, and they failed to account for the invention of the warp drive in 2050.

Actually, its the opposite. Deficits are Revenue minus spending. The govt takes in revenue and then spends it. If it spends more than it has, then it has a deficit and has to borrow to cover it, which is debt. Which is all moot anyway. Revenue is UP (or the same relative to GDP), regardless of tax cuts. Since the 2017 tax cuts, its increased by 20%. Since the 2002 tax cuts its doubled.

Spending has more than doubled. We have spending problem, primarily with healthcare, which accounts for the entire deficit. Over 1.3 trillion.

 

[jonny5]

Not only as "fair". but they are seen as a good thing for the "job creators".
So while people beyotch about a hungry six year old getting a free school lunch.
they applaud a wealthy farming corporation getting a free 300,000 dollar pivot courtesy of the tax payer.

Which is contributing more?

 

[MTAtech]

Yep, then we could borrow (and print?) our way to prosperity!

Listen, Congress creates the federal budget, which includes spending and taxes. If they set spending higher than taxes, there is a deficit. Why do they have to separately have to vote to increase the ceiling on the debt? No other country does that and the U.S. didn't do that before 1917.

It's like going to a fancy restaurant and ordering a fine meal with drinks, paying for it with your credit card and then refusing to pay the credit card bill.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Listen, Congress creates the federal budget, which includes spending and taxes. If they set spending higher than taxes, there is a deficit. Why do they have to separately have to vote to increase the ceiling on the debt? No other country does that and the U.S. didn't do that before 1917.

It's like going to a fancy restaurant and ordering a fine meal with drinks, paying for it with your credit card and then refusing to pay the credit card bill.

It’s more like demanding that your credit card’s limit be raised to cover your overspending and being able to pay the minimum monthly payment due using that expanded credit limit.

 

[basionok]

Unlike a continuing resolution (C.R.), which funds the federal government just for a few months, an omnibus bill would provide funding for the entire 2023 fiscal year.

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) supports the idea. So does Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

House minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who is likely to become speaker when Republicans assume control of the House in January, danced all around without taking a stand. McCarthy expressed a preference for an omnibus package but noted that he has "no problem" advancing a C.R. and "coming back in January" to hash out a long-term bill that includes funding for Republican priorities.

House Democrats are seeking to increase discretionary spending to $1.6 trillion. Senate Republican leaders are focused on raising defense spending and "providing more aid to Ukraine."

If the outgoing Congress manages to pass the omnibus bill before the end of the year, it will override the power of spending of the newly elected House that went to the Republicans.

The House will remain in control of the GOP for at least two years. If the spending priorities for the first year are decided by the outgoing House, it is a violation of the public mandate.

It also would violate historical precedent. Since 1994, control of the House has changed hands in four midterm election cycles (1994, 2006, 2010, and 2018). Never before has the outgoing House majority passed an omnibus spending bill during the lame-duck session following the election.

The Democrats aren't merely an opposition party. They seek authoritarianism. They call political opponents domestic terrorists and are using government agencies to criminalize political opposition. They use crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic to encroach on personal freedoms.

The effects of Democrat misgovernance have been catastrophic.

The southern border is open, causing a record influx of illegal aliens, some of whom are violent criminals, and the smuggling of illicit drugs.

Inflation is at 8.5 percent, causing the cost of living to skyrocket and savings to diminish.

The U.S. economy is in a downward spiral. Experts predict that if this trajectory continues, the U.S. could witness a recession.

In addition to the soft economy, the crime wave continues to ravage the nation and place further hardships on citizens.

The Democrat proclivity for totalitarianism combined with their misgovernance has placed the citizen in peril.

During such times of peril, the least you expect is for your allies to stand by you. But when these allies either turn into bystanders or actively collaborate with your adversary, it must be called what it really is: a betrayal.

The Republicans betray their voters...again...twice

It has been weeks since the midterm elections concluded. The Democrats must have heaved a sigh of relief that they didn't receive an empathic routing. It is probably also a relief for some Republicans. They no longer have...

www.americanthinker.com

 

[basionok]

Congress could be working on the upcoming government funding bill until Christmas. Current funding runs out on December 16, and Shelby, Vermont Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy, and House and Senate leadership have all been working together to pass a big "omnibus" spending bill, meaning it’s several spending bills combined into one big package.

Voters fired Nancy Pelosi, so why are Republicans helping her pass another spending bill?

Voters fired Nancy Pelosi, so why are Republicans helping her pass another spending bill and giving her a gift on her way out of her job as House speaker?

www.foxnews.com

 

[jaeger19]

"while you were already living above your means" is the key part. Thats spending, thats caused debt. A pay cut does not cause debt. Spending above you pay does. We do not have a revenue problem. Looking at my graph proves that. Revenue is about the same as always, during which time weve have balanced budgets. Same revenue, less spending.

Except it is what it is. I didn;t cause reagan to spend what he did. Well before my time there. But reagan spent a ton of money that basically continues to have costs to us. For example, maintaining the massive nuclear arsenal that he built up and the facilities to house it costs us billions of dollars a year. Its just fact.
So yes.. a pay cut in that situation does cause debt. Revenue has not been "about the same as always. We have had periods were revenue that we would have brought in was cut.. while spending increased. Like Trumps tax cuts.. they were certainly unnecessary.
then there were the tax cuts during obama,,which were necessary to help prevent a depression and get us out of recession. They still added to the debt.
And then there is the tax cuts of bush. We were actually at a balanced or pretty close to balanced budget under clinton. (ironically largely because of the tax increases by Bush senior.. who raised revenue by taking away special tax breaks and loopholes. Our tax rate was approaching 19-20% of GDP which is darn near what we were spending).
then Bush junior decreased taxes.. and the deficit then increased again.

Sorry but revenue certainly plays a large part and will have to in the future. A lot of the spending we have now... is due to spending in the past.
If you inherited your parents debt and had to pay in that... a pay cut certainly increases the problem.

I mean.. lets think about this. the past boomer generation and to some degree the x generation now.. has benefited from LOW taxes.... and spending.
leading to the debt and deficit.; Now if you believe that sometime the piper has to get paid... then the only way to pay the piper.. with the boomer generation and the x generation doing the paying? Is to raise taxes, and decrease spending. Both are needed. If you drop spending too much to be completely austere, then you risk hurting your economy and thus putting ourselves in a depression which then adds to your debt problems, not decrease it.


OR... you simply moan about spending.. and then then next generation,,, my children,, when the piper has to be paid. Force them to dramatically cut spending and endure years of economic depression.

 

[jaeger19]

So the massive increases in CEO to employee salary ratios that has occured since executives could keep most of what they took out of profits is just a coincidence and would have happened even if we had kept the punitive top rates? I don't think you can prove that.

Yes. .
It would have happened with globalization of the work force..outsourcing.the decline in manufacturing in the us. .declining unions and increase worker supply from women working as well.
The only tax that might effect ceo wages. Is capital gains taxes.

 

[iguanaman]

Yes. .
It would have happened with globalization of the work force..outsourcing.the decline in manufacturing in the us. .declining unions and increase worker supply from women working as well.
The only tax that might effect ceo wages. Is capital gains taxes.

Again you have to ask yourself if globalization would have been embraced so quickly by corporate execs if they could not have kept most of the increased profits they reaped by outsourcing their workforce. I don't think they would have been so quick to throw away their companies without the lure of exorbitant wealth. Women were required to work because wages no longer allowed families with only one wage earner. We brought this on ourselves by forgetting the lessons of the Great Depression.

 

[noonereal]

Yep, then we could borrow (and print?) our way to prosperity!

Well, we could always raise taxes.

 

[jonny5]

Except it is what it is. I didn;t cause reagan to spend what he did. Well before my time there. But reagan spent a ton of money that basically continues to have costs to us. For example, maintaining the massive nuclear arsenal that he built up and the facilities to house it costs us billions of dollars a year. Its just fact.
So yes.. a pay cut in that situation does cause debt. Revenue has not been "about the same as always. We have had periods were revenue that we would have brought in was cut.. while spending increased. Like Trumps tax cuts.. they were certainly unnecessary.
then there were the tax cuts during obama,,which were necessary to help prevent a depression and get us out of recession. They still added to the debt.
And then there is the tax cuts of bush. We were actually at a balanced or pretty close to balanced budget under clinton. (ironically largely because of the tax increases by Bush senior.. who raised revenue by taking away special tax breaks and loopholes. Our tax rate was approaching 19-20% of GDP which is darn near what we were spending).
then Bush junior decreased taxes.. and the deficit then increased again.

Sorry but revenue certainly plays a large part and will have to in the future. A lot of the spending we have now... is due to spending in the past.
If you inherited your parents debt and had to pay in that... a pay cut certainly increases the problem.

I mean.. lets think about this. the past boomer generation and to some degree the x generation now.. has benefited from LOW taxes.... and spending.
leading to the debt and deficit.; Now if you believe that sometime the piper has to get paid... then the only way to pay the piper.. with the boomer generation and the x generation doing the paying? Is to raise taxes, and decrease spending. Both are needed. If you drop spending too much to be completely austere, then you risk hurting your economy and thus putting ourselves in a depression which then adds to your debt problems, not decrease it.


OR... you simply moan about spending.. and then then next generation,,, my children,, when the piper has to be paid. Force them to dramatically cut spending and endure years of economic depression.

Except again, revenue is HIGHER than ususual, WITH all the tax cuts. So everything you said doesnt matter. And there wasnt a balanced budget under clinton due to tax increases, but due to spending growth slowing during the tech boom (which happened in large part due to tax CUTS passed by clinton in 1997). The economy increased which meant the govt got a lot more revenue, though still around 18% most years. But SPENDING growth slowed drastically from 22% to 17% of GDP. Thats what balanced the budget.

Tax cuts dont matter, the govt still gets about the same. Spending matters far more because its so much higher and faster growing than the economy. It was an insane 32% of GDP during the pandemic, and is still 24% under the current post pandemic spending. Thats your problem.

Hell, simply freeze spending like the GOP did during Clinton and Obama, and the deficit would come down. But no, the Dems just added 5 trillion more and are trying to do worse.

 

[jaeger19]

Again you have to ask yourself if globalization would have been embraced so quickly by corporate execs if they could not have kept most of the profits they reaped by outsourcing their workforce. I don't think they would have been so quick to throw away their companies without the lure of exorbitant wealth. Women were required to work because wages no longer allowed families with only one wage earner. We brought this on ourselves by forgetting the lessons of the Great Depression.

What do you mean " throw away their companies?
By outsourcing their companies made millions in not billions more..making shareholders happy as clams.
Who are on the board and who hire and determine ceo pay.
As far as women working.
A good portion of that was choice.. then as more entered tge work force ..it became a necessity to be middle class because more workers equals less wages ( and outsourcing and increase efficiency and )

Face facts. There is no scenario where it's advantageous to me to pay my workers based on my income tax.

 

[jaeger19]

Except again, revenue is HIGHER than ususual, WITH all the tax cuts. So everything you said doesnt matter. And there wasnt a balanced budget under clinton due to tax increases, but due to spending growth slowing during the tech boom (which happened in large part due to tax CUTS passed by clinton in 1997). The economy increased which meant the govt got a lot more revenue, though still around 18% most years. But SPENDING growth slowed drastically from 22% to 17% of GDP. Thats what balanced the budget.

Tax cuts dont matter, the govt still gets about the same. Spending matters far more because its so much higher and faster growing than the economy. It was an insane 32% of GDP during the pandemic, and is still 24% under the current post pandemic spending. Thats your problem.

Hell, simply freeze spending like the GOP did during Clinton and Obama, and the deficit would come down. But no, the Dems just added 5 trillion more and are trying to do worse.

Well no. The revenue is higher..as a total because tge economy grew.
But tge growth in the economy from the tax cut did not equal the decline in revenue caused by the tax cut.
In other words. If taxes had remained tge same..the revenue would have been even higher.
Tax cuts certainly matter.
I get tired of this.
Fine. Tax cuts don't matter.
So let's drop taxes to ZERO. .
I MEAN TAX CUTS DONT MATTER.
right?
So why not cut them to zero.

Answer that. Why not cut taxes to zero if tax cuts don't matter?

By the way. Tax revenue as a percentage of gdp went UP..in other words the national effective rax rate went up from.
16 % in 1992 to almost 20% in 2000.

Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Graph and download economic data for Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (FYFRGDA188S) from 1929 to 2023 about receipts, federal, GDP, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

 

[iguanaman]

What do you mean " throw away their companies?
By outsourcing their companies made millions in not billions more..making shareholders happy as clams.
Who are on the board and who hire and determine ceo pay.
As far as women working.
A good portion of that was choice.. then as more entered tge work force ..it became a necessity to be middle class because more workers equals less wages ( and outsourcing and increase efficiency and )

Face facts. There is no scenario where it's advantageous to me to pay my workers based on my income tax.

Many sold out their companies for cash too. There was plenty of that. The point is they no longer had a sense of pride in what they built and who helped them get there. It became a competition of who could get the richest and money was all that mattered. I suppose you think of that as a good thing but it was not good for our middle class. The fact is that after the Great Depression we were determined not to let income inequality bring us down again and here we are right back to that same level again and there is no end in sight. We will pay the price again too.

 

[jaeger19]

Many sold out their companies for cash too. There was plenty of that. The point is they no longer had a sense of pride in what they built and who helped them get there. It became a competition of who could get the richest and money was all that mattered. I suppose you think of that as a good thing but it was not good for our middle class. The fact is that after the Great Depression we were determined not to let income inequality bring us down again and here we are right back to that same level again and there is no end in sight. We will pay the price again too.

Oh please. You need to read some friggin history. Ever hear of the robber barons in this country? Union busting. And I mean literally busting heads. Killing union people. The history of child labor in this country?
Come now. You act like company owners were all altruistic people that took care of their employees and loved them and altruistically gave them money.. all because of "confiscatory taxes"..
When these same people were paying women less for the same day of work, paying blacks less, using child labor if they could, busting unions if they could etc.
Wages went up after ww2 because of a huge demand and because of unions and the need for workers. Also the GI bill helped the US become more educated and added value to workers in the us (more effective and efficient). Not because income taxes made company owners become altruistic.

 

[iguanaman]

Oh please. You need to read some friggin history. Ever hear of the robber barons in this country? Union busting. And I mean literally busting heads. Killing union people. The history of child labor in this country?
Come now. You act like company owners were all altruistic people that took care of their employees and loved them and altruistically gave them money.. all because of "confiscatory taxes"..
When these same people were paying women less for the same day of work, paying blacks less, using child labor if they could, busting unions if they could etc.
Wages went up after ww2 because of a huge demand and because of unions and the need for workers. Also the GI bill helped the US become more educated and added value to workers in the us (more effective and efficient). Not because income taxes made company owners become altruistic.

Actually all those things you mentioned came before the Great Depression. FDR changed the minds of the corporate barons or ran them out of town on a rail. Yes I do think company owners in the early postwar era had a epiphany of sorts but of course they were helped along by things like punitive tax rates and the image of Sewell Avery being ejected from his office by the military. It was not "cool" to be union hating greedy robber barons, they were the cause of the worst disaster in U.S history and no one wanted a repeat of it. No it was not just tax rates it was a nation that had decided that they would try raising all the boats instead of just the wealthy few this time and it worked phenomenally well. Our great middle class was the envy of the world but as time passed and memories faded Reagan came along with a new plan...and a new title for the robber barons..he called them the job creators and all of a sudden greed was in again. Remember the Yuppies?

Sewell Avery, the chairmen of Montgomery Ward, refused to comply with the demands of unions and the War Labor Board’s order for compromise. “To hell with the government!” Avery yelled in April 1944 at Attorney General Francis Biddle, who had flown to Chicago in hopes of placating him. “I want none of your damned advice.”

Biddle ordered two National Guardsmen to lift Avery out of his office chair and carry him out of the building. “You … New Dealer!” Avery bellowed, referring to FDR’s Depression-era economic relief program. In an iconic photo, the two soldiers hold Avery in a sitting position, his arms crossed, as they remove him from the premises.

https://ahcwyo.org/2018/12/27/the-montgomery-ward-seizure/

 

[jaeger19]

Actually all those things you mentioned came before the Great Depression. FDR changed the minds of the corporate barons or ran them out of town on a rail. Yes I do think company owners in the early postwar era had a epiphany of sorts but of course they were helped along by things like punitive tax rates and the image of Sewell Avery being ejected from his office by the military. It was not "cool" to be union hating greedy robber barons, they were the cause of the worst disaster in U.S history and no one wanted a repeat of it. No it was not just tax rates it was a nation that had decided that they would try raising all the boats instead of just the wealthy few this time and it worked phenomenally well. Our great middle class was the envy of the world but as time passed and memories faded Reagan came along with a new plan...and a new title for the robber barons..he called them the job creators and all of a sudden greed was in again. Remember the Yuppies?

Sewell Avery, the chairmen of Montgomery Ward, refused to comply with the demands of unions and the War Labor Board’s order for compromise. “To hell with the government!” Avery yelled in April 1944 at Attorney General Francis Biddle, who had flown to Chicago in hopes of placating him. “I want none of your damned advice.”

Biddle ordered two National Guardsmen to lift Avery out of his office chair and carry him out of the building. “You … New Dealer!” Avery bellowed, referring to FDR’s Depression-era economic relief program. In an iconic photo, the two soldiers hold Avery in a sitting position, his arms crossed, as they remove him from the premises.

https://ahcwyo.org/2018/12/27/the-montgomery-ward-seizure/

Yeah actually no.
You have a fanciful take on history. But that just it..fantasy.
Taxes didn't cause " less greed"..there wasn't a nation..deciding to raise all boats..
There was huge government spending on ww2..coupled with a huge demand in workers..tons of pent up demand during the war...the us had all its manufacturing intact.. compared to its competitors..and a gi bill that educated millions of young men..and made rge us a power house of technology and manufacturing..
That's what made tge middle class prosper..
Not your fanciful notions of altruistic ceos..and government wealth transfers.